yeah... and the only reason why he was on there in the first place because they wanted to have the whole racial divide going.

Danny Glover for President??????

real question is... who wouldn't vote for this sexy beast? (the guy on the right, mind you):

I'm for Obama/Cruz '08 all the way.

according to the shows producers, they had to actively recruit "minority" participants for the show. apparantly the number of minorities that traditionally apply for Survivor are well, in the minority

or something like that

just a comment, i'm not going anywhere with this. lol

no one cares that hes black. Powell is half black and he would have won easily in 2000 if he had run.

the 'voting populace' is not as racist as you think. weve had a black sec of def (Rice) for 7 years. way more important gig than being president and no one is saying 'she sucks cause she's a black lesbian'. they dont care.

Obama would win easily IF HE GETS THE NOMINATION.

State. Rice is Secretary of State. But yeah, if the Dems underestimate the electorate and try to play it safe (like they did with Kerry), they'll end up with a candidate who'll be seen as "same old, same old".

Bryanarchy, that cheese is what we call "flip-flopping." ;p

Rush Limbaugh recently called Obama the "Donavan McNabb of the Senate." Maybe he does have a chance:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200602090012

Powell could have done alot of things if he had stood up and told the truth about the WMD ! I think going along the party lines no matter what has ended his chances of ever having a chance at the presidency. Wich is really too bad !
Kinda like President Ford, I thought he was actually a pretty good President, he was a more moderate republican and that brought both parties together. Then after he dies we find out he was opposed to the Iraq war ! Well he just sank to the bottom of people I respect list. Is it more important to tow the party line than it is to have the guts to say whats on your mind while your still alive ????
We need leaders who are not afraid to speek TRUTH to POWER !

That was my point tho, it worries me that we are so willing to jump into bed with a complete idiot!
That's not a dig at the US but the man is an uneducated fool, but then we follow him...so who is the more foolosh? Gordo may beome the leader of the Labour party but he wont become PM.....I think people may vote Conservative just to oust labour, although polices are so blurred between the two parties there is not much to choose from, as for Blair he saw hooking up with monkeybush as a way of gainer greater power in Europe , which has seriously backfired on him.
Oh and I know you guys didn't vote him in the first time ! But was was up with the second time round
I like this thread BTW

The other guy sucked just as bad and people got confused.

yes quite, this is the problem with modern politics, you are always voting for the lesser of two evils instead of someone you really beleive in and has the capacity to change things.

Some people care that he's black. Already the right-wing talk radio machine is spinning this to say that left-wingers are supporting Obama simply because he is black. It's an issue. (see Rush Limbaugh link earlier in the thread and more at mediamatters.org)You think so? Who would be running against him? I think we've only had one general (Eisenhower) make a successful transition from being a prominent military figure to the presidency. That's a big hurdle.1) Rice has never run for public office, so her career has never relied on voters 2) she was most likely appointed to her positions as a result of her connection to the oil industry, and 3) see Chad's reference to her being an "Uncle Tom" in this thread, so there's at least one person who cares and you'll probably find more. Black politicians run the risk of being perceived as "too black" to some groups and "not black enough" to others. I know it's 2007, but we haven't quite reached that Star Trek standard yet where nobody bats an eye at anyone else's skin color.I'm hoping it happens, it could make for an interesting race.

well, i hear a lot of pseudo well-thought-out arguments here, but regardless of what a bunch of message board pundits say, election time comes and you never know if evil asshole A or evil asshole B will win.

personally, i'm ready to embrace evil asshole c. IF that asshole shows the thoughtfulness, intelligence and balls that it takes to make any real change in america.

this pundit welcomes the shitstorm ^^

i'm randy to choose a candidate that is sick of sucking party dick, but they can't just be any asshole, they need to be asshole with a revolutionary heart.

which of course, leads us to campaign finance reform. lol.

That all depends on how the voting machines have been rigged.

Asshole C never wins though, they just steal asshole a or bs votes. But I agree with a lot of what you said anyway, especially the sucking the party dick part.

