Jump to content

The Next President of the USA will be?


Who will win the Presidency in 2008?  

282 members have voted

  1. 1. Who Wins in 2008?

    • Hillary Clinton
      47
    • Rudy Giuliani
      9
    • John Edwards
      7
    • Mike Huckabee
      7
    • John McCain
      42
    • Barack Obama
      136
    • Ron Paul
      21
    • Mitt Romney
      9
    • Bill Richardson
      1
    • Fred Thompson
      3


Recommended Posts

I'm happy though, and that's what counts. I had a boyfriend in Georgia, he treated me like shit. I went on some dates before I left to come here, fully knowing that it would just be a date and not anything serious, and the guys were dicks. All the younger-looking guys I see around these parts are Bible-thumpers and I want nothing to do with those people.

So I'm content. Eventually I'll find someone worth my time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 6.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Barack reminds me more of Bobby Kennedy than Jack Kennedy, although I can see where people would choose him instead.

Hell, if Obama has an administration like Clinton did, I'd be happy. I wasn't thrilled with Clinton's foreign policy and I think if Obama surrounds himself with the right people in that sector, he'll be successful. It's the domestic policy that I'm most concerned with right now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Barack reminds me more of Bobby Kennedy than Jack Kennedy, although I can see where people would choose him instead.

Hell, if Obama has an administration like Clinton did, I'd be happy. I wasn't thrilled with Clinton's foreign policy and I think if Obama surrounds himself with the right people in that sector, he'll be successful. It's the domestic policy that I'm most concerned with right now.

Well,

I heard something in the background today about Obama working on his admin team. However I was very busy and on my way out the door. I think it was coming across MSNBC TV?

I think he can get the job done. His staff will be very important. Good Spin doctors would help too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
But overall, I and believe can speak for 1/2 this country believe we were cheated of fair election.

That's because all of you were too dumb to stand up against your party's wasteful rhetoric and do something to better this country.

But keep complaining. You're the type of American who brings this country down because you're uninformed, not intelligent and give good Republicans a fucking headache.

Edited by bigstickbonzo
Link to post
Share on other sites

John Kerry is a terrible choice for any open position. Leave that zombie-looking fucker alone.

Throwing a stone into the Vietnam discussion, history has shown us that the war was possible for ours to win. But-and it's a big one..we didn't have the troop presence needed to achieve it within a reasonable timeframe. (Much like Iraq) Civilian moral was low from all the dead bodies and napalm explosions broadcasted into Ozzie and Harriet's living room every night. (A very useful tactic for us during WWII was leaving the media in the dark. The American People never knew how bad things were at certain phases in the war because the media was kept out of it. And it worked. The booming war economy never faltered, just kept producing for victory.) But political queefs kept a Vietnam victory from America . Not to forget, General Wesmorland was one of the biggest jackasses in our Armed Forces' history.

But blaming the hippies for the failure of Vietnam is quite ridiculous. We never should have went to begin with. And I agree, though Eisenhower was the first to send in CIA operatives to support the French, it was Kennedy who escalated it beyond a simple CIA coye and Johnson who washed his hands in blood every night. Yet, Johnson's biggest blunder was a failure in good judgment and continuious finger pointing to Kennedy's grave.

Edited by bigstickbonzo
Link to post
Share on other sites
But blaming the hippies for the failure of Vietnam is quite ridiculous.

ok let's get one thing cleared all right? I did not literally mean a bunch of John Lennon wannabe's were behind the failure of Vietnam. It was a simple play on words, a joke. My point was just that the people of America were lied by the media and put enormous pressure on the government to pull-out.

We never should have went to begin with. And I agree, though Eisenhower was the first to send in CIA operatives to support the French, it was Kennedy who escalated it beyond a simple CIA coye and Johnson who washed his hands in blood every night. Yet, Johnson's biggest blunder was a failure in good judgment and continuious finger pointing to Kennedy's grave.
I agree with everything here Edited by wanna be drummer
Link to post
Share on other sites
ok let's get one thing cleared all right? I did not literally mean a bunch of John Lennon wannabe's were behind the failure of Vietnam. It was a simple play on words, a joke. My point was just that the people of America were lied by the media and put enormous pressure on the government to pull-out.

