Who would fit the bill for the ideal President of U.S.?

There are some people who dislike Bush. Other people dislike Clinton. If the fight was even carried further, there are people who even argue against Johnson and Nixon!

So, I wonder who would be suitable to govern over the United States?


After reading about politics for a long time, this is a question that I continue to wonder about. However, I get very pessimistic, because there are too many special interests in the way to nominate someone who can adequately govern the country well.

That is why I am curious to see what you all have to say.

[edit on 2-3-2006 by ceci2006]

[edit on 2-3-2006 by ceci2006]

I'm not an American, but you can't help but watch U.S. politics.
I'm starting to think this will be your choice in 2008.

No person capable of getting themselves elected President should by any means be allowed to do the job.

I can't remember who said that, but damned if truer words have ever been uttered.

[edit on 3-3-2006 by The Parallelogram]

Originally posted by anxietydisorder
I'm not an American, but you can't help but watch U.S. politics.
I'm starting to think this will be your choice in 2008.

Lol, funny you post that. I said to a friend of mine the other day "wouldn't it be funny if it was Condi verses Hillary in 2008?"
He said "I'd move to Canada to avoid the embarassment."


This is a hard question for me, as I haven't found a candidate I like completly. I like Nader, however he does come off as kind of a wimp and I don't think he could handle some of the national security issues we are having at the moment.

Well I cant think of anyone perfect except for myself (I am australian fyi so i know it aint happening nor would i want the job)

I say that because who is the person I will always agree with? me

Yes, snowflake--it is a very hard decision to make.

But, about the Condeleeza/Hillary matchup: As a woman, I would be gratified to have two female candidates run against each other. But, I would not vote for just any woman. She would have to undergo the same litmus test I would run for a male candidate. I would have to investigate her platform to see if it would jibe with what I espouse. As it stands now, I'm sort of iffy on both Rice and Clinton. Rice is faulted because of her utter complacency with the Bush policy. Clinton is equally so-so with me because of her lack of response towards important issues (i.e. the Patriot Act, the Hurricane Katrina Findings, the Iraq War).

As for anyone else? I am still searching out there. Well....I hope that someone exists that can at least manage to pull the country together and revitalize our economy so that more people can get jobs. Not to mention repair our reputation worldwide.

And drfunk: hee hee. LOL.

1. The ideal - in a perfect world, what make up of skills, personality and connections would be the winning combo? Moot question

2. The practical - what combo of the above factors can correct the course we've been put upon? It's a mirror maginified to circa 1992 with the same answer - Bill Clinton. The 2008 president is going to need to be an International president - someone capable of settling allies & foes who are ramping up against us, particularly the allies.
People refuse to acknowledge that our allies are our most dangerous foes from an economic standpoint and can bring devastating econo-warfare to or front door.....that they are ALSO ramping up militarily to answer the worst case scenario is a supporting concern.

Originally posted by ceci2006
Yes, snowflake--it is a very hard decision to make.

But, about the Condeleeza/Hillary matchup: As a woman, I would be gratified to have two female candidates run against each other. But, I would not vote for just any woman. She would have to undergo the same litmus test I would run for a male candidate. I would have to investigate her platform to see if it would jibe with what I espouse. As it stands now, I'm sort of iffy on both Rice and Clinton. Rice is faulted because of her utter complacency with the Bush policy. Clinton is equally so-so with me because of her lack of response towards important issues (i.e. the Patriot Act, the Hurricane Katrina Findings, the Iraq War).

As for anyone else? I am still searching out there. Well....I hope that someone exists that can at least manage to pull the country together and revitalize our economy so that more people can get jobs. Not to mention repair our reputation worldwide.

And drfunk: hee hee. LOL.

Yeah I am a woman as well, and to me both Condi and Hillary are a joke. I can't take either one seriously and I wouldn't vote for either one myself.

Bout Time: You pose some interesting inquiries describing qualities of a future U.S. leader.

1: I don't really think finding "ideals" a president should have is a moot point. Just because we don't reside in an "ideal" society doesn't mean that we cannot debate specificities relating to attributes we would want to see in the President.

For example, I would like to see a future President who related more to the American public as a whole (for example, FDR is important on many levels because he held "Fireside Chats" on the radio in which a majority of the American public tuned into during the 1940's). I would also think that in the U.S., we need someone who can inspire us to be better as a nation and as people instead of resorting to politics dividing the country. I would also like to vote for a person who is practical and uses common sense in all measures foreign and domestic to steer the country on an even course.

Are these ideals wishful thinking? To some, perhaps. But, is it not the nature of searching for candidates who fit the "litmus test" for matching one's issues? I think that if voters really explored "their ideals" in the search for someone to support, a lot of the mess we are in as a country would be eliminated.

