Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (43597)	11/21/2007 12:47:33 AM
From: Sam	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541701

If winning the "hearts and minds" of the populations of the world is critical to moderating terrorism and undermining the many economic and political alliances that are forming to counter our "dangerous" power, and I think it is, then Obama should be the kind, reasonable, multi racial face of America. My second choice would be Biden. He's not very articulate and he blunders with words at times but his mind works well and he knows how Washington and the world work. I'm not sure of the order at this point, but those two are my one-two choices as well. And, from what I've been reading on SI and a couple of other places, that seems to be the case with a lot of people who bother to post and state their preferences. I wonder why Biden doesn't poll better? Is it because he is just unknown except among those of us who are news junkies?

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (43597)	11/21/2007 4:32:51 AM
From: KonKilo	Respond to of 541701

I'd have preferred today's Hillary over last election's Kerry or the previous election's Gore but the quality of Obama and Biden drop her to my third choice. I tend to agree with your rankings of the current candidates, but I think Gore would have been an outstanding POTUS. As I said earlier, however, I think she's more of a hawk than a dove and I worry that she might feel the need to prove that she's not a wimp when it comes to the use of military power. Let's make some educated guesses, based on current situations: I strongly doubt she would invade Iran...I think its likely that she'd bomb their nuclear facilities, though...I can't say that I'd disagree with either decision. I think she would draw down troops in Iraq, but leave a permanent presence...I think that any candidate elected will be pretty much forced to do so because of the limited options available there. I can see her lobbing a few cruise missiles at Osama in Pakistan, a la the Big Dog. I can't see her starting a splendid little war such as Grenada. Although her tough talk is one of her least attractive attributes, IMO, I think she'd use military force intelligently, as she does everything else. I cannot see her starting a preemptive war based on murky, shifting objectives. (Sad how low the bar has been set, eh?)