WHO's hat is in the ring?

[baggygreen]

Okay, so which of the candidates and potential candidates would be most likely to wimp out and withdraw all american troops from everywhere to pander to the vocal minority, and which of them is most likely to do what is both right and needed to secure (lets face it) the western world for the 21st century?

[Schatten]

Originally Posted by baggygreen

Okay, so which of the candidates and potential candidates would be most likely to wimp out and withdraw all american troops from everywhere to pander to the vocal minority, and which of them is most likely to do what is both right and needed to secure (lets face it) the western world for the 21st century?

Too early to say, but right now I'm not seeing anything approaching real leadership from either side of the aisle. Most of them have their heads down and are waiting to see how Iraq pans out, if it works they'll say they were behind it all along, if it doesn't they'll say they've been against it all the time.

I think the only potential canidate that truly understands terrorism at all on a viceral level is Guilianni, but he has some electability issues even among Republicans.

Actually I'd like to see some more from Romney on the issues, he's an interesting guy and I like what I've seen so far about most of his stands, but more info would be a good thing. The Mormon thing could hurt him from two really divergent groups, the hard right religious wing in the Republican party, and the hard left secular wing in the Democratic. Although having both those groups annoyed at you could be a plus with the soft, nougaty mass in the middle as well.

So basically: Too early to say just yet.

[baggygreen]

I wasnt even aware good old rudy was even considering it?!

[Schatten]

Originally Posted by baggygreen

I wasnt even aware good old rudy was even considering it?!

Half the time he isn't sure, but he formed one of those exploratory deals. Doesn't mean he'll wind up running, but he's never come out and said he definately won't soooo...

We'll see.

[bookworm_020]

Could we have a list of contenders who have put there hand up and said they would be running? You could have a list on possible names who may run, but I just want to know is going to, not just second guesses

[Schatten]

Announced really officially official candidates...

Democrat: Joe Biden, Christopher Dodd, John Edwards, Dennis Cucinich and Tom Vilsack

Republican: Duncan Hunter

Independent: Bob Hargis


That's it for the officially official ones. The ones that have done the exploratory committee dealies are: Barak Obama (D), Sam Brownback (R), James Gilmore (R), Rudy Guillianni (R), John MacCain (R), Ron Paul (R), Mitt Romney (R), and Tommy Thompson (R).

Possibles:

Wesley Clark: Said he isn't, but then said he might. (D)
Hillary Clinton: She's running, don't let her kid ya. (D)
Newt Gingrich: Said he's considering it and has visited all the early Primary states. (R)
Al Gore: Said he isn't but hasn't ruled it out completely. (D)
John Kerry: Hasn't done anything official but has been running around early Primary state. (D)
George Pataki: Another not saying one way or the other guy but who's been running around early Primary states. (R)
Bill Richardson: Is on the fence. (D)

There, that isn't all that confusing now is it? :rotfl:

[baggygreen]

condy isnt interested? i remember an article in a paper a few years ago about the possibility of hilary vs condy...

[Bort]

Obama seems a little too hot-tempered and unable to listen to criticism to be the leader of the free world - an important quality is the ability to listen and accept constructive criticism. this thread http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=105609 shows he seems to be a little quick to snap back in a childish manner..

Really? Hot tempered? Unable to listen to critisism?
Obama has been one of my states two senators for the past few years, and I followed his career as a state legislator long before he came to national prominece and I never saw these supposed traits in evidence. Quite to the contrary in fact. If responding to an outrageous statement by a foriegn head of government that ought not to be commenting on US politics at all is childish, what would you have done. Agreed wholeheartedly with his assertion? Gimme a break!

[bradclark1]

I think the only potential canidate that truly understands terrorism at all on a viceral level is Guilianni, but he has some electability issues even among Republicans.

He was on the recieving end of an terrorist attack. All that does is give him cult status.

[Enigma]

I agree. Guliani simply got good PR during the days after 9/11. I have nothing against the guy, but he is chasing what I like to call the "warm n' fuzzy" vote.

Sad to say, I think its still a stretch that a woman gets elected here, let alone a black woman. I dont see that happening. And thats a shame because I think both Condi and Hilary are as qualified or more so, as the majority of men with hats in the ring.....Condi especially so, although she and I agree on little.

I'd really like to see a 2 party ticket go into office. I think that would be good for the country. We obviously need to reign in the far right, and become a more centrist government....

[Schatten]

Originally Posted by bradclark1

He was on the recieving end of an terrorist attack. All that does is give him cult status.

He was in personal danger during the attack, he dealt with everything that day brought to NYC, and had to deal with the direct aftermath and cleanup for months. He saw 9/11's effects on a daily basis for a long time, so unlike a few of these candidates it's not something that he's likely to soon forget.

Which means out of all the candidates he's the one that has a bit of a clue what the most important and pressing issue for any President to deal with for the forseable future is. And it isn't stem cell research, health care or funding for wildlife preserves, it's making sure that never happens again.

I'm not saying he's my choice yet, but saying just because he got just got attacked all it did was give him a cult status is really silly in my opinion. It wasn't just a terrorist attack, it was the terrorist attack. At least it was the defining one so far, if we get someone in the Oval Office that doesn't treat what happened on 9/11 with the gravity it deserves then you can bet it'll happen again and possibly could be surpassed.

[Tchocky]

Hillary has formed an exploratory committee, much earlier than expected.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6282389.stm