2: I too like Bill Clinton as a good choice. Clinton has his faults (Okay, so he has "sexual" pecadilloes, but it did not affect foreign or domestic policy; when he first started out as governor and as a national speaker, his speeches were dry and too long, but he improved as time passed). In the end, Clinton related well with a large segment of the population and improved international relations. He possessed a "folksy" demeanor that came across as genial. Now, does that mean that he is not capable of falsity or deception? All human beings have the capacity to lie. Yet, what counts is that he did things in the country's interest and was not self-serving.

In short, I think it is valuable to look at examples from the past Presidents and weigh them with our own conceptions of what to look for in future candidates.

[edit on 3-3-2006 by ceci2006]

Originally posted by Bout Time
1. The ideal - in a perfect world, what make up of skills, personality and connections would be the winning combo? Moot question

2. The practical - what combo of the above factors can correct the course we've been put upon?

Wait - didn't the Dems have a "global" candidate in 2004? Remember the "Global Test"? AND, he served in VietNam, too. Did you know that? He served in VietNam.

Rice has one major drawback working against her electability - she is unmarried. That still is a liability in today's US of A.

A president, or even a wanna-be, must have the looks, and personality, to compel others to follow where he/she leads them. Following along behind these two is intellect.

No president can lead a nation if he or she can't get the country to follow. His/Her looks get the attention, the personality keep it, and the intellect enables them to utilize the first two properly.

Having said that, I also realize the proper combination is very rare. In American politics today there are very few who have to my mind the proper combination, but I will attempt to name a few.

Republicans: J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ), don't know much about the man, but everything I've seen and heard indicates he's smart, with a strong personality, and people aren't running screaming into the night. Plus his views on immigration will appeal to many. Secretary of State Condaleeza Rice, very smart, strong willed, ultra-successful woman. Only knock is limited knowledge of her own personal views on various matters. Still has time to fix this, if she is interested. John McCain (R-AZ), has to be mentioned. Almost too middle of the road, seems to sway to the breezes of public opinion polls. Has some issues with veterans groups concerning his conduct during the Vietnam War, while a POW. IMHO, needs to address these issues, because they will bite him on the butt. Next on the list of Republicans is much more problematic, but I would probably support him, General Colin Powell (USArmy-ret.), former Secretary of State. Smart, well respected by freinds and foes alike. Vietnam veteran, with no appriciable baggage. The fringe left hates him, always a point in someone's favor.

Democrats: John Kerry (D-MA), has to be mentioned. His loss in '04 won't help him, dark horse at best. Like McCain, has issues with veterans groups because of his behavior after returning from Vietnam, namely his testimony before commitee of congress. Of course, Hillary Clinton (D-NY) has all but announced her intent to run. My personal distaste for her aside, she is smart; you don't get to where she's gotten in politics if you are a dummy, she's not. She does come across a bit on the wooden side as a speaker, but with practise will improve. Her major baggage is Bill Clinton, her ever so polerizing husband. Not sure he's capable of playing second fiddle to his wife. The democrat I would like to see run but won't, is Zel Miller, former Senator from Georgia. A conservative democrat, much like Henry Jackson from my own state of Washington back in the 60's and 70's, would drag the Dem's kicking and screaming back to the main stream where most Americans dwell. His only knock is his age, late 70's, I believe.

My opinion of an ideal ticket for the Republicans would be, not in any particular order: Condeleeza Rice, and Colin Powell. Democratic strategists worst nightmare IMHO. The Democrats ideal ticket, again in no particular order, Zel Miller, and Hillary Clinton. The race would be fascinating, and not to polarizing, again in my humble opinion.

After reading the latest comments, I have given the benefit of the doubt to Dr. Rice. After all, she is African-American, possesses a genius I.Q., and knows four languages. As a Stanford Professor in Political Science, she distinctively earned several major academic awards. Not to mention, she was awarded a plethora of doctorates across the country. She has even written two books: The Gorbachev Era (1986) and Germany Unified and Europe Transformed (1995). She is well-heeled and well traveled. Not to mention urbane, a talented musician and physcially fit (from the latest reports, anyway). Heck, who wouldn't cheer and say, "Yay, finally a sister in the White House!" Her cousin, Connie Rice, was even a lawyer for the NAACP.

However, despite these first initial indications of the Secretary of State's prowess, one must look at her political and financial ties. Until 1982, she was a registered Democrat, cutting her teeth in the Carter Administration as an adviser. Then, as a tenured professor at Stanford, she changed her political affiliation to Republican (there is not a reason why she did it, I tried to research it). She began to donate money to President George H.W. Bush, Dan Quayle(R.-Ind.), John Seymour (R-Ca.) as well as the Lincoln Club of Northern California. She worked in the George HW Bush's Administration as Director of Soviet and East European Affairs. In 1989, she worked for the National Security Council in the same post. Dr. Rice reported to National Security Advisor Brent Scrowcroft. In 1991, she sat on the Chevron Corporation Board. The year 2001 found her on the board of the Scowcroff Group until she resigned to be the National Security Advisor.

