How will the Bhutto assination effect who you vote for in 2008?

Talk about a potential powder keg. This could make Iran and Iraq look like warm-up acts. If this turns the Pakistani people against al-Qaeda, it could end up being a good thing for us. If it turns into civil war in a nuclear power, and especially if India decides to send in troops to “establish stability,” it could be a very bad thing for everyone in the world. And if it turns out it was al-Qaeda and not Musharraf, adds fuel to all sorts of issues about the wisdom of a war against Islamic terrorism (and like any lawyer, I can see ways to use this in support of a variety of positions).

In times of war or near-war, I’ve always thought it was good to have a President with a little bit of that wacked edge to them. The kind of President other leaders would hesitate to provoke because you weren’t sure they wouldn’t send a bomber wing to remove your presidential palace, or Marines to “establish stability.” It always seemed to be effective in getting other leaders to hesitate before acting against our interest.

Thus, Carter was not a good wartime president. Just too quiet and calm. Bush, Sr., not a good wartime president. Again, too calm. Truman, better wartime president – kind of cranky. Reagan, good wartime president, willing to chew gum and kick butt, and frequently out of gum.

Using that principle alone, and excluding all other issues, I’d think you’ve got to go with McCain, Giuliani or Clinton. McCain has that wacked out edge, plus the experience to know exactly how to go about it. Giulani has that wacked out edge, and he’s like that little psycho kid on the block who would win fights just by keeping his teeth locked around the bigger kid’s ankle until the big kid gives up. I’d question the reasons why Clinton would go to war, and her desire to stay in a war, but if she ended up taking the war personally, it wouldn’t end until she had somebody’s testicles in a jar on a shelf next to Bill’s.

Come to think of it, if Paul hadn’t already established himself as “anti-war,” I’d finally have to throw some support his way on the “wacked edge” principle. Kucenich- wrong kind of “wacked edge.”

I would not elect a woman, she is libel to go an get herself killed. That woman put herself out there. It was only a matter of time. That is the issue, women act on emotion and the emotional choice can have predictable outcomes. As soon as she decided to leave the comforts of America and try to take back a country she was exiled from, who now has a military dictator, was it rational to think there would any other outcome?

@extolsmith – you have got to be kidding, right? If you’re not, I hope you’ll refrain from adding such senseless sexism to the Fluther community in the future.
Women are as capable of governing as men. They make the same mistakes, the same advancements, and they don’t “act on emotion” any less than men make rash decisions. In fact, I think that when women are in power, they are under so much pressure to prove that they can make non-emotional judgments that they act even more masculine than men—i.e., Margaret Thatcher, Golda Meir…And let’s not forget that the bottom line is—if you are a reformer and stand for true change, others see you as a threat, whether you’re female or not ( JFK, Martin Luther King, RFK—I could go on listing men who “got themselves killed”—in your words) but I hope I’ve made my point.

This tragedy will not affect who I am voting for, a Democrat, and as long as the country feels the same as I, we can begin to get some balance and clear thinking into our leadership—and that will affect our international policies as well as our national ones. With some excellent and intelligent leadership, perhaps we can stop this hemorrhaging of our money, good will, young men and women, optimism, and power that is now engulfing us.

It will not affect my vote. I will vote for the Democrat that gets the nod. I will not vote for any of the Republicans.

I have to confess, I’m completely torn…maybe even confused at this point.

I know OUR problems with Muslim extremists are connected to this absurd policy that EVERYONE wants to live in a democratic world. That’s simply NOT TRUE. Muslim extremists want everyone to live in a Muslim world….a Muslim world as they interpret it. If we stayed out of other people’s business and cleaned up our own house, we’d probably be better off.

In that case, Ron Paul, Obama, Kucinich, and maybe Biden would work.

On the other hand…we’ve already made this bed and we have to sleep in it. In THAT case, no one would probably be better than McCain. He’s a “chew gum and kick butt“kind of guy.

I dont’ see Hillary as much good. Bin Laden made a name for himself on their watch…and they didn’t slow it down one bit. G.W…has totally made a mess of things and , probably, NO ONE could do worse.

But, the more I think about the level-headed-ness and pro-negotiation stance that Biden takes….along with the fact that he’s extremely experienced…

are you getting the picture? I have no idea anymore. It’s such a nasty mess that maybe NO ONE can clean it up. maybe the best approach is to back away. I don’t know.

I really like Obama. But, now I’m pretty sure I need to vote with my head and not my heart. I think Ron paul is right that we should have never gotten involved in the first place. But, we ARE involved. So, his stance, although morally correct, is unrealistic.

I know this much.: I can’t answer my own question.

