Next US President

[robbie36]

Who do you think will be the next President?

Clinton is favourite but then again while many like her I think that many dislike her. In other words I doubt she is many peoples second favourite. As others fall by the wayside, her relative popularity will fall.

I think it will be a democrat...

And most likely Obama...

[eagle]

I Like Obama over Clinton cause I like what he has to say as I like edwards over Clinton but is America gonna vote for him, pf that I have doubts. With all the election computer tampering and getting Bush forced on us for 2 terms I have little respect or faith in the US elections :evil:

[zeusbheld]

i think obama has a good chance, still my guess, although he ain't quite as shiny and impressive as a year or so ago.

guiliani and clinton both have lots of haters. i don't particularly like guiliani, he was vastly overrated.

[bah_eddie]

Who ever wins the next elections can't be any worse than Bush.

Or did i speak to soon :shock: I know one thing none of them have my vote.

never in the mood and probably be hiding in Thailand.

[kaunitz]

Who ever wins the next elections can't be any worse than Bush.

Don't be too sure about that! This Huckabee preacher has some G.W. qualities!

[Bruce551]

Who Do We Vote For This Time Around? A Letter from Michael Moore

January 2, 2008

Friends,

A new year has begun. And before we've had a chance to break our New Year's resolutions, we find ourselves with a little more than 24 hours before the good people of Iowa tell us whom they would like to replace the man who now occupies three countries and a white house.

Twice before, we have begun the process to stop this man, and twice we have failed. Eight years of our lives as Americans will have been lost, the world left in upheaval against us... and yet now, today, we hope against hope that our moment has finally arrived, that the amazingly powerful force of the Republican Party will somehow be halted. But we know that the Democrats are experts at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, and if there's a way to blow this election, they will find it and do it with gusto.

Do you feel the same as me? That the Democratic front-runners are a less-than-stellar group of candidates, and that none of them are the "slam dunk" we wish they were? Of course, there are wonderful things about each of them. Any one of them would be infinitely better than what we have now. Personally, Congressman Kucinich, more than any other candidate, shares the same positions that I have on the issues (although the UFO that picked ME up would only take me as far as Kalamazoo). But let's not waste time talking about Dennis. Even he is resigned to losing, with statements like the one he made yesterday to his supporters in Iowa to throw their support to Senator Obama as their "second choice."

So, it's Hillary, Obama, Edwards -- now what do we do?

Two months ago, Rolling Stone magazine asked me to do a cover story where I would ask the hard questions that no one was asking in one-on-one interviews with Senators Clinton, Obama and Edwards. "The Top Democrats Face Off with Michael Moore." The deal was that all three candidates had to agree to let me interview them or there was no story. Obama and Edwards agreed. Mrs. Clinton said no, and the cover story was thus killed.

Why would the love of my life, Hillary Clinton, not sit down to talk with me? What was she afraid of?

Those of you who are longtime readers of mine may remember that 11 years ago I wrote a chapter (in my first book) entitled, "My Forbidden Love for Hillary." I was fed up with the treatment she was getting, most of it boringly sexist, and I thought somebody should stand up for her. I later met her and she thanked me for referring to her as "one hot s***kicking feminist babe." I supported and contributed to her run for the U.S. Senate. I think she is a decent and smart person who loves this country, cares deeply about kids, and has put up with more crap than anyone I know of (other than me) from the Crazy Right. Her inauguration would be a thrilling sight, ending 218 years of white male rule in a country where 51% of its citizens are female and 64% are either female or people of color.

And yet, I am sad to say, nothing has disappointed me more than the disastrous, premeditated vote by Senator Hillary Clinton to send us to war in Iraq. I'm not only talking about her first vote that gave Mr. Bush his "authorization" to invade -- I'm talking about every single OTHER vote she then cast for the next four years, backing and funding Bush's illegal war, and doing so with verve. She never met a request from the White House for war authorization that she didn't like. Unlike the Kerrys and the Bidens who initially voted for authorization but later came to realize the folly of their decision, Mrs. Clinton continued to cast numerous votes for the war until last March -- four long years of pro-war votes, even after 70% of the American public had turned against the war. She has steadfastly refused to say that she was wrong about any of this, and she will not apologize for her culpability in America's worst-ever foreign policy disaster. All she can bring herself to say is that she was "misled" by "faulty intelligence."

Let's assume that's true. Do you want a President who is so easily misled? I wasn't "misled," and millions of others who took to the streets in February of 2003 weren't "misled" either. It was simply amazing that we knew the war was wrong when none of us had been briefed by the CIA, none of us were national security experts, and none of us had gone on a weapons inspection tour of Iraq. And yet... we knew we were being lied to! Let me ask those of you reading this letter: Were YOU "misled" -- or did you figure it out sometime between October of 2002 and March of 2007 that George W. Bush was up to something rotten? Twenty-three other senators were smart enough to figure it out and vote against the war from the get-go. Why wasn't Senator Clinton?

