Who Will Be President in 2009?

Post Reply New Topic

WTH?

Don't you get the fact that how well a speaker sways an audience carries over nothing as to how well they can rule?

All analogies are imperfect, to bring that fact up and attempt to make a deal of it is dishonest itself.

Mrs. Bill Clinton is having a huge trantrum and, I think, if she thinks that Obama will get the nomination, she'll continue to make sure that he won't be elected because she could campaign against President McCain in the next presidential election easier than campaiging against President Obama.

Would Mrs. Bill Clinton investigate and bring to justice anyone from the Bush Administration?

Obama might not do anything unless the citizens insist that he does but he encourages "change coming from the bottom up." He might inspire better citizens. Or not. Americans vote against their best interests because they don't like seeing other Americans who aren't like them benefit from being Americans.

My prediction is that an insane, inept person will become president. Judging by the current top three candidates, I don't think I can lose that bet!

There seems to be some changes going on in Congress so we might have more responsible law makers than in recent years. I hope that they don't cave whenever the next president gets a crazy idea like lying in order to start a war or lying to keep an occupation going.

There's more to handling a campaign than just delivering speeches. If that's all the candidates did, they'd have time to deliver several speeches per day. Working with a campaign is a job unto itself. From their end, it's not at all like a typical job interview. They're not just given gold-embroidered invitations to make speeches and talk to sell-out crowds at indoor stadiums. All that crap has to be arranged exclusively by them and those they have working for their campaigns. It requires immensely more than a modicum of teamwork, and it requires a great deal of skill at effective delegation of responsibility.

I make no claim that the work of running a campaign bears a likeness to running the federal government, but these campaigns are an opportunity for a candidate to show off several skills that are pertinent to the job. That's why we have them, instead of just sending everyone copies of their voting records and work history in the mail.

Sorry. I forgot for a moment that, in spite of your innumberable faults, you've tended to be fairly straightforward.

The analogy still doesn't hold, though, and I feel that my criticism of it is valid.

The logistics of running a campaign may be a lot of work, but is it anything like running a whole nation? Also it's not as if the whole burden was on them for the campaign, but then again they also wouldn't be doing all the work of running the nation either. I can appreciate the difficulty of trying to get people to do what they're suppose to, such as getting my lazy step-dad who should finally file his 3 years worth of taxes so the FAFSAs can be completed for my sister and me, but if they're getting paid to obey and they don't they can just be fired. Also the main parties get federal funding, by this course of reason the 3rd parties should be given more attention because, hypothetically, they work harder for less money.

Innumerable faults??? .............. Come on, what is with all the attacks today? Not just you, but this is ridiculous to put up with, yet I have to. It is difficult not to swear sometimes.

Okay, I'm putting on the brakes right here. I admitted above that the job of a president is not identical to the job of handling a campaign. I refute any overt or implied sentiment to the contrary. However, success on the campaign trail is telling of how well a presidential candidate could handle the many crises and obstacles involved in running the country. Furthermore, I actually think that handling the many political crises of the campaign trail bears a great likeness to handling the many messes and trip-ups of foreign relations.

Well, it seemed appropriate to say at the time. My, but that spot there on the wall is looking interesting. I think I shall adopt it and call it Bob.

Bob? What about Bob? Actually his name is Bill Murray. Remember: baby-steps.


Still, I think Obama shall win.

BTW, for all you may think of me, I am not a racist. Partly because judging people in groups is a retarded process, but mostly because the distinctions between "races" are largely superficial.

I don't consider Hillary any better qualified than Obama.

Looks like to me lot of people like Obama and Hilary because I have seen the voting percentage for them. They are both doing really good. I have never seen McCain's yet. I wish the news would show it. I'd like to see how the republicans are doing too.

Mike Gravel
the greatest candidate of all time

What should the qualifications be for a human wanting authority over a multitude and which ones specifically are these two lacking? I see the quality of seeking power as something anathema to good leadership. True though, that is just the system, but it still seems inherently wrong to me.

Who is he?

You don't see McCain's percentage because he already won his party's nomination. You have to wait until the Democrats get this nomination process resolved so that polls can be conducted between McCain and whoever is nominated. But my money happens to be on McCain because this Democratic fight is hurting both Obama and Hillary and in the meantime McCain has a good head start.

Easily McCain. It may not be clear now, but he really has the edge. Obama will win the D. nomination...it's highly unlikely that he will not. Against McCain, Obama has no hope. He'll never will Ohio, Florida or the western states that have been trending R. over last few years. If Obama loses OH and FL he needs to win some combination of NM, CO and NV; very unlikely. My five dollars are on McCain.