Here are the candidates and some info:

Joseph I. Lieberman
John Edwards
John F. Kerry
Richard A. Gephard
Bob Graham
Howard Dean
Dennis Kucinich
Carol Moseley Braun
Al Sharpton
Gary Hart

http://www.globalstewards.org/democrats.htm

In my opinion, the only one who is decent, and who may have any honor is Lieberman. But after cow-towing to Gore in 2000, I am not sure how much faith I have in him.

A long secong place would be Hart....


The rest of them are complete morons....

where's the option for none of the above :nyanya:

what dantheman said

I like Kerry.

War Hero with medals in Vietnam, big on international affairs, etc. He would embarass bush in any debate they had together. The bad thing in some people's minds, East Coast Liberal democrat. He def. would need a strong person running with him, probably from the south or mid west. Mabey even FL.

I also do like Hart, very very smart, but he has that old baggage with what's her name.

Todd agrees
;-)))

Donna Rice, if my memory serves me..i was pretty young

Well, I feel very comfortable picking from that list based on Mike's reaction. I'd be damned worried if there were anyone on that list that met the approval of the uberpatriot party.

Right now my vote's between Gephardt and Kerry. I don't know why the hell Hart is attempting to come back from obscurity, and Lieberman is too conservative for my tastes.

PD - Maybe you could get a right in vote for Gorbachav, or Castro!!

PD,

Why do you like Gephardt and Kerry best?

How do you think they will fare vs. Bush? I think it's way too early to have any idea about such things. There's no ticket yet. There's lots of time left. Clinton came out of nowhere.

Al Sharpton is the left's answer to Pat Robertson.

Hillary is biding her time.

Karl Rove is talented and learning.

IMHO Gephardt and Kerry represent the best chances to beat Bush.

And Mike ... your Torone is showing again.

MikeAI, since when you have re-named your dick
"Toirone"?
;-)))

Just keep on... :moon:

I would suggest that you Dems use 2 criteria...How many times has the candidate reversed himself since 2001; and just how far left is he?

For your enlightment, Pd, I am starting a grassroots movement to outlaw the existence of leftists nicknamed Pornodoggy. :biglaugh:

Torone, I enjoy having PD around.... he makes me laugh!! :rokk: :rokk:

Torone thinks Lieberman is a communist so it's a little hard for him to tell left from far left.

You mean like changing their views on nation-building?

Fuck this two party shit.

President Colin Powell
Vice President Hillary Clinton
Secretary of State Bill Clinton or George Bush I
Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. Don't let the Peter Principle take effect.
Secretary of Labor Pat Buchanan [Just kidding]
Office of National Drug Control Policy Hunter S Thompson
Department of Justice NOT John Ashcroft

My grandfather says Hillary already ran the country so I'm tempted to put her as President given her experience but Powell can "War and Peace" so the job is his.

Clinton is a scumbag - both of them. They stand for nothing, and everything. They are professional politicians who only look out for themselves and so whatever is expediant to give themselves more power ( or to cover their asses).

They are the worst of the worst, and even Democrats should understand that.

There was some Democrat Senator from Indiana on Hannity and Colmes last night - I liked him. He seemed intelligent and reasonable. Hell, I like Colmes...

I have more respect for honest liberals or those who tend to the left, then those like Clinton(s) who bounce around swaying everday based on polls. Someone who puts their own personal power over the National Security of this nation.

I actually suspect ALL professional politicians - we must do something about them. Being a politicans should not be a profession....

Mike,

I don't share your view on Bill Clinton. At least, I don't think Clinton was any more of a professional politician than any other president. Maybe a better one than most.

I think the 80's, 90's, and 00's president were all pretty good. I think Bush I is underrated still
but he broke a campaign promise and ran into Bill Clinton who ran a pretty masterful campaign.

Bush I was terrible. He had no vision, no real leadership, he seemed tired. Most of his policies sucked. He was a "caretaker" President.

What legislation did Clinton push that has been so great? What about his other policies? Lets face it, he really did not have any. Clinton's biggest acomplishments is that all of his large projects got rejected by Congress. ( Health Care, etc...)

Clinton would be a great guy to drink with, but he only cared about power and elections - he was constantly "on campaign". He was a marvelous speaker, he was a master of charisma, and a charmer.... but he was and is a fraud with NO real leadership skills because he did not LEAD....


Clinton did not real long term harm ( but for some National Security issues) because he did not get much passed - he lorded over a great economy because his hands were tied and he left alone. Which is what most Presidents should do. Thing is President's policies rarely effect the economy they are in term for....

Bill Clinton did a runaround on the UN and went to NATO on Kosovo. That showed pretty good diplomacy skills by bringing international legitimacy to a military action.

Bush I used his tremendous diplomatic skills to obtain a UN resolution for Gulf War I. That too showed great skills.

Bush I was commander in chief of the armed services during the conflict that brought full prestige back to the United States military. Killed Vietnam syndrome, as Schwarzkopf put it. I think not enough credit is given to presidents for their role in military operations.

The balancing of military objectives with political ones. Knowing when to be hands-off. Asking the right questions and moderating the discussions between the various civilian and military personnel.

It seems to me that Presidents alone are assigned credit and blame for policies that are the result of both congressional and executive action. Most political debates seem to be of this type. They go back and forth with "congress did this" but "the president did that" and so on.