I have a theory: Hillary knows the sexist country we still live in and that one of the reasons the public, in the past, would never consider a woman as president is because she would also be commander in chief. The majority of Americans were concerned that a woman would not be as likely to go to war as a man (horror of horrors!). So, in order to placate that mindset, perhaps she believed she had to be as "tough" as a man, she had to be willing to push The Button if necessary, and give the generals whatever they wanted. If this is, in fact, what has motivated her pro-war votes, then this would truly make her a scary first-term president. If the U.S. is faced with some unforeseen threat in her first years, she knows that in order to get re-elected she'd better be ready to go all Maggie Thatcher on whoever sneezes in our direction. Do we want to risk this, hoping the world makes it in one piece to her second term?

I have not even touched on her other numerous -- and horrendous -- votes in the Senate, especially those that have made the middle class suffer even more (she voted for Bush's first bankruptcy bill, and she is now the leading recipient of payoff money -- I mean campaign contributions -- from the health care industry). I know a lot of you want to see her elected, and there is a very good chance that will happen. There will be plenty of time to vote for her in the general election if all the pollsters are correct. But in the primaries and caucuses, isn't this the time to vote for the person who most reflects the values and politics you hold dear? Can you, in good conscience, vote for someone who so energetically voted over and over and over again for the war in Iraq? Please give this serious consideration.

Now, on to the two candidates who did agree to do the interview with me...

Barack Obama is a good and inspiring man. What a breath of fresh air! There's no doubting his sincerity or his commitment to trying to straighten things out in this country. But who is he? I mean, other than a guy who gives a great speech? How much do any of us really know about him? I know he was against the war. How do I know that? He gave a speech before the war started. But since he joined the senate, he has voted for the funds for the war, while at the same time saying we should get out. He says he's for the little guy, but then he votes for a corporate-backed bill to make it harder for the little guy to file a class action suit when his kid swallows lead paint from a Chinese-made toy. In fact, Obama doesn't think Wall Street is a bad place. He wants the insurance companies to help us develop a new health care plan -- the same companies who have created the mess in the first place. He's such a feel-good kinda guy, I get the sense that, if elected, the Republicans will eat him for breakfast. He won't even have time to make a good speech about it.

But this may be a bit harsh. Senator Obama has a big heart, and that heart is in the right place. Is he electable? Will more than 50% of America vote for him? We'd like to believe they would. We'd like to believe America has changed, wouldn't we? Obama lets us feel better about ourselves -- and as we look out the window at the guy snowplowing his driveway across the street, we want to believe he's changed, too. But are we dreaming?

And then there's John Edwards.

It's hard to get past the hair, isn't it? But once you do -- and recently I have chosen to try -- you find a man who is out to take on the wealthy and powerful who have made life so miserable for so many. A candidate who says things like this: "I absolutely believe to my soul that this corporate greed and corporate power has an ironclad hold on our democracy." Whoa. We haven't heard anyone talk like that in a while, at least not anyone who is near the top of the polls. I suspect this is why Edwards is doing so well in Iowa, even though he has nowhere near the stash of cash the other two have. He won't take the big checks from the corporate PACs, and he is alone among the top three candidates in agreeing to limit his spending and be publicly funded. He has said, point-blank, that he's going after the drug companies and the oil companies and anyone else who is messing with the American worker. The media clearly find him to be a threat, probably because he will go after their monopolistic power, too. This is Roosevelt/Truman kind of talk. That's why it's resonating with people in Iowa, even though he doesn't get the attention Obama and Hillary get -- and that lack of coverage may cost him the first place spot tomorrow night. After all, he is one of those white guys who's been running things for far too long.

And he voted for the war. But unlike Senator Clinton, he has stated quite forcefully that he was wrong. And he has remorse. Should he be forgiven? Did he learn his lesson? Like Hillary and Obama, he refused to promise in a September debate that there will be no U.S. troops in Iraq by the end of his first term in 2013. But this week in Iowa, he changed his mind. He went further than Clinton and Obama and said he'd have all the troops home in less than a year.

Edwards is the only one of the three front-runners who has a universal health care plan that will lead to the single-payer kind all other civilized countries have. His plan doesn't go as fast as I would like, but he is the only one who has correctly pointed out that the health insurance companies are the enemy and should not have a seat at the table.

