Democratic 2016 Presidential Field

[EEL123]

Bush senior was also reasonably responsible with foreign policy. He knew when to hold back, and knew when to blow the shit out of you. Not like his son, who was all gung-ho "kick a towel-head ass", or Obama, who pisses himself (possibly literally ) whenever something goes wrong.

Back on the original topic, I think that obviously Hillary is by far the most viable candidate (primary and general election). Biden is a strong possibility if she doesn't run, but he's a bit gaffe-prone and that may prove an issue. I know that Elizabeth Warren is loved by many Democrats, but she is about as electable as Ted Cruz (moderates would never go near either).

[Afrocentric]

Bush senior was also reasonably responsible with foreign policy. He knew when to hold back, and knew when to blow the shit out of you. Not like his son, who was all gung-ho "kick a towel-head ass", or Obama, who pisses himself (possibly literally ) whenever something goes wrong.

Back on the original topic, I think that obviously Hillary is by far the most viable candidate (primary and general election). Biden is a strong possibility if she doesn't run, but he's a bit gaffe-prone and that may prove an issue. I know that Elizabeth Warren is loved by many Democrats, but she is about as electable as Ted Cruz (moderates would never go near either).

Obama has been on point w/ his FP decisions. I think he chooses to analyze the situation instead of just going into the situation "gung ho".

[soysauce]

Bush senior was also reasonably responsible with foreign policy. He knew when to hold back, and knew when to blow the shit out of you. Not like his son, who was all gung-ho "kick a towel-head ass", or Obama, who pisses himself (possibly literally ) whenever something goes wrong.

Back on the original topic, I think that obviously Hillary is by far the most viable candidate (primary and general election). Biden is a strong possibility if she doesn't run, but he's a bit gaffe-prone and that may prove an issue. I know that Elizabeth Warren is loved by many Democrats, but she is about as electable as Ted Cruz (moderates would never go near either).

Obama has been on point w/ his FP decisions. I think he chooses to analyze the situation instead of just going into the situation "gung ho".

I'm really not a fan of his indecision over Syria, his support has prolonged the war and resulted in tens of thousands of deaths but it's all for naught since he won't do enough to let the rebels win but he won't let them lose and the war end either. You can't play games like that with that many lives.

[PaleRider]

Obama has been on point w/ his FP decisions. I think he chooses to analyze the situation instead of just going into the situation "gung ho".

Clearly you are smoking some sort of controlled substance! I swear, President Barry's dithering on Syria, and fecklessness on the whole Ukraine-Russia matter has made me lose all confidence in his foreign policy. He lacks vision and he has retrenched American power too much and left a vacuum of sorts. Where Bush (Jr) over used American power and became too fixated on the War on Terror, Barry here has refused to even act or get people to act on a range of international issues. We live in a time right now that calls for leadership, vision and boldness (not necessarily military wise but you get the picture), to not be afraid to act, to be above all creative. Obama lacks all of that, or at least the policies he propagates do. We ran out of Iraq with our tail between our legs and instead of creating the presence to keep Iraq together we pulled out and now violence there is on the rise. In Afghanistan, we have again seen feckless leadership and lost strategies while across the world (whether dealing with our allies or the failed "Reset" with Russia) the US continues to retrench too far and too fast.
Now if you want to continue to debate foreign policy of the US and Obummer create another thread however back to the topic on hand....

so it seems there is a general loathing of Governor O'Malley here eh? Well if Clinton doesn't run who would be the standard bearer of the Democrats? And would Clinton be a good nominee? I don't think so for the reasons I previously stated

[EEL123]

Obama has been on point w/ his FP decisions. I think he chooses to analyze the situation instead of just going into the situation "gung ho".

He dithers. Dithering is not analysing.

