If you woke up one morning and turned on the TV and saw that the US had been attacked....

[hiaasenrocks]

which candidate would you want in the Oval Office and why?

Disclaimer: I'm fully aware that there is a contingent of people who think any question about terrorism is "playing the fear card," but this is a sincere question. I'd appreciate some sincere answers.

[Xenotime]

1. Al Gore.

He's about the only person who understands what is going on and knows how to communicate.

[Olney Blue]

2. Hillary Clinton.

But I would trust Barack Obama as well.

[saracat]

3. Seriously? Of the remaining two? Hillary. She would surround herself with competant people and have

the best instincts.She was not my favorite for many reasons but in an instance such as this, ashe is the ONLT one of the two that has the ability to make considered decision.

[DJ13]

4. Obama

Hillary has already proven with her IWR vote that she's not above attacking the wrong country for the wrong reason.

[jasmine621]

9. In this scenario you are President. You don't get to "vote." nt

[DJ13]

16. In this scenario you are President. You don't get to "vote."

If her ability to discern right from wrong is too clouded by politics to make the right "vote" on a matter like invading a soveriegn nation without cause, theres no reason to expect she can make the right decision in a time of real crisis where her decisions are more than just a simple vote.

[BlackVelvet04]

24. Obama's ability to discern right from wrong

wasn't so great when he actually had to use his judgment concerning something he wanted. We'll never know what he would have done had he been called upon to make a vote....even he said he doesn't know. But we do know his judgment sucked when he got involved in a land deal with Rezko.

See, there's a difference in saying you have great judgment and then actually using great judgment.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hieronymus]

6. Obama .. especially since Hillary lied about her vote to go to war. Scary.

[bidenista]

7. Hillary nt

[killbotfactory]

8. Obama

He would retaliate against the right country or group of terrorists, instead of just attacking Iran.

[calmblueocean]

10. Obama, because Hillary has shown she still has an American Empire mentality.

I really do see Hillary as Bush Lite, at least in terms of her foreign policy. And she's shown that she thinks she has to "demonstrate" how tough she is, because she thinks people will underestimate her as a woman. I really wouldn't like to see her reaction, or her Bush-like overreaction, if we're attacked again.

[Hart2008]

11. If we had Gary Hart in office, the attacks could have been prevented.

Hart is the foremost expert on defending the homeland and predicted 9-11.

Hart can defend the homeland without violating civil rights.

[Redstone]

15. Hart is the one we missed. Christ, I wish he had the sense to keep his hands to himself

back then; he had a real change until he blew it.

Redstone

[Hart2008]

47. 20 years later, and there isn't a single woman to make that claim. Ask Carville about the rumors.

Does the quote, purportedly from Newsweek, that Hart could have a problem in the campaign "if he can't keep his pants on," sound like Carville?


Carville had been laid off from Hart's '84 campaign, a protege of Hart media consultant and advisor, Ray Strothers, and working for Clinton.

Clinton had wanted to be Hart's V.P. in '88, but flunked the interview. Clinton hired Strothers after his successful work for Hart's '84 campaign. Strothers was now working for two men who wanted to be President. Strothers pushed Hart to interview Clinton to be his V.P. After the interview, Hart told Strothers that Clinton had "no core" and didn't "believe in anything". (Strothers wrote about this in his book, Falling Up.) Carville would repeat these lines, almost verbatim, but attribute them to Kenneth Starr.

Twenty years later, there still isn't a single woman who has come forward by name to allege she had a sexual relationship with Hart. (Donna Rice always denied her relationship with Hart was sexual, and never made a dime for herself from the notoriety.)

But twenty years later, a mystery still remains: Who was the self described "liberal Democrat" woman who kept calling the Miami Herald to goad them into following Donna Rice to D.C.?

Why hasn't that woman written a book?

[ruggerson]

12. Clinton without a doubt

[Cleita]

13. If 9-11 proved nothing else, it proved that we can't be invaded.

This country is too big sitting between two oceans for that to happen. Yes, we got attacked and we rallied forth with practically no leadership. Yet, we do not have Al Queda and the Taliban governing us, nor will we ever. Our problems are that we are being attacked from within and that's what has happened to us since Bush selection 2000.

We need to fight the enemy at home not abroad. Yes, we will probably have Pearl Harbor types of attacks in the future, but no foreign nation will be able to occupy us unless we sell ourselves to them and that seems to be happening as I type this. However, it seems we are going to have to choose between the same patricians in our system who will maintain the status quo and allow the same pigs to keep eating at the trough and selling us to foreign investors.