I am not endorsing anyone at this point. This is simply how I feel in the first week of the process to replace George W. Bush. For months I've been wanting to ask the question, "Where are you, Al Gore?" You can only polish that Oscar for so long. And the Nobel was decided by Scandinavians! I don't blame you for not wanting to enter the viper pit again after you already won. But getting us to change out our incandescent light bulbs for some irritating fluorescent ones isn't going to save the world. All it's going to do is make us more agitated and jumpy and feeling like once we get home we haven't really left the office.

On second thought, would you even be willing to utter the words, "I absolutely believe to my soul that this corporate greed and corporate power has an ironclad hold on our democracy?" 'Cause the candidate who understands that, and who sees it as the root of all evil -- including the root of global warming -- is the President who may lead us to a place of sanity, justice and peace.

8)

[kfg_johnny]

As much as I like to agree to disagree with Mr. Moore... Yes, he does make a few good movies that are entertaining. Sicko was one of his best work, but as an American living in Canada, there was nothing in it that I and the rest of the civilized world didn't already know about the flaws of the American health care system.

As for his takes on each of the Dmocratic canidates. I almost agree.

And as the results are just coming in now, Obama is the winner... what an upset for Mrs. Clinton. She ended in third...even behing Edwards.. WOW!

The next few months will tell more of a story, but the main one that should be told today is that there are more and more younger voters that are gettingout there and making their voices heard. That to me is the most important thing about democracy that there ever can be.

The ones voting now, are showing interest in their future and the future of the country... and that says a lot for who ever will win the next presidency.

[JackyB]

I like Ron Paul but I think he doesn't have a chance. Next I would go with Obama but I still think Hillary will beat him.---Hate rudy and glad he did so poorly in Iowa. But I think we are screwed any way it goes.

[Dave40]

The one with the best looking wife!!!!! (Sorry Hilary)

[zeusbheld]

The one with the best looking wife!!!!! (Sorry Hilary)

oh come on admit you think Bill is a hottie. don't be ashamed.

[Loburt]

Iowa is not all that meaningful.

And yet it's amazing to see what the "pundits" make of it. Such as:

Speaking on the Fox News Channel, The Weekly Standard editor, William Kristol, said of Mr. Obama, ?He is now in a position, I think, if he wins tonight, he is in the position to win the nomination.?

About 126 million people voted in the last presidential election.

The combined total of those who voted last night for Obama-Edwards-Clinton was less than 40,000.

It's one state out of 50.

There is a looong way to go.

And more often than not, the candidates that win Iowa do not win their party's nomination.

So people making be all and end all predictions based on this could easily end up looking very dumb.

[robbie36]

Iowa is not all that meaningful.

And more often than not, the candidates that win Iowa do not win their party's nomination.

The combined total of those who voted last night for Obama-Edwards-Clinton was less than 40,000.

Seems more like 227,000...

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/election2008/story/24193.html

CNN told me that 8 of the last 13 candidates that won Iowa went on to win the Democratic nomination (the last exception being Bill Clinton).

[Loburt]

Iowa is not all that meaningful.

And more often than not, the candidates that win Iowa do not win their party's nomination.

The combined total of those who voted last night for Obama-Edwards-Clinton was less than 40,000.

Seems more like 227,000...

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/election2008/story/24193.html

CNN told me that 8 of the last 13 candidates that won Iowa went on to win the Democratic nomination (the last exception being Bill Clinton).

My mistake, as the graphic on the NYTimes website was a bit confusing and what I actually saw were the figures just for Des Moines.

As for the 8 or 13, how many of those were incumbents?

Either way, it's a relatively tiny sample of voters, and winning Iowa hardly gives you a lock on the rest of the race.

This one is still wide open.

[zeusbheld]

Iowa is not all that meaningful.

And yet it's amazing to see what the "pundits" make of it. Such as:

Speaking on the Fox News Channel, The Weekly Standard editor, William Kristol, said of Mr. Obama, ?He is now in a position, I think, if he wins tonight, he is in the position to win the nomination.?

About 126 million people voted in the last presidential election.

The combined total of those who voted last night for Obama-Edwards-Clinton was less than 40,000.

It's one state out of 50.

There is a looong way to go.

And more often than not, the candidates that win Iowa do not win their party's nomination.

So people making be all and end all predictions based on this could easily end up looking very dumb.

fair enough but as far as i know this is radically different from the way Iowa (one of the whitest states btw) was expected to go. admittedly i've not been following closely lately so i'm not even sure of that.

it does give him some unexpected momentum, and might possibly be an early sign that his 'non-traditional' campaigning (like internet stuff for example) might turn out some voters who don't show up in traditional pre-vote polls. or, it might not. almost worked for howard dean before he lost his cool though. time will tell.

huckabee winning the state is no surprise IMO. iowa's chock full o' evangelicals, and they tend to not show up on polling radar, so even if he wasn't projected to win it going in, i'm still not surprised. also, the republican field is pretty weak, with many of the more charismatic candidates being too centrist or even liberal socially to appeal to evangelicals and social conservatives (rudy giuliani for example). will be interesting to see how this shakes out as i'd be a bit surprised if huckabee appeals to fiscally-conservative libertarians, a demographic that tends to vote republican (perot was kinda republican even though he was an indie).

