Who will be the next president?

Read more about Joe Biden. At this point he's a long shot but I like him. He's got the experience and he's got a no bullshit attitude that appeals to me.

But Gore could change everything. If (and it's a big IF) he runs he's got my vote just like he did in 2000.

I'm not a Biden fan, but honestly i haven't read too much on his opinions.. I heard that he plagarized a speech during a prez campaign in the 80s and that left a bad taste in my mouth.

Gore is definately the 800 pound gorilla waiting in the wings.. if he is going to run, he'll need to choose his entrypoint wisely. He'd raise SO much money very quickly through the net if he played his cards right, and I think he can win it.. I'm pretty sure he'd get my vote.

From Electoral-vote.com(One of my favorite sites for tracking elections, this guy is great with polls:
"Al Gore is the 800-pound gorilla waiting in the wings. Like Hillary, he has universal name recognition and if he runs, the blogosphere will raise millions for him in a flash. People often ask: "What do the Democrats stand for?" Gore could answer: "Saving the planet; it's the only one we have." He could also quote NYT columnist Tom Friedman and say: "We will never win the war on terror if we keep on financing both sides." The centerpiece of his program could be ethanol as fuel (popular in Iowa and the Midwest), alternative energy, and conservation, with the additional goal of eliminating imports of oil from the Middle East by, say, 2020. That would cut off the terrorists' money supply. His role model could be Richard Nixon, who narrowly lost a bitter election in 1960 (when Mayor Daley raised the dead to vote in great numbers) but came back to win eight years later. But only Al knows if he plans to run."

^^

I agree that Ethanol isn't the best way to go, we should be focusing on other things. I think we do need a president who will make alternative energy a REAL #1 priority though, not just a fake campaign promise. We pretty much know Gore would do that

If Gore doesn't run my vote will probably go to Edwards... There is no chance I am voting for Hillary. I have absolutely NO problem with a woman in the oval office but just.. not that one! If she gets nominated, I'd vote for her in the general election

Glad to see Biden mentioned, as my Senator, i have a lot of respect for him, and his clear views. He may be long winded, but we are to used to short answers.

The debates were interesting. Edwards, Clinton, and Biden seemed to be the best. All three gave strong answers to the questions actually asked of them. Obama just spewed retoric, and brought every question to the retoric, and never answered a question. Bill richardson needs to drop out now, he seemed too nervous. And just because you have a hot wife and want to impeach Cheney Dennis Kucinich, doesnt mean anything. Dodd was ok, but he didnt seem very presidential. and Gravel . . . . .too much of aloose cannon. Dont know if you saw him on the debate . .. although i did agree with him, i didnt know what to expect next,and it was kind of scary . . . lol

Dem Debate Top 3
-Clinton
-Biden
-Edwards

Bottom 2
-Richardson
-Kucinich

Nice Try
-Dodd
-Gravel

Throw in the towel and try again in 8 years
-Obama

if he doesnt get the nomination, i hope he either gets a VP nom, or a great position in the cabinet of our next democrat president

I will be shocked if Biden doesn't say something to wreck his own chances for the Presidency. Barring that scenario, I don't seeing him really grabbing hold of the voters' minds/hearts or nearly enough cash to finance a serious campaign.

However, I do think a Dem will almost definitly win next year and, that being the case, Biden and Richardson will be the two best bets for Secretary of State respectively.

Coincidentally, Biden brushed aside a question of being VP on yesterday's Meet The Press but seemed open to Sec of State.

Yeah - what he said!^^^^

The biggest lesson from the '06 midterms was that the ridiculous "if you're not GOP you're with the terrorists" no longer works as it did in '02/'04. Giuliani's recent comments show a stark inability to acknowledge his own Party's faults re: terrorism and the facts that the Democrats are not in fact in cahoots with the terrorists. But, most of all, it shows he can't seem to comprehend that the American People are no longer going for that kind of rhetoric.