It's a lot like the election episode of South Park, you get a Giant Douche or a Shit Sandwhich, and you gotta kind of make your way out of that.

well, of course we all like to be agreed with (hehe)

but the important thing about voting is that (hopefully) we are the only ones who can make asshole c win! ^^ (maybe asshole c wins one day??) and i've also got a tasty secular prayer prepared for a decent option D and E one day

oddly, i remain hopeful. lol

"You think so? Who would be running against him? I think we've only had one general (Eisenhower) make a successful transition from being a prominent military figure to the presidency. That's a big hurdle."

I'd wondered about that. Eisenhower in modern times, but going back, it seems there have been quite a few:

http://www.post-gazette.com/election/20 ... 0928p5.asp

The thing with Eisenhower was that he was able to get over the "generals are war-mongers" image. Sure, he didn't do squat about McCarthy (whose tactics he ddin't agree with), and may have been a bit stubborn in relations with the USSR, but he saw the writing on the wall in terms of the "military-industrial coplex". It's like noone paid any attention, because it's exactly as he saw it would happen: the far too close marriage of the military and the arms manufacturers.

There were plenty of military figures that became president in the first half of this country's history. Not always good presidents, of course. And almost all presidents in the last half have had military experience. There were masses of people who wanted MacArthur to run for president. I think we're leery of it now, due to persistent military failures in the last 30 years - and I think most top brass understand that they would not cope well with the media wringer of a presidential campaign.

I don't get into political arguments much, as I never have the wealth of quotes and stats to back up lame arguments which some people seem to have an abundance of. However, I know what's right. I'm also in the position of paying taxes in the US (HUGE taxes last year, and nothing material to show for it) but also not being eligible to vote. So, you can rest assured if I could, I would.

In the UK voting didn't matter as much to me, but the opinions and policies I have come across in the 8 years I have lived here are so polarized (and in some cases totally insane) compared to the England I remember, that it seems how you vote here, and which party gets elected makes a huge difference to this country and the whole world.

So yeah I'd be voting, and it wouldn't be for a dumbass puppet fuck good old boy either.

Thanks for edumacating me about Presidents with military background, guys. Would there be any other than Eisenhower that went from the status of "war hero" to the office?

And in other news:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/20/ ... index.html

Here's one life-long dem who would seriously consider voting for him... especially if it comes down to him and a certain x first lady. Still if C Rice is an "Uncle Tom" I can't help wondering if people would say that if she were a Dem. And I can't help wondering if Obama would be a "Tom" if he were a Republican. Think outside your parties and predjudices... sure, you'll be lonely but it's worth it

btw... US Grant went from war hero to President... and history tells us how well that worked out

Presidents who served in wars

George Washington - Commander in Chief of Continental Army during the American Revolution.
James Monroe - served in American Revolution
Andrew Jackson - American Revolution, War of 1812, First Seminole War
William Henry Harrison - Indian wars in the NW territory, War of 1812
John Tyler - War of 1812
Zachary Taylor - War of 1812, Black Hawk, Second Seminole, and Mexican wars
Franklin Pierce - Mexican War
James Buchanan - War of 1812
Abraham Lincoln - Black Hawk War
Andrew Johnson - Civil War
Ulysses Grant - Mexican War, Civil War
Rutherford Hayes - Civil War
James Garfield - Civil War
Chester Arthur - Civil War
Benjamin Harrison - Civil War
William McKinley - Civil War
Theodore Roosevelt - Spanish-American War
Harry Truman - WWI
Dwight Eisenhower - WWII General
John Kennedy - WWII
Lyndon Johnson - WWII
Richard Nixon - WWII
Gerald Ford - WWII
George Bush Sr - WWII
Presidents who were in the military but who saw no action

James Madison
James Polk
Millard Fillmore
Jimmy Carter
Ronald Reagan - kept out of combat due to bad eyesight
George Bush Jr

Wikipedia and google can make anyone look intelligent and informed.