Originally Posted By ecdc >>Then there's Clinton fatigue. Many, many voters (including Democrats) are wanting someone besides a Bush or a Clinton in the White House for the first time in 20 years. I can't say that I blame them.<< I know the 20 year number sounds impressive, like we've been under some kind of dynasty, and I know it's a rule that conservatives have to hate Bill Clinton, no matter what, but let's really evaluate this, shall we? First, in 20 years the most possible Presidents would be 5, the least would be three. We had three because two were elected to eight year terms and one to a four year. There's been one Clinton in office as President. He was elected twice, quite handily by the American people. His popularity remains in effect today. Most Americans seem to regard him as a competent, good President, if still a pretty flawed human being. Where does the fault of the Clinton fatigue lay? Is it with Bill Clinton, who did nothing more than get elected as President twice and then do his job? Clinton wasn't the son of some influential politician somewhere. He wasn't all over the media before his campaign in 1992. In fact, he was pretty unknown. Or does the fault lay with our mythic "liberal" media that insist on keeping our public figures (regardless of political party) under the brightest of spotlights 24/7? There was no "Clinton-fatigue" until Monicagate, which most Americans were sick of by the time impeachment rolled around, even if they didn't like what he'd done. (Go check out Bill's poll numbers during the debacle compared to the Republican congress.) Let's also look at Bush I. He wasn't the greatest President, but he wasn't too horrible, either - all in all, pretty mediocre. He certainly got it done during the Gulf War. He was doomed by "no new taxes." I still remember in early 2002 a Saturday Night Live sketch entitled "The Debate to See Who Will Lose to George Bush." He was so popular everyone assumed Democrats stood no chance. He blew it, and for some reason, Americans seemed more willing than usual to cast aside an incumbent. So who are we left with? George W. Bush. Do people have Bush II fatigue? I think so, and I think in this case, it's a result of blunder after blunder, failure after failure. Most Americans are sick of hearing him give that same stupid speech that we all rallied around in October 2001, but that we realize now he just doesn't have anything else to say. So let's not somehow say Americans should have Bush or Clinton fatigue based on the miserable (and many) failures of George W. Bush. The other two men are no where in his league of stupidity. And they don't deserve to be lumped in with him.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>I like a guy who's not afraid to change his mind!<< It's good to know you supported John Kerry for changing his mind about the Iraq war Seriously, I like someone who can change his mind too. Of course, it's valid to ask why someone would change their mind. In Mitt Romney's case, I don't think it's so much that he "changed his mind" as it is he never stood for anything in the first place. He just says whatever it takes when the election rolls around. He did it in 1994, 2002, and he's doing it now.
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 I'm not excited about any of the candidates. It's partly because there are no shining stars on either side. It's also because -- as has been noted here -- everyone in the competition crafts their public positions to try to appeal to the most people in a VERY calculated manner. Yawn. Hence, we voters and citizens end up with a contest over who can most conform to their media handlers' recommendations as opposed to being able to make a thoughtful choice based on actual content. That said, I wouldn't vote for Hillary if her Republican opponent were Godzilla. Integrity is probably the top quality I want in a president. She demonstrated her lack of such during her days as a co-star in the "Bill and Hillary in the White House" show and afterward. Obama. I'd vote for him. For some good reasons, and for wrong ones that Bush made right. He's smart. He's not overly beholden to political/industrial interests. He knows enough to seek expert help on issues. And... Bush has convinced the rest of the world (most importantly, the Arab world), that Americans are cowboys who are stupid, selfish, and hostile. Electing a minority President would help change that perception, which would be a very valuable step forward. In addition, Obama would not exude that clueless "Let's get the camel jockeys!" bravado. (How sad that NOT coming across as a culturally ignorant idiot would seem like a big plus in the competition for the world's most important position.)
Originally Posted By DAR The first thing all of the potential candidates need to do is realize they're not running against George W Bush. Once that happens then maybe we'll see the wheat separate from the chaff.
Originally Posted By BeautysBeast Hillary seems to have backed away from her support of the invasion of Iraq...Well gosh, just dont know who to vote for now...
Originally Posted By BeautysBeast would like to see someone in office who isnt just wanting to further a policy of somekind.. but since im moving to UK to be with me Beauty..i shant worry..