[Afrocentric]

Clearly you are smoking some sort of controlled substance! I swear, President Barry's dithering on Syria, and fecklessness on the whole Ukraine-Russia matter has made me lose all confidence in his foreign policy. He lacks vision and he has retrenched American power too much and left a vacuum of sorts. Where Bush (Jr) over used American power and became too fixated on the War on Terror, Barry here has refused to even act or get people to act on a range of international issues. We live in a time right now that calls for leadership, vision and boldness (not necessarily military wise but you get the picture), to not be afraid to act, to be above all creative. Obama lacks all of that, or at least the policies he propagates do. We ran out of Iraq with our tail between our legs and instead of creating the presence to keep Iraq together we pulled out and now violence there is on the rise. In Afghanistan, we have again seen feckless leadership and lost strategies while across the world (whether dealing with our allies or the failed "Reset" with Russia) the US continues to retrench too far and too fast.
Now if you want to continue to debate foreign policy of the US and

I am not, nor have I ever been on crack. Obama's FP has largely been that of Bush 43, minus the "gung ho" attitude that us Neo-Cons like. If you were objective and not a walking, talking robot who constantly spews out Right-Wing talking points, you'd see that. Do you know any Democrat, let alone one that calls himself a "Progressive" that has the balls to even consider a war in Syria, allow Gitmo to remain open or even use Drones? Take the partisan glasses off for a minute and realize Obama is just the much less ADHD version of Junior.

Has he had misfires; you bet. His inability to act on Syria has cost hundreds of thousands of lives and I believe he was wrong on getting out of Afghanistan, we need to be there at least until 2020, but to sit here and postulate that Obama has "ruined" America's FP standing (W did that) is pure partisan hackery at its finest.

Obummer...

Stay classy Pale

[PaleRider]

Alright back to topic haha so outside of Hillary, who would be a viable Democratic nominee?

[EEL123]

Alright back to topic haha so outside of Hillary, who would be a viable Democratic nominee?

I think that Andrew Cuomo may be a viable nominee (that is, if Hillary doesn't run, because frankly if she does nobody has a real chance of capturing the nomination - and before you throw Obama at me, she was not as far ahead in 2008 as she was now). From what I've heard, he's been doing a good job (even if I'm wrong, the fact that people are getting that impression is a plus for him), he's not too loony-left (hey, it's not just the Tea Party that is way outside the ideological comfort zone of swing voters), doesn't have any skeletons (so far as I know), is from New York (lots of big donor money holed up there), is experienced (as well as Governor, he's been HUD Secretary, among other things) and has a reasonable name recognition (not instantly recognisable, of course, but still). None of the other candidates (prominent candidates, that is; there may be a dark horse that we don't yet know of) have so many things on their side. Biden, for example, is too gaffe-prone and too old (that's not me being ageist; it's just that people mumble about that sort of thing). Warren is too far left (before you left-wingers complain, we're not talking Norway - this is America we're talking about). O'Malley, Schweitzer, etc - who the hell are they?

[PaleRider]

Alright back to topic haha so outside of Hillary, who would be a viable Democratic nominee?

I think that Andrew Cuomo may be a viable nominee (that is, if Hillary doesn't run, because frankly if she does nobody has a real chance of capturing the nomination - and before you throw Obama at me, she was not as far ahead in 2008 as she was now). From what I've heard, he's been doing a good job (even if I'm wrong, the fact that people are getting that impression is a plus for him), he's not too loony-left (hey, it's not just the Tea Party that is way outside the ideological comfort zone of swing voters), doesn't have any skeletons (so far as I know), is from New York (lots of big donor money holed up there), is experienced (as well as Governor, he's been HUD Secretary, among other things) and has a reasonable name recognition (not instantly recognisable, of course, but still). None of the other candidates (prominent candidates, that is; there may be a dark horse that we don't yet know of) have so many things on their side. Biden, for example, is too gaffe-prone and too old (that's not me being ageist; it's just that people mumble about that sort of thing). Warren is too far left (before you left-wingers complain, we're not talking Norway - this is America we're talking about). O'Malley, Schweitzer, etc - who the hell are they?

Cuomo is a whackado. He seems "sensible" in New York but talk to anyone outside of NYC and Albany and its the same sad story its been since Pataki left office in 2007. More corruption, more regulation, nothing getting done. I mean I see all these adds about how NY is open for business and such and such and I talk to my family and friends back there and its all smoke and mirrors.
And if I remember correctly, while he was at the US Department of Housing and Urban Development he laid the ground work for 2008 mortgage collapse by pushing banks to lend to people who shouldn't have gotten loans.

[EEL123]

It's perception that matters. I don't care if he kills kittens in his spare time - if people don't see it that way, he's a viable candidate.