Not too early is it? 2008 Presidential fun

[Snowflake]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

A lot of announcements have come out already on the Dem side, but I'm starting a thread to dicuss all nominees.

Your thoughts?

I agree, Hillary is way too polarizing. While I think there is much to admire about her and I fell she does have some chops, the thougt of all the mudslinging to come is already making my stomach turn. A woman president, yes, it's about time, will it be Hillary, I can't honestly say.

Obama has such charisma and is clearly can be a polarizing force, someone to rally behind. But I personally think he needs another term to get his feet wet.

Edwards, I don't know about him. He was the more appealing of the two on the Kerry ticket, but is this a reason for him to run now? I still don't know what his record is, frankly it's more because I've just not paid attention.

Richardson, not a clue about him.

Giuliani, McCain? Not for me, although I think McCain would be preferable.

I'm generalizing here and probably showing more about my ignorance than anything else, but I think whoever gets the White House in the next election is screwed before they even take the oath. There is so much mess to clean up, so much to try and fix, it's a no-win situation and whoever it is will be a single term election and get nothing but **** for whatever they do manage to accomplish.

Okay enough politics for me, time to consider the Oscar nominees

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Snowflake

but I think whoever gets the White House in the next election is screwed before they even take the oath. There is so much mess to clean up, so much to try and fix, it's a no-win situation and whoever it is will be a single term election and get nothing but **** for whatever they do manage to accomplish.

I actually see it the other way around. If whoever next gets the job is somewhat adroit at handling the Iraq/Afghanistan/Al Qaeda issue then they are in for an easy landing, particularly if they are a Democrat.

Domestically, things are actually pretty good and don't show any signs of looking horrible. National coverage of the economy tends to lag reality by a few years so by then everybody will be buying into the current good news. Yes, there are bad spots and troubled industries, but there are always bad spots and troubled industries.

The so-called "culture war" will rage, but I think that is, for most people a battle between the fringes.

The thing to keep in mind is that a president who sees 10% economic growth (that would have been 20% but for his interference) will be viewed as a genius while a president who sees 10% economic decline (that would have been 20% but for his interference) will be viewed as a failure.

When it is no longer necessary for the press to filter all economic news through its worst filter, suddenly things will seem rosy again and people will credit (wrongly, 95% of the time) whoever is in office.