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <He was elected twice, quite handily by the American people.> He got less than 50% of the vote. <Is it with Bill Clinton, who did nothing more than get elected as President twice and then do his job?> He did something more than get elected, and something less than his job. But it was certainly more than just President Clinton that brought on fatigue, it was also all the corrupt and incompetent people he surrounded himself with. <So let's not somehow say Americans should have Bush or Clinton fatigue based on the miserable (and many) failures of George W. Bush. The other two men are no where in his league of stupidity.> History will show the 43rd President to be a much greater leader and better man than the 42nd, and even the 41st.
Originally Posted By Mr X Boy, I've heard some dumb things around these parts, but that last one just REALLY takes the cake. lol. I'm voting Mike Huckabee, by the way. I mean, if I bother to vote at all.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "History will show the 43rd President to be a much greater leader and better man than the 42nd, and even the 41st." You're saying this because you want people to laugh at you or what? "He did something more than get elected, and something less than his job. But it was certainly more than just President Bush that brought on fatigue, it was also all the corrupt and incompetent people he surrounded himself with."
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>History will show the 43rd President to be a much greater leader and better man than the 42nd, and even the 41st.<< Only if Karl Rove and Tony Snow open their own publishing house and begin writing history textbooks. I think history will show that this president rose to the challenge of 9/11, was correct to go after the Taliban, and then went into the disasterous tailspin of Iraq, Katrina, etc. His legacy will be for getting us into an costly, complicated mess.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 ^^^^^^^^^^ 9/11 will be his top moment and the IRaq war will be his lowest -- a lot in common with LBJ. Neither one were bad men - but both put trust in people who did not warrant it -- Bush - Rumsfeld -- listening to how well everything was going and would go LBJ - had the biggest lying SOB in history - Mcnamara doing the same thing lots of other stuff for both - positive and negative - but the two wars are going to be more closely linked in history books years from now than either party is willing to admit. few people remember the good things LBJ did ( yes there were some ) - but they remember the beaten man with his head down leaving office....
Originally Posted By ecdc Bush's legacy will be exactly what he wanted it to be - just not as he intended. His legacy will be standing on that aircraft carrier with the giant "Mission Accomplished" sign behind him. But now, it will be contrasted with images of Iraq in chaos.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>History will show the 43rd President to be a much greater leader and better man than the 42nd, and even the 41st.<< Only the blindest of partisanship could convince someone of this. I voted for Bush once and I voted for Clinton once. I chose to vote for the other candidates once each as well. History will definitely judge Bill Clinton quite well; it will judge Bush quite poorly. At the very least, Clinton's legacy is much more up in the air than Bush's. There's a few different ways it could to for Bill; George Bush is doomed to be alongside the Hardings, Pierces, and Nixons.
Originally Posted By DAR <<I think history will show that this president rose to the challenge of 9/11, was correct to go after the Taliban, and then went into the disasterous tailspin of Iraq, Katrina, etc.>> I will never give him full blame for Katrina since that was failure of government at every level. If there's one thing history will prove is that he was loyal to a fault. He put is trust in people because they were his friends. Nothing wrong that in everyday life. But this is a type of job where you need to separate your friendships from doing the right thing.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<She demonstrated her lack of such during her days as a co-star in the "Bill and Hillary in the White House" show and afterward.>> How did she demonstrate this??
Originally Posted By smeeeko ehh. I am following the debates and I'm not excited much by anyone running.. Obama mostly.. I would vote for him, or possibly Ron Paul. I like what I've heard from him so far.. but I doubt he'll get the nomination. He's too sane. (grin) I'm registered Independant so I don't really have a voice til the parties choose their nominee.. If it's Hillary and someone else, I guess it's Hillary. I think we need a third party, one that will actually give the standard party system a run for its money. Just saying.
Originally Posted By smeeeko I know he can't but I would much rather a flawed Bill Clinton than his wife. It's a shame Al Gore didn't man up and run. I'd vote for him a 2nd time. =)
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<It's a shame Al Gore didn't man up and run. I'd vote for him a 2nd time. =)>> I think Gore turns too many people off... even more than Hillary. I like the guy, but even I get irritated as hell by his preachy tone. He comes off like he is so darned much smarter than the rest of us, but because he loves us he will take the time to explain it to us. Yeeccchhhh!! Besides… he really blew it IMHO by contesting the 2000 election for as long as he did. Sure, we all know he actually won the thing, but taking it all the way to the Supreme Court was bad for the country. It seemed to me he was putting his own political desires above the welfare of the U.S. and that does not speak well for a man who wants to be President. His wife is kind of hot though.