[2508]

WOMAN :!:

[venus]

i think obama has a good chance, still my guess, although he ain't quite as shiny and impressive as a year or so ago.

why i hear so many people saying that...

i like to see "clinton" to be the us president.

so, i can get to see the face of my playboy's boss... who once told me that "men are superior in term of intelligence"

... and he asked me " imagine what would happen to the world if women rule the world... :roll:

[thaibel]

GOD BLESS AMERICA ***insert irony icon here*** with a better president than Bush, but that ain't difficult.

[venus]

GOD BLESS AMERICA ***insert irony icon here*** with a better president than Bush, but that ain't difficult.

seems we are all looking for a better leader... :roll:

[zeusbheld]

i think obama has a good chance, still my guess, although he ain't quite as shiny and impressive as a year or so ago.

why i hear so many people saying that...

i like to see "clinton" to be the us president.

so, i can get to see the face of my playboy's boss... who once told me that "men are superior in term of intelligence"

... and he asked me " imagine what would happen to the world if women rule the world... :roll:

too bad he's your boss or you could reply "imagine what'd happen if someone like *you* ruled the world. no wait, we already know. Dubya." not advised if he's your boss though.

[venus]

i think obama has a good chance, still my guess, although he ain't quite as shiny and impressive as a year or so ago.

why i hear so many people saying that...

i like to see "clinton" to be the us president.

so, i can get to see the face of my playboy's boss... who once told me that "men are superior in term of intelligence"

... and he asked me " imagine what would happen to the world if women rule the world... :roll:

too bad he's your boss or you could reply "imagine what'd happen if someone like *you* ruled the world. no wait, we already know. Dubya." not advised if he's your boss though.

he is my playboy's boss...

i have no boss yet. still keep looking... no one is qualified :roll:

[CocoaBrotha]

I don't know why people think Clinton is a shoe-in for the office. The country is ready for a drastic change in the status quo and that just might be a plus for Obama. I've already seen people from countries around the world that support the man. I just want the right person!

[Loburt]

I don't know why people think Clinton is a shoe-in for the office. The country is ready for a drastic change in the status quo and that just might be a plus for Obama. I've already seen people from countries around the world that support the man. I just want the right person!

i believe most that vote for her will do so because she is a woman and bill clinton's wife as well...they will overlook the white water sh*t and the rest of her lies...i just hope its not enough to get her in...

btw...i have nothing against a woman running for the spot but not win it just cause she is a woman...

I don't think anyone really considers her a "shoe-in" considering the deep and irrational negative feelings she and her husband inspire in a significant percentage of people.

An example is blowing_in_the_wind's citing of Whitewater. How many years were spent, how many tens of millions of dollars were wasted, and how many people did Ken Starr threaten and intimidate trying to prove the Clintons did something illegal with Whitewater?

If she had lied, he and his team would have nailed her.

What did he come up with?

Nothing.

Except a blow job in the Oval Office.

[thaibel]

i think obama has a good chance, still my guess, although he ain't quite as shiny and impressive as a year or so ago.

guiliani and clinton both have lots of haters. i don't particularly like guiliani, he was vastly overrated.

Guilani is pro choice, isn't that like the kiss of death for a republican?

Obama educated and erudite but you can just imagine some of our cousins from across golden pond confusing his name with Osama and voting for Hilary just to see if she will get oral w/out the inhale...

To paraphrase one American pundit, Hilary for President... from a **** to a c**t, tis poetry

Should it not be ........ from an havana to a v*gina

[R.Win]

Whoever it may be, let's hope for us non US nationals that the next guy in town is gonna be an even bigger screw up than Bush. About 5 years ago I visited Miami and loved it every bit. Back then I think I bought 1.1 us dollar for 1 euro and I thought KICK ASS!!! NOW it's already 1.48 us dollar for 1 euro so whenever I feel all latinish and also like to see a few more HEAT games downtown it's gonna be a very affordable stay. I might even be able to buy Jay Z a bottle of crys! to repay the beer he gave me then... NICE!

[robbie36]

WOMAN :!:

I wonder how many votes she gets just cos she is a woman (and how many she loses for exactly the same reason).

I have to admit that I am totally bias against Hilary simply on the grounds of nepotism. I refuse to listen to someone who is where she is by being the wife of a former President.