Here’s a site which surveys you on a number of issues and then sizes up the potential candidates based on your responses:
selectsmart.com/FREE/select. … 4Elections
The former link is for all candidates, the latter is for democratic candidates only (if they were to nominate Satan himself, I’d probably vote for him over Dubya!)
Good stuff, Vay. Thanks. 
It says I should vote for Teddy Roosevelt. Is he still around? They don’t make 'em like that anymore. W is a sissy compared to him.
What does it matter? You’re getting Ahhhnold. For your sins.
I’m hoping it’ll turn into Donald Rumsfeld vs. Al Sharpton. I think that would be cool.
For California, I’m thinking Coleman–the OTHER “Arnold”!
I prefer the libertarian guy - but that must be because I am European.
Damn, so far I’m the only one on this thread without an avatar! What a complete LOOSER I am!
My take on the Democratic candidates:
Wesley Clark - the best candidate. 1st in his class at West Point. Went to Oxford(heheheheheh - should have went to LSE). Served and was injured in Vietnam. While he was putting his life on the line, Bush was snorting coke and drinking endless kegs of beer on the Houston cocktail circuit.
Dean - My second choice. Possibly a good VP candidate. Rove is trying to portray him as representing the “McGovern” wing of the Democratic Party. In fact, his record as Governor of Vermont was impressive, and, overall, quite moderate - balanced budgets and almost universal health care in the state. However, people in the South won’t vote for him, so I think a VP slot would be better.
Kerry - To patrician to have appeal outside of New England.
Graham - good man…relative of the late Katherine Graham, owner of the Washingon Post. However, not much appeal outside of Florida.
Lieberman - too right-wing. I will never forgive this dude for beating the great liberal Republican Lowell Weicker. That would be one time when I would have voted for the elephant over the donkey.
Gephardt - too closely aligned with old labour.
Edwards - too inexperienced. Would have been smarter to serve one more term in the Senate.
Sharpton, M-Braun, and Kucinich - not serious candidates.
Of course this changes if Hillary enters the race.
Chewy
ps- can someone give me 50 more GUANXI - I want to put my Chewy Avatar up!!!
Does anyone think HilBil will enter this year, or is she biding her time until 2008… when the race would be Hil vs. Powell… (my dream race, who will the americans choose, a woman or a black man?) 
Jeez, I did the survey and it came up with Jim Carey! What the hell does that mean? Actually, honestly I got Dennis J. Kucinich, but I don’t think I’m THAT much of a heart-bleeder!
Seriously, I’m for the Clark/Dean ticket myself. I’d love to call up my conservative dad and say “Ok, Dad, who’s it gonna be: the coke-snorting, alcoholic draft-dodger, or the 4-star general, top-of-his-class-at-West Point Rhodes-Scholar?”
Wesley Clark looks like the strongest Democrat on paper, because he can outflank Bush and any other Republican. Clark can get the leftist liberal vote because he’s a Democrat and win most of the center ground and who knows, even some moderate Republicans tired of Bush, because of his military background. Other Democrats could not hope to do that.
His only weak point according to the media, is that he started late in the race, which might saddle him up with money problems. And we all know money still matters a lot in election races.
Agreed… but this kid is fishy…
businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnf … _db038.htm
[quote=“Business Week”]Wesley Clark: Still Not a Democrat
Turns out the Presidential candidate hasn’t yet changed his party affiliation as a registered independent in Arkansas
It may come as a surprise to some of his supporters, but Democratic Presidential candidate Wesley K. Clark still hasn’t joined the Democratic Party. According to the Pulaski County (Ark.) Voter Registrar’s office, the former four-star general remains a registered independent. Even though he has been a declared candidate for the Dem nomination for two weeks now, he has yet to officially change his party affiliation.
A Clark campaign spokesman at first told BusinessWeek that the former general had in fact updated his voter registration to reflect his newfound status as a Democrat. But a call to the Pulaski County Voter Registrar indicated otherwise. When asked to explain the discrepancy, campaign consultant Mark Fabiani says Clark hadn’t yet had time to register as a Democrat.
