2008 POTUS Election: They All Suck

[Holt's Cat]

Is there any hope? I don't want to see any of these mofos running the country for 4 years.

[boutons_]

The Repugs gave us dumb cretin dubya, and sinister head, so the Repugs forfeit any chance to win in 2008, and their sucky poll Repug leaders are ed.

I prefer Obama to Clinton, but Clinton is awfully way out front, so it looks like we might be stuck with her, no matter how hard the Repugs and accomplices swift-boat her.

Still a long way to go in this insanely, perversely extended campaign, just another symptom of failed political system and ed up politicians. Of course, as just George Carlin said, paraphrase, "if the politicians suck so bad, maybe something else around here really sucks, too, like the culture that produces them and the voters who elect them". Can't argue with that logic. I think millions of people share that opinion. It just gets worse and and worse and worse.

[Holt's Cat]

Maybe the Demos suck too.

[Nbadan]

two words...Wesley Clark....

[Wild Cobra]

two words...Wesley Clark....

The general of the failed Clinton wars? He's just a Clinton crony. With his words against the war in Iraq, he is a disgrace to the uniform.

We need another like Ronald Reagan. They only come once in a lifetime. I could live with Hunter, Tancredo, Romney, or Guliani. I think I would prefer Thompson, but is he going to run?

Before anyone calls me a republican, I'm not. I just have no respect for the democrats running.

[Nbadan]

The general of the failed Clinton wars? He's just a Clinton crony.

While Clark did kiss major Clinton butt, I would hardly consider him a 'failed general'. Yugoslavia could have been another Iraq for the Americans, but Clark and NATO won the war using primarily air power - first time ever...

[Wild Cobra]

While Clark did kiss major Clinton butt, I would hardly consider him a 'failed general'. Yugoslavia could have been another Iraq for the Americans, but Clark and NATO won the war using primarily air power - first time ever...

Interesting how the conflicts president Clinton put our military into was OK, even with the level of genocide that happened on Clark's watch. That level of genocide will only happen in Iraq if the democrats get there way, and we leave.

What a legacy for the democrats.... We leave genocide in our wake...

[fyatuk]

The Repugs gave us dumb cretin dubya, and sinister head, so the Repugs forfeit any chance to win in 2008, and their sucky poll leaders are ed.

Hardly. While the Democrat party has a lead in the polls, when you get down to comparing between candidates it comes out even. Obama is the only one who beats the Republicans regularly when it is polled with just two candidates. At least, last I checked which admittedly was at least a month ago.

Any small change improvement in Iraq can easily tip the balance towards the republicans and any hint of a recession could guarantee Democrat victory.

The point is, the Republicans are hardly out of the running, it's still way up in the air.

[RobinsontoDuncan]

Is there any hope? I don't want to see any of these mofos running the country for 4 years.

That sentiment is in vogue now, "let's just say I hate all the politicians, even if i cant give a solid reasoning behind it"

if you're going to make a blanket statement like that, you should at least say why you don't like whoever it is you're not fawned of.

Im interested in what you have against barack obama for instince

[Oh, Gee!!]

apathy is the new opiate of the masses

[RobinsontoDuncan]

The general of the failed Clinton wars? He's just a Clinton crony. With his words against the war in Iraq, he is a disgrace to the uniform.

you're a dumbass, you want our all of our ex military leaders to blindly follow bad policy? What is wrong with you man, you sound like a fascist sometimes

[Holt's Cat]

That sentiment is in vogue now, "let's just say I hate all the politicians, even if i cant give a solid reasoning behind it"

if you're going to make a blanket statement like that, you should at least say why you don't like whoever it is you're not fawned of.

Im interested in what you have against barack obama for instince

Obama's a lightweight. Fortunately State was able to clean up after his boo-boo the other day. But, I know, he speaks so well.

As for the rest...

Giuliani - on 9-10-01 he was a sleazebag who did manage to clean up NYC a little. Afterwards he was the Italian-American Churchill. A presidential campaign will reveal that he is, again, a sleazebag.

McCain - Vietnam. Vietnam. Vietnam. What else?

Clinton - A Clinton or Bush has been in the Oval Office since 01/89. America needs an f-ing change. Other than the fact that she possesses a vagina there's nothing really defining about her candidacy.

Edwards - he speaks so well. Another newbie Senator who thinks he can run this country? Feh. Also forced out on the fringe to improve his support in the party. Not a good idea.

Romney - There's something odd about this guy. Too blow-dried. Plus the Tabernacle keeps tabs on everyone in the US. *dons tin foil hat* The Capital candidate.

F Thompson - hey, he was in Law & Order and The Hunt for Red October.

Paul - at least he's willing to offer a different opinion. Too bad his fanbase consists of Alex Jones fans and potheads.

Biden - if I had to pick the one candidate I wouldn't mind listening to for the next 4 years it would be him. At least he offers the prospect of going off script occasionally.

Gingrich - because America wants to be lectured by Newt for the next 4 years. Also because the GOP wants to change its image.

Tancredo - because Buchanan wasn't feeling up to it.

Dodd - pack it up already.

Brownback - pack it up already.

Huckabee - pack it up already.

T Thompson - he was running?