Gotcha! ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Powell would be the smarter choice

Not sure. For some reason I think we never heard the whole story of why he left office? I do recall he was having issues with the war in Iraq and with Bush. I would prefer him to Christopher though, more ready for what were up against.

Obama/Biden has launched a new transition site.

http://change.gov/

Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama picked up another electoral vote today, as he won a vote from Nebraska's Second Congressional District, which incorporates Omaha and some of its surrounding suburbs.

That brings the official electoral vote tally to 365-173.

Edited by Electrophile
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all,

Obama picked up another electoral vote today, as he won a vote from Nebraska's Second Congressional District, which incorporates Omaha and some of its surrounding suburbs. That brings the official electoral vote tally to 365-173.

:rolleyes::slapface::blink:

That matters how?

KB

Link to post
Share on other sites
That matters how?

KB

It's news related to the Presidential election, right? And I posted it in a thread about the Presidential election, right? So how did that warrant your attitude?

Edited by Electrophile
Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry sweetheart but this validates "MY" point!

You see it was not I who made the distinction,

it was Mr. strider here that separated us.

I was merely taking my unprovoked separation status

and defending it.

But I see you have no problem with his statement.

Attack the defender and give the attacker a pass.

But then that's typical in the United States these days isn't it? :rolleyes: mkay?

Quoting "Southern Man don't need him around anyhow," proves you're all about being inclusive? Proud defending of the symbol of the southern states' succession from the United States (so they could keep on owning black folks), proves you're all about being in a union of enlightened people? :blink:

'Fraid ya lost me there, honey bunch.

As for what's typical in the US now, after literally decades of hate speech and divisiveness from the right, Obama is correct: we have a hard road ahead of us to change things.

Friend of mine just went out and bought an American flag. We both realized the right wingers took it over as a symbol, and we left wingers abdicated it, shamefully. I'm going to put a flag sticker on my car, too. Maybe after a couple of years with Obama in the White House, I'll even fly one. It'll be the first time since freakin' Richard M. Nixon trashed what it stood for! usaCa.gif:peace: mmkay...

2a7e_2.JPG

Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps there are confederate flags out there in the mule capital of the world - that shithole you live in; but I have yet to see one here in south Orange County.

P.S. You're just mad McCain won in your County.

Wrong. I live in Mono county. Obama won there.

Also, I was just in Orange County last week, saw more than one truck with a confederate flag on it. Open your eyes.

I think you're just jealous of the "shit hole" I live in. Here's a photo from across the street. Don't know how I stand such ugliness on a daily basis :rolleyes: :

2153765748_5fb319c44b.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
Protecting South Vietnam from being conquered

Okay.....would the conquering of South Vietnam equal the Vietcong invading the United States or something? I'm not invalidating that the South Vietnamese needed help because they did......but why was it our responsibility to help them? We lost over 58,000 military personnel because of that war. We had no business being over there.

We are not, nor should we be, the world's police department. When shit hits the fan in some remote corner of civilization, it is not our responsibility to go over and make it better. That puts too much of a strain our resources that could be better served helping people in the United States. Which should be our first priority anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quoting "Southern Man don't need him around anyhow," proves you're all about being inclusive? Proud defending of the symbol of the southern states' succession from the United States (so they could keep on owning black folks), proves you're all about being in a union of enlightened people? :blink:

'Fraid ya lost me there, honey bunch.

As for what's typical in the US now, after literally decades of hate speech and divisiveness from the right, Obama is correct: we have a hard road ahead of us to change things.

Friend of mine just went out and bought an American flag. We both realized the right wingers took it over as a symbol, and we left wingers abdicated it, shamefully. I'm going to put a flag sticker on my car, too. Maybe after a couple of years with Obama in the White House, I'll even fly one. It'll be the first time since freakin' Richard M. Nixon trashed what it stood for! usaCa.gif:peace: mmkay...