He adds that the fledgling White House seeker plans to make his Democratic status official as soon as he gets a breather. “This has been a whirlwind two weeks,” says Fabiani. “There are a lot of things we have to do, and that’s one of them.”
COLD COMFORT? Fabiani notes that Clark’s independent record – coupled with the fact that he voted for Ronald Reagan – could boost his bipartisan appeal in a general election. And even if Clark doesn’t get around to updating his registration, he’ll be able to vote for himself in the Democratic primary. Arkansas, like many other states, allows everyone to vote in primaries regardless of party affiliation.
Of course, Clark must first win over Democratic voters in the upcoming primaries if he’s to take on Bush in a general election – still more than a year away. And on top of disclosures that he voted for Reagan and possibly Richard Nixon for President and lavishly praised Team Bush in some post-September 11 public speeches, this latest revelation can only come as cold comfort to party stalwarts.
When the Iowa and New Hampshire primary contests roll around, core Democrats may respond better to Howard Dean’s boast that he comes from “the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party” and not have much use for a candidate for whom that doesn’t seem to matter much.[/quote]
But then… one shouldn’t always believe in what he reads in paper nowadays… especially when it’s a source from the United States…
[quote]What does it matter? You’re getting Ahhhnold. For your sins.
[/quote]
I’d vote for him, but only if he’d promise to personally hunt down our enemies and destroy them. Imagine this scenario:
Arnold: Hey Osama, remember when I promised to kill you last?
Bin Ladin (relieved): Yeah, yeah, that’s right President Schwarzenegger, you did!
Arnold: I LIED!!! (BLAM BLAM BLAM!)
[quote=“Vay”][quote]What does it matter? You’re getting Ahhhnold. For your sins.
[/quote]
I’d vote for him, but only if he’d promise to personally hunt down our enemies and destroy them. Imagine this scenario:
Arnold: Hey Osama, remember when I promised to kill you last?
Bin Ladin (relieved): Yeah, yeah, that’s right President Schwarzenegger, you did!
Arnold: I LIED!!! (BLAM BLAM BLAM!)[/quote]
Wow What a Week.
The BoSox come back with a vengeance and on the brink of elimination to beat the As
The Colts down more than 21 points with 4 minutes, don’t call it a comeback.
CAL beats USC (ok this was last week. but hey, CAL Football winning??)
I believe in such an atmosphere, Arnie will become the Governator.
Well, you called it. Sigh… FOR GOD’S SAKE, I WAS ONLY JOKING!!! This is what happens when the Fox Network becomes America’s source of information. I swear, the slogan of the American electorate should be “Rebel against intelligence!” That’s what they seem to be doing…
Cheney will never be President. He might not even be the next VP.
Cheney will never be President. He might not even be the next VP.[/quote]
Agreed. He is a liability to any ticket because of his heart condition. Bush has two choices. He can replace Cheney in 2004, but this might hurt his chances of reelection. Otherwise, the Republicans will have to start with a fresh canidate in 2008. If Bush doesn’t pick a different running mate for 2004, he will squander his party’s incumbent status for the 2008 presidential election.
Cheney will never be President. He might not even be the next VP.[/quote]
Agreed. He is a liability to any ticket because of his heart condition. Bush has two choices. He can replace Cheney in 2004, but this might hurt his chances of reelection. Otherwise, the Republicans will have to start with a fresh canidate in 2008. If Bush doesn’t pick a different running mate for 2004, he will squander his party’s incumbent status for the 2008 presidential election.[/quote]
Not if Bush is hoping little brother Jeb will take up the Republican banner in 2008. If that’s the case, then Cheney is a perfect VP. He apparently has no presidential ambitions of his own, and even if he did, it’s doubtful he could take the nomination. George, on the other hand, can’t pick his younger brother to be his V.P. That leaves Cheney as the perfect VP candidate to secure sixteen years of Bush. A young attractive VP might use the office to wrestle the 2008 presidential nomination away from Jeb.
So instead of sixteen years of Bush/Cheney, you can look forward to sixteen years of just Bush. 
Damn Coldfront:
That’s exactly what I was going to write! Amen to that!
fred
Great minds…