Giuliani, Romney, Obama and Edwards on foreign policy

not even gonna bother reading...
none of them are ever gonna be President.

thanks for the link.........
who will be the next president?

Giuliani has a chance, and all of them have a chance of becoming VP.

Also, reading these articles gives a pretty good insight into the different camps in foreign policy right now.

Thompson, Clinton or Giuliani.

Not in that order, by the way.

Ordered by chances, I'd say the field now looks like this:

Giuliuni (good chance of winning the primary, good chance of winning the election)
Clinton (very good chance of winning the primary, decent chance of winning the election)
Thompson (medium chance of winning the primary, decent chance of winning the election)
Obama (low to medium chance of winning the primary, good chance of winning the election)

Basically, Clinton is almost certain to get the democratic nomination, and she would be likelier to lose than to win against Giuliani, but likelier to win than to lose against Thompson. Giuliani is very likely to get the republican nomination, and if he does get it, he has a very high chance of winning the election. Obama could win the election if he were nominated, but it doesn't seem very likely that that will happen. Meanwhile, Thompson would be somewhat likely to lose against either Clinton or Obama, but he's got a shot at getting the republican nomination.

No others on the dem side stand a chance of getting the nomination. On the rep side, Romney has a small but significant chance of getting it, but he would definitely lose the election.

This is all speculation based on the assumption that nobody will severely mess up in the next year and a half. Of course, that assumption is wrong and someone will certainly mess up, and that may well determine the outcome of the election.

I pretty much agree with you. On the Rep site McCain is on a downslide and Thompson has not even formally announced yet. Romney is way too conservative. I think he won't fly too well in the states that are not dark red. He probably will, but his curve is looking a lot like Howard Dean did in the last election. He has some grass roots support and is raising money in non-typical ways, but he is basically just another cookie cutter republican so I don't think he will win the nod. Rudy has the best chance of getting the nomination. I think on the dems side it will be hillary and she may even end up with Obama as her VP. That would be smart for him because he is young so if she serves two terms it puts him in a great place to step up to the presidency.

I think hilary Vs rudy will be close. The hardcore right doesn't want to support rudy for several reason, but they hate clinton so they would probably support him out of spite for her. Also he has a chance to win New York. He probably won't, but he should be able to make NY close which causes hilary to have to spend time, money and effort to keep what is typically a democrat stronghold state which will weaken her campaign. Ultimately I think rudy is enough of a social moderate that he will be able to bring in enough independents to win the race.

Anything could happen because we are still a long ways away, but as of right now I would say if rudy wins the republican nomination he wins the whole thing. if any other republican wins the nomination they lose to the democrat which is likely to be hilary or obama.

rudy and hilary are so bad that when one of them win, you will be wishing you had bush back

It may be more relevent for them to forget foreign policy and clear up the back yard first. US "foreign policy" has been a total disaster for decades and the source of many current problems - it has been harmful internationally and to the US.

And.. any politician stating his/her views on any topic prior to an election, cannot be trusted with five cents. It's pointless.

Isolationism doesn't work, so a foreign policy is unavoidable.

And while politicians often change their views after elections, what they say and write beforehand often gives a good indication of what they'll do. Hell, the neo-conservatist doctrine was pretty much announced in FA beforehand.

Edit: bleh.

Sure... not thinking of isolationism, tho that has succeeded fairly well with the current foreign policy

There is a role for the US internationally along with all other nations - the difference is other nations are inclined to stay out of the affairs of folks and not create stupid dramas and pretend to be the world's policeman. An international role involves diplomacy and I've never seen any of that lately - have you? More like total ignorance.

I started reading some of the links above and actually gave up. Sure there are good bits here and there, but obvious these are people playing games to get elected.

Example... Giuliani. This is a guy who is already unstable in his personal life with the only claim to fame being that he was the Mayor of New York when 9/11 happened.

To quote him...

A dreamer selling a dream which will never happen - there are no "victors". Terrorism has never ever been "defeated" - if anything, it was a negotiated peace over decades and a very hard path along the way.

WTF is he talking about? That was a quick second point. Never knew "terrorists" were targetting some "international system". He's blabbering.

Hell.. he's off on "global speculation" next. There is nothing wrong with building a stronger defense - tho that has already been overcooked and played straight into the hands of "terrorists" by costing billions in an over-reaction as an ineffective response. Have you ever seen other countries affected by terrorist activity throw their hands, together with billions of dollars, into the air and over-react so badly while enacting laws which intrude on their own citizens? It's exactly the effect any "self respecting terrorist" could have hoped for. The US today is certainly not "a safer place" - probably the complete reverse.

"Determined diplomacy" smells of "forced diplomacy" and more playing hardball. If this is supposed to be a course for success - more dreaming. Perhaps "sustained diplomacy" may be more relevant.

On "expanding our economic and cultural influence". The US will go bust before any economic influence has any effect - and few countries want or need any economic influence from the US. They are often in a far more stable economic condition than the US currently is. What makes Giuliani think any nation or people are interested in his version of culture?? Cultures existed long before the US was ever heard of and these will not be changing in Giuliani's lifetime. We are still in the colonial "sphere of influence" age - that passed decades ago.

If this was said by the "management" of any other western country, the population would burst out laughing. Sounds more like terminology which would apply to Communism or the "ideals" behind the Ayrian race under the Third Reich. There is nothing "honorable" about "American ideals" or the "ideals" of any other country - they all have skeletons in the cupboard.

And so on blah.... Giuliani may have been a good "city manager" (tho he has his critics), but if this is a sample of potential material for the next US President - God bless America. That country sure will need it.

Only my - the time for bullshit is over. This is a crucial time for the US and there are many problems to resolve, forgetting a damage recovery exercise on many levels. Got no interest or preference in any party or candidates - whoever is elected will have a massive challenge to get the US economically sustainable and that will take longer than two presidential terms of office. Only my thought, but doubt this will ever happen and doubt there will be a candidate with the ability to do more than have the "best democracy money can buy". In that case, it's a constant downwards spiral.