Oil Interests. Far-Right associations. Waffling Political interests early in her political career. Okay, not so good.

Let's take her policies. On Affirmative Action, Rice commented on the admissions policy of the University of Michigan. She was accused that she supported Bush's policy against "quotas". She released a statement going against the Bush Administration, claiming that "race can be a factor" in letting students into school. (Wikipedia) It is interesting that she has no public comments on the following issues: crime, abortion, corporations, civil rights, drugs, energy and oil, environment as well as families and children. She even does not have a stance on social welfare or Health care. Let alone, not even commenting on government reform. Dr. Rice does not also have a comment on tax reform.

So, she waffled against Bush's policy on Affirmative Action (which negates my first claim that she was "complacent" towards the Administration's policies). Yet, she has no real Domestic policy to speak of.

She does believe that in education, economic class is not a factor. She supports multi-lateral free trade as well as routine transatlantic relations between countries.

To her credit, Dr. Rice does have Foreign Policy experience. Rice had not heard of Al Qaeda before 2000. She also espoused that Europe should aid the US in peace-keeping responsibilities. She believes that Islam is not the center on the War on Terror. She also supports a "steady progress" toward an Israel and Palestinian peace agreement.

With thanks to Wikipedia and OntheIssues.Org as well as her article in the Jan. 23, 2003 New York Times, "Why We Know Iraq is Lying", I began to discover what this woman truly stands for. And I still, in good conscience, cannot advocate voting for Dr. Rice as a Presidential candidate. Her opinions on my issues still go unsupported.

As for the unmarried question: just because she's a bachelorette, does not mean that she is not viable for candidacy. James Buchanan (D-PA), was a bachelor and has the distinction of being the only single President of the U.S. But then again, he was ranked (in a 1962 poll) as 29th in 31 Presidents for favorability. Grant only ranked lower. (De Gregorio, William A. "The Complete Book of U.S. Presidents" [2002])

However, might I say that the Republicans supporting Dr. Rice is a step up from what has been suggested in the past.

[edit on 4-3-2006 by ceci2006]

[edit on 4-3-2006 by ceci2006]

Originally posted by jsobeckyRice has one major drawback working against her electability - she is unmarried. That still is a liability in today's US of A.

Therapy son, therapy.....that's the only thing left for you if the only drawback you see on Rice is her single status!!!
She is completely unaccomplished and void of any leadership charateristics....she's a toady, a bootlick and a yesman who was drowningly above her head the moment she stepped off the academic green.

Originally posted by Bout Time

Originally posted by jsobeckyRice has one major drawback working against her electability - she is unmarried. That still is a liability in today's US of A.

Therapy son, therapy.....that's the only thing left for you if the only drawback you see on Rice is her single status!!!

She is completely unaccomplished and void of any leadership charateristics....she's a toady, a bootlick and a yesman who was drowningly above her head the moment she stepped off the academic green.

Uh, you need the therapy. Try TRUTH avoidance therapy first.

From 1989 through March 1991, the period of German reunification and the final days of the Soviet Union, she served in the Bush Administration as Director, and then Senior Director, of Soviet and East European Affairs in the National Security Council, and a Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. In 1986, while an international affairs fellow of the Council on Foreign Relations, she served as Special Assistant to the Director of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In 1997, she served on the Federal Advisory Committee on Gender -- Integrated Training in the Military.

www.whitehouse.gov...

Who would fit the bill for the ideal President of U.S.?

A person that would like to get this country back to being a Democracy again. Someone not afraid to take up that challenge. Someone not in denial. Someone with their own thoughts and the guts to achieve his or her own vision.

Originally posted by Excitable_Boy

A person that would like to get this country back to being a Democracy again. Someone not afraid to take up that challenge. Someone not in denial. Someone with their own thoughts and the guts to achieve his or her own vision.

you rang?

let me say one thing...
If you vote for me, then you vote for you, because I want a "representative democracy", in the true sense...

Well I think I'd be the perfect candidate for president, to bad I have to wait another 17 years before I can run.

If it comes down to Hilary or Condi, I'm not sure, I don't know Hilary's stance on some of the issues, and I don't know Condi's stance on any of the issues.
I'd probably vote for Hilary though.


I think we need a Black, Female, Lesbian, Liberal, Pro Choice, Democrat, Socialist as the president.



Well either that or give Bill a third time, he's my favorite president.



EDIT:
Fixed spelling errors.

[edit on 4/4/2006 by iori_komei]