Kuchinich - another nutjob candidate on the fringe (see Paul)

Gravel - i didn't realize Lyndon LaRouche was still alive.

Anyways, none of these candidates are that inspiring or credible. It's only what the media establishment spews forth. There isn't really a surprise why most Americans don't bother to vote.

[Holt's Cat]

apathy is the new opiate of the masses

It certainly beats pretending to believe any of the candidates' bull .

[Yonivore]

Obama's a lightweight. Fortunately State was able to clean up after his boo-boo the other day. But, I know, he speaks so well.

Ouch! Did you just call a black man "articulate?"

As for the rest...

Giuliani - on 9-10-01 he was a sleazebag who did manage to clean up NYC a little. Afterwards he was the Italian-American Churchill. A presidential campaign will reveal that he is, again, a sleazebag.

Kind of like an effective Bill Clinton except not quite as lecherous; is that right?

McCain - Vietnam. Vietnam. Vietnam. What else?

Not much. Oh yeah, he'll fight the terrorists but, I vote him most likely to nuke Mecca.

Clinton - A Clinton or Bush has been in the Oval Office since 01/89. America needs an f-ing change. Other than the fact that she possesses a vagina there's nothing really defining about her candidacy.

Can't argue with that. Oh yeah, there's that whole thing about having a socialist president to which I object, as well.

Edwards - he speaks so well. Another newbie Senator who thinks he can run this country? Feh. Also forced out on the fringe to improve his support in the party. Not a good idea.

Nice hair though.

Romney - There's something odd about this guy. Too blow-dried. Plus the Tabernacle keeps tabs on everyone in the US. *dons tin foil hat* The Capital candidate.

Meh, we'll see what happens. I'm not that enamored with him either.

F Thompson - hey, he was in Law & Order and The Hunt for Red October.

Wow! You're discounting a rather impressive career as a politician, prosecutor, and attorney by characterizing him as just an actor.

Paul - at least he's willing to offer a different opinion. Too bad his fanbase consists of Alex Jones fans and potheads.

I think Paul will probably open a tin foil hat stand, himself, after this election.

Biden - if I had to pick the one candidate I wouldn't mind listening to for the next 4 years it would be him. At least he offers the prospect of going off script occasionally.

Yeah, and starting an international incident in the process. At least as a Senator he's pretty much stuck to pissing off cons uents. What happens when he makes his racist statements at a State dinner?

Gingrich - because America wants to be lectured by Newt for the next 4 years. Also because the GOP wants to change its image.

Smart man. Unfortunately, he's unelectable for various reasons -- none of which are related to his ability as a president.

Tancredo - because Buchanan wasn't feeling up to it.

They don't agree on much but, you've struck the one topic on which you can find Tancredo and Buchanan (and me) in the same camp...immigration. Lock the ing door already.

Dodd - pack it up already.

Brownback - pack it up already.

Huckabee - pack it up already.

T Thompson - he was running?

Kuchinich - another nutjob candidate on the fringe (see Paul)

Gravel - i didn't realize Lyndon LaRouche was still alive.

Anyways, none of these candidates are that inspiring or credible. It's only what the media establishment spews forth. There isn't really a surprise why most Americans don't bother to vote.

I think it's between Guiliani and Thompson vs. Hillary. I can't wait to see Hillary dance around her husband's eight years and their "co-presidency." Should be a fun Presidential campaign season.

[Holt's Cat]

I forgot:

Bloomberg - just like Romney, there doesn't seem to be too much there. Another Capital candidate. The one thing he would have going for his candidacy is that he wouldn't be tied to either party and can fund his own campaign. The last guy like that who ran for the presidency brought in a nursing home resident as his VP candidate and accused the in bent of using the CIA to disrupt his daughter's wedding. Of course, is it preferable for an individual to be in the Oval Office with ties to no one?

[FromWayDowntown]

I agree completely with Holt's Cat. Presidential politics has become more of a beauty contest than a contest of ideas; it's more about impugning the other side than offering new ideas; it's more about polarizing the electorate than galvanizing it (but that's true of all politics these days, I think). Presidential candidates are more responsive to polling data than anything else.

[Holt's Cat]

Do we ever really know what these people who would run the Executive Branch really think? All we get are 5 minute long verbal strings of focus group tested phrases. The irony is that these campaigns are increasing in length while the true content is next to nil.

[Holt's Cat]

American politics is a spectator sport, dominated by a diehard electorate of fringe minorities who only seem to care whether or not their side wins and not such light matters as what is truly best for the country. The 'other side' is evil.

This forum is a prime example.

[spurster]

Is there any hope?

Yes, Bush will become an ex-President.

[Wild Cobra]

you're a dumbass, you want our all of our ex military leaders to blindly follow bad policy? What is wrong with you man, you sound like a fascist sometimes

What? Of course I don't want them to blindly follow orders. In fact, I am one who says it is wrong for them to follow unlawful orders. I am one who says the Abu Ghraib incident was a localized one becase people in the know didn't report it up the chain of command.

As a flag general, he failed in the conflicts he precided over. Losses on the balttlefield are one thing and expected. Our involvement in the Balkins, being only political and air, cause genocide, and he helped do it.

[Spurminator]

I'm voting for whoever has the funniest YouTube video