he is way to smart and his ideas are way to good for Americans to vote for him, to bad.

Im a Kiwi so Im not exactly an avid follower of American politics but I must say I hope the democrats pull through next year and if they manage to elect either a black man or a woman (Clinton or O[s]s[/s]bama) to president then I will be a happy man indeed. America needs to break out of its strange introverted conservatism, in particular in the deep south.
Even more interesting though is that even the Republican's leading candidate Guilani (sp?) is reasonably liberal, so if as expected he and either Clinton or Obama come through for the presidential election, who can the deeply conservative voters go for?

That mentality is only making it harder for people like him to reach positions of power, the place where we need them most. If you think a candidate will make a good leader, vote for them and try to get others to, too. Don't just give up on them because you think they don't have a chance.

 i aint voting for no one, iam not in us.

i just dont see the usa public siding with him, hes basicly not famous enouth.  They need a Bush a Clinton a former New York mayor. 

 Plus if he becomes to big a threat (making it), i see both sides doing their best to get rid of him.

Cheney will overpower Bush at the end of his REGIME and then expose himself as the spawn of Satan an institute his own tyranical empire... ;)

Oh, ok. It's still not a very good mind set to have, though. I'm sure there are many Americans who feel the way you do.

I'm sure if he garners enough support, people will start to "take the election more seriously" (for lack of better words) and see that he's a great candidate.

Seriously? Even the president couldn't do anything about gun laws? No offence, but America has one sucky law system.

And I'm fairly sure koffieboon is talking about global warming.

haha, i was thinkin the same thing.

i dont live in the US, but i think a black or female president would be awesome

Mr. Stickball, if you include Thompson, you gotta include Gore. Neither have actually announced candidacy. Thompson is "testing the waters" and Gore is consistently barraged with draft attempts. I'd say they're equally likely to run. You should also include Ron Paul. Since the debate, he's been getting some decent attention, and if he's got a decent campaign manager, he can become a household name well before January.

So add one name to each list :-p

I kinda did this analysis in another thread already, so I'm probably repeating a lot:

Clinton has too much history. She wouldn't be an effective president, simply because she'll be under the shadow of her husband, regardless of what she does. That's basically what she's got going for her: her history as first lady. But that can easily work against her.

Obama is too much talk. He hasn't actually *done* anything. He looks nice, and has this "leader" vibe, but he hasn't said or done anything that differentiates him from anyone else. In a lull, this would make for a great candidate. He can keep the status quo, and make a few policy changes, maybe. However, we're significantly not in a lull.

Edwards has a similar problem to Obama, just a bit more track record (his "two americas" thing, whether or not you agree with it, shows he's at least got some ideas behind his head), and a bit less image. He found his niche as VP candidate, I think, but he wouldn't be an effective presidential candidate.

Richardson isn't well-known. He's going up against three political titans. If primaries were still caucuses that were *decided* at the National Convention, he'd probably have a good chance, but as it stands, I couldn't tell you a thing about him, other than that he's got a good leadership track record.

And of course, Al Gore would wipe the floor with the lot of them if he would just get off his ass. At this point even if you disagree with his policies, I think anyone will agree that he's the most *genuine* out of all people who might even be considered possibilities. I could go on for days about Gore, but Stickball would probably get nauseous, conservative that he is :-p


Republicans:

Guiliani: I've described him as "evil Obama." I completely stand by this statement. If you wold vote for Obama, but feel he's too angelic for you, vote Rudy. He's an asshole, a liar, and a media whore. But he has his image, and he can work it well.

McCain's age is starting to show. 8 years ago, I'd have voted him over any Republicans hands-down... probably over most of the Democrats, too. The more I see of him on this campaign, though, the more I see "worn out, past his prime." He'd make a great VP. Too old for president.

Romney has money, but nothing else. I think that in and of itself precludes him from consideration. People who can make money for themselves, and do little else, are NOT the kinds of people you want running the country. This isn't a fiscal policy thing, this is a corruption thing.

Thompson is a more radical Reagan. He' the only candidate who could compete against Guiliani's image, but really all I know of him is that he's good, but ultra-conservative.

Ron Paul is the Republican dark horse. He's quiet, but he speaks straight and honest. I don't agree with his fiscal policy, but I'm willing to put that aside if it means an administration that uses information as opposed to propaganda, and works to *stabilize* the economy even if they don't use the method I would agree with.



Major issues for the next five years(in no particular order): Mid-East, education, budget, media regulation (mainly TV and internet), government corruption.

Scarcely any candidates have said anything encouraging on any of those fronts. If anyone tackles three of those issues in a positive manner in one speech, I don't care if they're the Nazi party, I think I'd vote for them.