Should the democratic's put Obama up as a candidate in 2012 or someone else? - General

For the last four years we have had Barrack Obama leading our country. He's made good and bad decisions. But the question is -- Should we put him up for reelection? In my personal opinion, I don't think we should. We shouldn't elect a Republican, but we should elect someone who's Democratic and NOT Obama. I don't think the Democratics should put him up as candidate. Let the debate begin. fuck i fucked up the title again, *democrats

He may be challenged as I've heard on some news reports, and many are arguing that it would to get him back on message, the intention wouldn't be to have someone else win. But if someone could potentially beat him and would potentially do better in the national election, there would likely be some serious challengers. I really don't understand the process you are describing. Anyway, if I had to pick a Democrat I'd prefer over Obama it would be [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Kucinich]Dennis Kucinich[/url] for being consistently anti-war, against the drug war, and for personal liberty (E.G. the patriot act). I disagree on most all of his stances, but that should show the value I place on those three things listed and I'm certain he'd deliver.

Dennis Kucinich, huh? I haven't heard anything about the man for quite some time. Anyways, I think that in all honesty, Obama would be the safer choice.

I'd have no idea if it would be good or not, but to me it feels right to think that presidents (and prime ministers) should only be able to serve for one term. I dunno if it would be beneficial though, or if it would serve any proper purpose.

[QUOTE=Antdawg;32920091]I'd have no idea if it would be good or not, but to me it feels right to think that presidents (and prime ministers) should only be able to serve for one term. I dunno if it would be beneficial though, or if it would serve any proper purpose.[/QUOTE] I've always been a strong supporter of a single, six-year term. It makes the most sense, simply because they're running a single term, which means no having to run about drumming up support two years before the election even starts, and they have enough time to make a substantial impact as compared to the eight years. If you think about it, the six might lead to far greater changes than the eight.

No idea what decent candidates are currently running for presidency... Still,Dennis Kucinich sounds somewhat decent

Constant changing of Presidents will not get anything done. The whole reason for reelection is for a President to get shit done. If we changed Presidents so often, many things would be changed: delayed, altered, and terminated.

Yeah, I'd like to see someone else get the Democratic nomination. Dennis Kucinich, Dick Durbin, and Berny Sanders come to mind. I'd like to see a real Social Democrat run. But if Obama is nominated, he's better than whatever the Republicans put up, but I'll still be dissapointed.

I guess they could, but either way nothing is getting done. We should have listened to George Washington and not had a 2 party system. There shouldn't be 2 sets of facts, there are only facts, and the way it's going right now all they want to do is argue and not get nothing done, at all.