Survey: Who Would Be Best Suited to Lead Us Now?

[BT]

... because there's no intellectual, heuristic value in your approach, BT, as usual.

Perhaps

But in your approach there is always the abundance of verbiage much like a puff pastry, pretty, pleasantly packaged  .......but when you bite down you find little substance.

[Brassmask]

Goopers' worst fear in the world is that not only will the newly minted Democratically controlled House and Senate find a way out of Iraq but will go on to prosecute  real investigations into how we GOT THERE.

If I had to pick someone who was president whilst I was alive to get us out of these criminally stupid situations that our country has become entangled in, I'd pick Carter, of course.

His appearance on MTP this morning was historic in its provocative truth exhibited.  Only a man of his character and realism and love of peace can untie the knots that the delusion and inept current "administration" continues to fight to keep tied.

But then that's what happens when a "majority" climbs over each other to fight for the opportunity to vote for an alcoholic failed businessman who thinks that god is on his side.

[Plane]

But then that's what happens when a "majority" climbs over each other to fight for the opportunity to vote for an alcoholic failed businessman who thinks that god is on his side.
[][]][][][][][][][][][][][]


So Carter was and is not attempting to be on the side of God?

This is not good for a born again Sunday school teacher.

[Lanya]

If I had to pick someone who was president whilst I was alive to get us out of these criminally stupid situations that our country has become entangled in, I'd pick Carter, of course.

He was my second choice; I do trust him and respect him immensely.   

[domer]

For BT: Sounds like your sacred cow has been gored.

[BT]

For BT: Sounds like your sacred cow has been gored.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

[Michael Tee]

I do understand something of BT's objection, it's a little like those fictitious boxing matches kids used to debate, could Muhammed Ali have beaten Jack Dempsey, would Joe Louis have beaten Rocky Marciano?

Lighten up, BT, gotta have a little fun sometimes.

Best President to handle this "crisis" since I've been on this earth?  FDR, hands down.  Ike second.  Best of the current crop to extricate us from Iraq Nam?  Subject to any relatively recent idiocies they may have committed without my knowledge, Dean.  Kucinich.  In no particular order.  Murtha.  Keep in mind, "Redeploy" is not the same as "Bring 'em all home."

[Brassmask]

I do understand something of BT's objection, it's a little like those fictitious boxing matches kids used to debate, could Muhammed Ali have beaten Jack Dempsey, would Joe Louis have beaten Rocky Marciano?

Lighten up, BT, gotta have a little fun sometimes.

Best President to handle this "crisis" since I've been on this earth?  FDR, hands down.  Ike second.  Best of the current crop to extricate us from Iraq Nam?  Subject to any relatively recent idiocies they may have committed without my knowledge, Dean.  Kucinich.  In no particular order.  Murtha.  Keep in mind, "Redeploy" is not the same as "Bring 'em all home."

I'd throw Gore in there as well.

[Plane]

"Redeploy" is not the same as "Bring 'em all home."

Is it diffrent from "reinvade"?

[BT]

Lighten up, BT, gotta have a little fun sometimes.

Have fun with this.

Of the declared and semi declared dems i would trust with handling the Middle East to my satisfation. i would have to go with Hillary. She is the Bobby to Bill's Jack.

of the GOP i would go with Rudy and then relunctantly McCain.

[Lanya]

I'd go with Hillary.  For one thing, she'd freak them out...they would have no way of "reading" her as they do with a man.  I think she would be able to do some very surprising (to our enemies) things, very surrepticiously.

Of course she'd also freak out our  press corps and the haters in the  Beltway crowd, who will never get over their feeling of being socially above the Clintons. 

[Xavier_Onassis]

I would prefer Bush to westly Clark just on the basis of sencertity.


Clark seems to be eagerly telling people what he thinks they want to hear.

============================================================
Bush is hardly sincere. Mostly, he is just a major liar.
Cheney is also a bigtime liar, but he adds to this by being a major thief at the same time.

Clark did run a pretty poor campaign. I think that this is in part because he lacked the funding to get out his message. Powell seems to be more impressive as a military man turned politician, but his wife won't allow him to run.

Here's a thought, not that I expect it to happen:

What would happen if we had Powell/Giulani vs. Obama/Clinton?


What would the bigots do then? Run Lott/Tancredo on a third party ticket?

[R.R.]

I'd go with Hillary.  For one thing, she'd freak them out...they would have no way of "reading" her as they do with a man.  I think she would be able to do some very surprising (to our enemies) things, very surrepticiously.

I think the best Democrat to deal with the middle east would have been Mark Warner. I actually think he could have been a good president. I'm not sure why he decided not to run. Maybe he could get coaxed to get back in the race.

I think Hillary Clinton is losing her luster with Democrat insiders and with Democrats altogether. She blew through $40 million in New York on a senate race she had no chance of losing. She hardly has any money left. And she had absolutely no coattails for fellow Democrats in New York this past November. I think there are two Dems who could beat her, Al Gore and Barack Obama. Obama is a little light on experience, but like Warner, he's somebody I really wouldn't mind being president. I think he could get things done.

As far as a woman president, Olympia Snowe would be far better than Hillary.

[sirs]

Since Domer has initated this as speculation, I'll go with Sir William Wallace         

[Lanya]

Well, if you can show me the source for your claim about the $40 million that would be a start.

Clinton has raised a whopping $33m for her Senate re-election campaign in New York, which is likely to result in an emphatic victory for her in November. The leftover sums can be switched to a presidential bid. The size of her war chest is a sure sign that she intends to be ready to campaign at full tilt the moment she presses the “go” button.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2340352,00.html