2a7e_2.JPG

:lol: I wasn't defending slavery, just the right to fly a flag.

Sorry you don't understand what "Southern Pride" is all about.

Isn't Diversity what America is all about?

Just so you know, No I don't even own the stars and bars.

But I will always be a Southern Gentleman with Pride! and it's not about a parade

or owning anyone and I am an American first. The stars and stripes were flying on

my house before I had furnurature in it. ;)

Oh by the way I noticed you left this :peace: out of my quote. :kiss:boy-bouquet-flowers_tow0015-1.jpg

Have a nice day and "God Bless America" usaCa.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay.....would the conquering of South Vietnam equal the Vietcong invading the United States or something? I'm not invalidating that the South Vietnamese needed help because they did......but why was it our responsibility to help them? We lost over 58,000 military personnel because of that war. We had no business being over there.
Yes, I know. Who said i was justifying the war? I don't think we should've been there either. I'm just pointing out that we were winning.

We are not, nor should we be, the world's police department.
Agreed
Link to post
Share on other sites

There was an excellent book that came out earlier this year about the Vietnam

War and the Kennedy administration's role...it's called "America's Rasputin: Walt

Rostow and the Vietnam War" and it is by David Milne. I highly recommend

reding it and you should be able to find cheap copies on Amazon or your local used

book store.

On a related note, David Milne also wrote an excellent op-ed piece the other day

about the reliance of U.S. Presidents on foreign policy academics and intellectuals;

more so than other country's leaders do.

Here it is as follows; it is good food for thought especially as Obama now puts

together his Cabinet.

Obama's foreign policy picks

Academics from top-notch universities likely lead the list of potential advisors.

By David Milne November 7, 2008

Presidential campaigns are generally discouraging for foreign policy intellectuals. Not only do the candidates pander in folksy vernacular to hockey moms and Joe Six Packs, but the clever ones favored by university professors often fare badly on election day.

The cerebral Adlai Stevenson, for instance, was trounced by former Gen. Dwight Eisenhower -- twice. When an avid Stevenson supporter gushed that the Illinois governor was certain to "get the vote of every thinking man in the U.S.," Stevenson replied, "Thank you, but I need a majority to win."

The anti-intellectual strain among American voters has not gone away in the years since then. Consider how Al Gore's professorial debating style turned off voters in 2000 and John Kerry's fluency in French aided George Bush's 2004 reelection campaign.

But when the race is over, the populism of the campaign gives way to something quite different. As soon as the transition begins, presidents-elect invariably turn to academics for foreign policy inspiration. John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson turned to McGeorge Bundy of Harvard and Walt Rostow of MIT for their insights on international relations. Richard Nixon landed arch-realist Henry Kissinger from Harvard and accorded him unprecedented responsibilities as national security advisor. Jimmy Carter brought in Zbigniew Brzezinski from Columbia to serve as his national security advisor. George W. Bush hired Condoleezza Rice from Stanford and Paul Wolfowitz from Johns Hopkins, and both have made their marks on world affairs.

Hiring hotshot academics from the nation's top universities is a peculiarly American practice. In no other nation on Earth do elected leaders take political scientists so seriously. For better or worse, British prime ministers are unlikely to look to Oxford or Cambridge for diplomatic inspiration. The French talk an intellectual game, but the Grandes Ecoles produce bureaucrats, not grand strategists.

So which academics are likely to be hovering close to their cellphones during the next few weeks? Although she resigned from the Obama campaign in March 2008 for describing Hillary Rodham Clinton as "a monster," Harvard's Samantha Power looks a good bet for a high-level position. Power made her name with the Pulitzer Prize-winning "A Problem from Hell," a powerful indictment of the West's inability to prevent genocide through the 20th century. A self-described "humanitarian hawk," Power believes that U.S. foreign policy must be driven by a moral impulse, beginning with a strong response to ongoing ethnic cleansing in Darfur.