I love how we have become a country that elects presidents based on killing people. If we keep doing this, we will be in war forever. Im looking foward to my future. I have lost almost all intentions on having any kids ever.
Lets close the borders, leave these people alone, and let them kill each other off.

gee, chris, that policy really didn’t work too well for Neville Chamberlain. Sure am glad FDR decided to change his mind about not getting involved in someone else’s war. It’s really hard to say which is worse, imperialism or appeasement and isolationism.

And the point is, if the bad guy is sure you don’t have a problem with using force, the rational bad guy (which of course isn’t all of them) is less likely to use force himself.

http://www.parade.com/benazir_bhutto_interview.html

Notice the last paragraph of article?
She would tell him, she replies, that propping up Musharraf’s government, which is infested with radical Islamists, is only hastening disaster. “I would say, ‘Your policy of supporting dictatorship is breaking up my country.’ I now think al-Qaeda can be marching on Islamabad in two to four years.”

For those of you who are convinced you must vote Democrat, or Republican, regardless of the choices of nominees offered by that party, does it occur to you that as long as a significant percentage of your party maintains that mindset, the party can throw out any crap candidate it wants and not risk losing your vote? To use an admittedly poor analogy, if Ford can keep selling the same number of Mustangs no matter what, why would Ford invest any money in improving the Mustang?

It seems to me that commitment to a party rather than a candidate encourages the same old party politics. The parties should have to worry about losing their base, it keeps them honest.

Well said Hossman

As one who said I would vote for a Democrat, let me hasten to add that while there are differences between the the candidates, the general direction of the democrats is very much in line with my own thinking. If there was an ignoramus among them who somehow was also the candidate, I would certainly have questions voting for him or her. Thankfully, however, these candidates express concerns strikingly in line with my own thinking: concerns about the lack of health care for millions, useless and expensive education policies that have little to do with teaching anybody anything, fatuous drug wars that end up imprisoning thousands of poor fathers who then are unable to be with their families, tax bills that support the rich among us, and on and on. And these are just domestic issues. Internationally, each of the candidates seems to be concerned about the loss of the United States’ image in the world, our galloping use of non-renewable energy, lying about wars that should never have been fought, and on and on. I await eagerly a change in government direction, policy, and personnel that I hope will make things a tad bit better in the world for all of us.

The assassination only serves to highlight for me the need for a president who understands the interconnectedness and interdependence of all nations. On that count, I usually support Obama because he has one parent from another country and lived abroad as a kid (and, having read Dreams from my Father it sure sounds like these facts enlarged his world view). We can’t afford another president who barely had travelled out of the country before being elected! But, this particular situation doesn’t make me feel better about Obama because of the sabre rattling he did a few months ago about Pakistan. I hope he was just trying to stake out a political difference from Clinton and isn’t the hawk he made himself out to be.

Why do we need to be the country to help every other country? We owe approx. $55 TRILLION dollars in debt, medicaide, and Social Security. I do not like the fact that I should pay into all of this, not knowing if I will receive a dime when it is my time to retire. Like Dr. Paul said on CNN the other night about how much aid we should give Pakistan, “Where would the money come from? We can either take from the taxpayers, print the money, or borrow from China?” I dont like these choices.

I agree that Democrats SAY something different than Republicans. But, if you check where the campaign money comes from….the lines of difference become blurred…or even invisible.

The thing is, you can promise almost anything during a campaign. Bush promised no nation-building. But, what do they do when they get to office? They pay back their benefactors. And their benefactors aren’t you or I. They get their money from huge corporations. So they can say they want to offer healthcare for everyone. But, they can’t , or won’t actually deliver.

The American people don’t help . they vote for one party on one level, another on another level….knowing full well the two don’t work together and nothing will get done.

Look, many Americans thought giving the Democrats a slim majority in the house and senate would end the war. Turned out pretty good hasn’t it?

We’ve seen the right get their wishes and complete control of the house, Senate, and presidency….Did it trickle down to the small-time republican? Nope. The tax cuts were there. But they only benefit the rich republicans. One thing they DID get was a court, from top to bottom, that will judge in their favor. And they sure wanted that. Cause if gays EVER got to legally get married America would surely be doomed (sarcasm).

So, maybe republicans got a little little. But, in the end, the average schmuck in Mississippi got nothing for his or her vote. And the same will come of the Democrats. Now they have changed it from Universal/socialist medicine to “affordable” insurance…and soon the question should be…affordable to whom?

But the war still chugs along….and the rich keep getting richer.

If you want REAL change…then you better start a REAL CHANGE third party and fund the f#$k out of it. Until then, it’s all bull. And I. personally, won’t get fooled again.

Now I have to find another candidate to vote for.