On top of all his other problems this one could be the most disastrous.

This Article is from MSNBC today, and is in response to mr Rudolph Guliani . . . . . . i would like to say, "Oh Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally"

Terror attacks worldwide rise 25 percent in '06
State Department says most attacks in Iraq, Afghanistan



WASHINGTON - Terrorist attacks worldwide shot up by 25 percent between 2005 and last year, killing 40 percent more people as extremists used increasingly lethal means to carry out high-casualty hits, the State Department says.

In its annual global survey of terrorism to be released later Monday, the department says about 14,000 attacks took place in 2006, mainly in Iraq and Afghanistan, claiming more than 20,000 lives. That is 3,000 more attacks than in 2005 and 5,800 more deaths, it says.

In addition, the number of injuries from terrorist attacks rose by 54 percent between 2005 and 2006 with a doubling in the number wounded in Iraq over the period, according to the department’s Country Reports on Terrorism 2006.

The numbers were compiled by the National Counterterrorism Center and refer to deaths and injuries sustained by “noncombatants.”

“By far the largest number of reported terrorist incidents occurred in the Near East and South Asia,” says the 335-page report, referring to the regions where Iraq and Afghanistan are located.

“These two regions also were the locations for 90 percent of all the 290 high-casualty attacks that killed 10 or more people,” says the report, a copy of which was obtained by The Associated Press ahead of its official release.

Almost half in Iraq
The report says 6,600, or 45 percent, of the attacks took place in Iraq, killing about 13,000 people, or 65 percent of the worldwide total of terrorist-related deaths in 2006.

Afghanistan had 749 strikes in 2006, a 50-percent rise from 2005 when 491 attacks were tallied, according to the report.

However, it also details a surge in Africa, where 65 percent more attacks, 420 compared to 253 in 2005, were counted last year, largely due to turmoil in or near Sudan, including Darfur, and Nigeria where oil facilities and workers have been targeted.

The report says terrorists continue to rely mainly on conventional weapons in their attacks, but noted no let up in an alarming trend toward more sophisticated and better planned and coordinated strikes.

For instance, while the number of bombings increased by 30 percent between 2005 and 2006, the death tolls from these incidents rose by 39 percent and the number of injuries rose by 45 percent, it says.

Suicide bombings figure in totals
The report attributes the higher casualty figures to a 25 percent jump in the number of nonvehicular suicide bombings targeting large crowds that more than made up for a slight 12 percent dip in suicide attacks involving vehicles.

In Iraq, the use of chemical weapons, seen for the first time in November 23, 2006 attack in Sadr City “signaled a dangerous strategic shift in tactics,” it says.

Of the 58,000 people killed or wounded in terrorist attacks around the world in 2006, more than 50 percent were Muslims, the report says, with government officials, police and security guards accounting for a large proportion.

But growing numbers of teachers, journalists and children are increasingly becoming victims, it says.

The number of child casualties from terrorist attacks soared by more than 80 percent between 2005 and 2006 to more than 1,800 while strikes against educators were up more than 45 percent and those on journalists up 20 percent, the report says.

© 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

well - I have already outed myself as a Republican but I gotta say that if Guiliani were to get the nomination - I will be seriously looking at other candidates (I would look at them all regardless) and my reasoning for not voting for Guiliani is probably what would be considered a rediculous one - the man cheated on his wife. Please don't smite me for my opinon.

That said - I am either a very liberal Republican or a conservative Democrat - wait - I guess I am just middle-of-the-road really, huh?

That too - I just do not like the man or his actions.

so did hitler's

only his "methods" Let's just say i wouldn't wanna be homeless and "put on a train" during his administration


oh, and maybe using 9/11 as political leverage ala reichtgeist(please excuse my spelling)


not trying to start a war here-this is a good civil thread and i've seen 'em get locked in the past.

just drawing a comparison to say the "ends" don't always justify the "means"