Princeton professor G. John Ikenberry is another potential appointee. Ikenberry describes his big idea as "liberal order building." He believes that America must retain its position of "liberal hegemony" through adherence to a "loose rule-based international order." In a nutshell, Ikenberry's message is that Washington must revert to the farsighted diplomacy of alliance- and institution-building practiced by Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman.

There are many other academics who have advised the Obama campaign and might also figure in his administration. These include Sarah Sewell, a human rights specialist from Harvard who collaborated with Gen. David H. Petraeus in rewriting the Army and Marine counterinsurgency field guide; Susan E. Rice, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who served as President Clinton's assistant secretary of State for African affairs; and Anthony Lake, a Georgetown professor who served as Clinton's national security advisor. All three have sound academic credentials and substantial experience.

The good news is that Barack Obama's intellectuals are fine scholars who have produced some thought-provoking books and articles on the best way to deploy American power. The bad news is that Walt Rostow and Paul Wolfowitz were also fine scholars who had produced interesting books and articles on the best way to deploy American power.

So how might this new generation of foreign policy thinkers avoid the mistakes made by their predecessors?

Well, one problem has arisen in cases in which the academic in question has a cherished "theory" to test, and therefore misreads evidence to suit intellectual preconceptions. Through the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, for instance, Rostow believed that the thesis presented in his 1960 book, "The Stages of Economic Growth" -- that all nations are driven by economic self-interest in peace and war -- rendered North Vietnam's infrastructure critically vulnerable to American bombing. "Ho Chi Minh has an industrial complex to protect," he explained. "He is no longer a guerrilla fighter with nothing to lose."

But Rostow was wrong. North Vietnam's leadership was willing to absorb serious damage to further the overarching goal of reunification. Rostow failed to appreciate the power of nationalist ideology.

Similarly, Wolfowitz theorized throughout the 1990s that liberating Iraq from Saddam Hussein would lead to the eventual democratization of the Middle East, a region better known for its authoritarian regimes than for participatory politics. It is perhaps too early to declare that the thesis was entirely wrong. But the last five years have not been encouraging.

Power's and Ikenberry's ideas are thankfully less ambitious in scope than those of Rostow and Wolfowitz. Both believe in multilateral diplomacy and in the efficacy of speaking with one's enemies, and both favor nuance over black-white solutions. So is there anything to worry about?

Well, maybe. Power's call to arms in Darfur is laudable, but only as long as the overstretched U.S. military does not assume the preponderant burden in confronting the Sudanese Arab militias. The Clinton administration burst with moral purpose when it arrived in the White House. It took a well-intentioned but disastrous intervention in Somalia to denude Clinton's foreign policy of its altruistic core, leading to indecision and drift further down the line.

Ikenberry's belief in strengthening "liberal" institutions has led him to endorse the proposal that the U.N. Security Council should add six new members to make it more representative of world opinion. To streamline decision-making, Ikenberry further supports the abolition of veto rights in favor of a simple three-quarter "supermajority" rule.

Making the United Nations more democratic and effective is desirable. But as Harvard's Niall Ferguson has pointed out, giving up American power at that much-maligned institution has its own perils. Truman built institutions multilaterally, but he was careful to ensure that NATO and the Marshall Plan served America's national interest first and foremost. It is doubtful that Ikenberry's proposal passes that test.

One historical parallel may be instructive. Few presidents have mined the elite academy more than Kennedy. But Kennedy's foreign policy instincts often were superior to those of his ivory tower hires. His caution on Vietnam, for example, made him far more prescient than either Bundy or Rostow. Pragmatic, well-schooled politicians often have a feel for what will fly that surpasses the most brilliant theorists.

Obama's principled opposition to the 2003 Iraq war suggests that he too may possess diplomatic instincts superior to those around him. So, although there are clear benefits to be gained from consulting with social scientists, Obama will do well to follow his own counsel. The making of foreign policy requires a cognitive flexibility that too often eludes academics with theories to prove.

David Milne, a lecturer in American politics at the University of East Anglia, is the author of "America's Rasputin: Walt Rostow and the Vietnam War."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...