[CJCRANE]

33. Good answer.

Also note that once the day (of 9/11) was over it was obvious that that kind of attack would probably never happen again. It took a neocon sympathesiser with some anthrax letters to keep the fear and paranoia going.

[SammyWinstonJack]

38. ...

:thumbsup:

[ShadowLiberal]

14. Obama

He wouldn't let us get distracted from attacking our real enemies (the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11) by invading some random nation simply because their leader is hated in America even though they clearly had nothing to do with any attacks on us on US soil.

[Lint Head]

17. Obama. Because he voted against the illegal war in Iraq and

thinks the emphasis should be on Afghanistan, searching for Bin Laden and policing the Taliban. :dem:

[BlackVelvet04]

26. dude....

he didn't cast a vote.

[MonkeyFunk]

28. He voted against the war?!?!

wow.

[intheozone]

29. No, Obama didn't "vote" against the Iraq war, he

wasn't in the Senate in Oct. 2002, he was sitting on the sideline. So, although he has said he would have voted against it (and also has said he doesn't know how he would have voted had he actually had to cast a vote), he didn't have his ass on the line at the time so nobody really knows what he would have done. He might have voted "present" or even have pushed the wrong button and voted yes when he meant to vote no or visa versa (as he did in the state senate a number of times). :shrug:

[WinkyDink]

18. Neither one, for it would mean he/she had already FAILED, just as Bush FAILED pre-9/11.

But this is a good question for a bar bet.

[Nimrod2005]

19. Simple: Obama, because his judgment proved RIGHT!

[WinkyDink]

21. Right? How so, when the premise is he would be President and THEN we were attacked?

[FarCenter]

20. It depends on the meaning of "attacked"?

What do you have in mind?

- anonymous suicide bomber at the Mall of America?

- planes ramming into buildings?

- dirty bomb at the superbowl?

- nuclear cruise missle launched at Washington from a freighter in the Chesapeake?

- Russian first strike?

In the first three cases, I'd prefer Obama. In the last two, I'd prefer that McCain is in the White House.

[WinkyDink]

23. Your last 2 choices = not a Democrat.

[1awake]

22. I would pick

either one of them in reference to the scenario. I lean Obama, but think Hillary would do fine as well (on this issue). But whoever gets in office, for god sake, pleeeaassee rename the Dept of Homeland Security! I hate the word.. homeland.. makes me think of Nazi Germany of some reason. Better yet.. get rid of that dept all together.

[BlackVelvet04]

25. Hillary Clinton. n/t

[Straight Shooter]

27. Hillary Clinton. n/t

[Iwasthere]

30. Obama 100%

Wise

[shaniqua6392]

31. Hillary Clinton. n/t

[demo dutch]

32. Hillary Clinton. Watch for the October surprise!

[TexasObserver]

34. Obama

His 2002 speech about Iraq reveals a person with a sound understanding of foreign policy, foreign entanglements, and war. Any fool can overreact. It takes real leadership not to.

[demo dutch]

35. That's why the resolution vote is a none issue. It's about what's to come!

[newmajority]

36. John McCain SO WE COULD NUKE THEM FORRENER BASTARDS !!!!!1!1!!!!!!!11!!!!!

KILL EM ALL AND LET GOD SORT EM OUT!! :nuke:



















:sarcasm:

[SaveOurDemocracy]

37. Hillary Clinton n/t

[Vinca]

39. It wouldn't matter. Shrub would declare martial law and stay. nt

[Neshanic]

40. Hillary

[Azathoth]

41. I would want a President who didn't base their actions and decisions on the latest poll numbers

In other words, I would want Obama.

[The Delegates]

42. As much as this response will be hated

Of the current crop: Mccain, at least initially. But that's only initially. Long term probably Barack.

No matter what you think about the Republicans and Bush, their immediate foreign policy handling of 9/11 was perfect. They went after the right people swiftly.

However, they screwed it up with the Patriot Act, warrantless surveillance, and the Iraq war.

[Jed Dilligan]

43. Either one would do fine, I think

It is about number 90000000 on my list of issues facing the country.

[emilyg]

44. Clinton. No doubt.

[LWolf]

45. NEITHER. n/t

[LordJFT]

46. Obama