Presidents are often given credit and blame for economic circumstances, for example.
Should we blame Reagan for the rise of the national debt? Should we give Clinton credit for balancing the budget? What about the role of congress then? Why pick one starting point over another? Should we blame Bush for sending troops to Somalia or give credit to Clinton for bringing them home? Should Nixon be blamed for letting the Vietnam war drag on or given credit for bringing the troops home?

Colin all things you note were good accomplishments, but none by themselves create a "Great President"

I guess it depends what criterea ones uses....

History will judge them all. Normally things change over time. 10,20,50 years out of office.


One reason I think Clinton was a terrible President, and will be judged by history to be so is the squandering of the great talents he had. Clinton had the ability to be a top 5 President, he blew it on self-centered issues...

How about this one? I think Bush II is underrated. I think quite a few people just don't see how strong of a leader he has been. Tremendous. He's a good politician too. He chose one of the strongest cabinets ever.

His weakness is public speaking. Makes him seem not as bright as he really is.

He needs to balance the budget.

OK, that's fair. I don't know who will be considered a "great president". Many conservatives consider Reagan to be a great president and many liberals consider him to be something like an anti-christ.

Who could we agree on were great presidents? Kennedy stood down the Russians. Lincoln saved the country. Washington was first. These?

I guess getting re-elected might be a starting point. If you can't win re-election you can't be considered great because people at the time didn't consider you to be. FDR = 4. Wow!

Maybe a great president requires a crisis. How they respond to it determines greatness.

Kennedy wins a nod for the Cuban Missile Crisis then.

"Ask now what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country". Good stuff and he hated commies too! Sounds like a modern-day conservative.

Lincoln had the greatest crisis of all to solve.



Last edited by Colin at Apr 11 2003, 12:43 PM

Colin, I think you are right about Bush II, he could possibly go down as a top 5 President. He is a strong LEADER, he has vision, he sets goals, then goes about getting them accomplished. He does not waiver and does what he thinks is the right thing.

He is NOT a great orator, but you know - I think most Americans apprecaite the way he speaks in simple declaratory sentences.

Bush is like Reagan - they both are/were considered "simpletons" by the media and the "elite", but both were widely successful - it is good to be underestimated sometimes. Obviously Reagan was a GREAT speaker... Bush never will be.

They both also run CEO style gov'ts where they bring on top minds to run the different areas of gov't and NOT to micromanage.

I agree with that too. I think it's a great way to run the country. Pick a great cabinet and let them make the decisions they are qualified to make. Very CEO-like.

Reagan was an amazing orator.

First of all, I don't think you can appropriately evaluate a President for a decade or so after he leaves office - there are just too many things to shake out. It's way too early to start talking about Bush in terms of his "greatness." Oh, I understand the partisan comparisons to past President (pro or con, depending on the orientation of the person doing the comparison) - that's just S.O.P.

IMHO before a reasonable person reaches a conclusion about his leaderhip ability, to use Colin's example, one ought to see just where the hell he's leading us - and it is way too early to tell where that is.

Re Slick Willie - I don't have a very high opinion of Clinton's presidency at this point - but let's get real.

I cannot recall a President in my lifetime that faced an opposing party and a Congress as hostile as Bill Clinton did for six of the eight years of his two terms. No Democratic Congress that I can recall has ever treated a President the way the Republicans treated Clinton, with the possible exception of the way the Democratic congress treated Nixon in his last nine months in office.

PD,

I'm a big fan of gridlock. Why change a good thing?

It's all subjective anyway until at least 100 years are gone but there are still people with rebel flags on their pickups that hate Lincoln.

Wonder who most of them voted for?

What some people think

In 1948, Arthur M. Schlesinger, Sr. polled 55 prominent scholars in American history and government, and again in 1962 he asked 75 to rank Presidents within five categories - as great, near great, average, below average and failure. Another poll, conducted among nearly 850 members of the United States Historical Society in 1977, asked respondents to name the 10 greatest Presidents. There were 3 other group polls in 1970, 1981, and 1982, and 12 more individual assessments discussed in this article. So, out of 18 lists, the results were:

Washington
Lincoln
Franklin Roosevelt
Jackson
Theodore Roosevelt were on all 18 lists

Wilson and Jefferson were on 17 lists
Then Truman on 9
Polk on 7
John Adams on 6
Grover Cleveland on 5
Kennedy on 2.

In 1956, the popular poll results were:
Franklin Roosevelt
Lincoln
Washington
Eisenhower,
Truman
Wilson
Theodore Roosevelt
Jefferson.

In 1976, popular poll results were:
Kennedy
Lincoln
Franklin Roosevelt
Truman
Washington
Eisenhower
Theodore Roosevelt
Lyndon Johnson
Jefferson
Wilson
Nixon

David Duke?

As far as democrats go, I like David Palmer. :okthumb:

Too bad he's just an actor...

All of the folks on that list absolutely pale in comparison to the sheister of spin, the buddah of bald-faced lying, and the lemming of (unconditional) loyalty... Iraqi Information Minister Sahaf.
I say we find him (or his remains) and nominate him to lead the Democrats!
He does, after all, embody everything they stand for... and with such passion, too :)

David Duke?[/b][/quote]
Oh, I don't think so. Fellow by the name of John Mitchell had a plan 30 years ago to recruit them into his political party.

He was very, very successful.

I heard Arie Fliescher persuaed GW to deny Sahaf's application for political asylum because he was afraid of the competition.

And I have nothing but absolute contempt for minds so small that they perceive either of the major American political parties as an enemy.