What qualities should we look for in the next President??

[kentuck]

Should it be a person that is very cooperative and can work with the other side in a bi-partisan way? Or should it be a fighter that can persuade the people to his side?

Should it be a Bill Clinton-type that can triangulate the issues to get legislation passed? Or should it be an LBJ-type that can bust their nuts to get their cooperation?

Or perhaps a different personality altogether?

Does it make a difference what type of President we have if we don't have the Congress to pass legislation?

[PowerToThePeople]

1. I am all about 2014 first

I would like to see DLC types flushed.

[Le Taz Hot]

2. First on my priority list:

They can't be a corporate shill. They will, of course, because those are the only ones allowed into the club but that is #1 on my qualification list. If they don't meet that, I look for someone who does fit the criteria.

[polichick]

3. I can't see anyone willing to take on Hillary...

...so we'll get the third corporate Dem in a row and not much will change.

[Boom Sound 416]

4. The country wants the Clinton type. I want the LBJ type.

Dare I say we have the "different" type already.

[newfie11]

7. How I wish that would happen. Nt

[RKP5637]

37. I think we need the LBJ type. Nice isn't working. Ass needs to be kicked! n/t

[Boom Sound 416]

46. I think done the right way it would be celebrated

[1awake]

5. Qualities?

Protect and Defend the Constitution.

[doc03]

6. A backbone and some leadership qualities. n/t

[Fumesucker]

8. Truthfulness would be nice

Sadly, someone who tells the public the truth will never be elected.

[MannyGoldstein]

9. FDR was fundamentally truthful, no?

Jimmy Carter? Although that culminated in losing re-election.

Once in a while, we're ready for the truth.

[Fumesucker]

13. Elected again I suppose I should have said

The Depression happened so quickly people didn't have time to become acclimated to the slide in living standards, we have been on a slow motion economic downward slide for the 99% since the early 70's and the change is not rapid enough for a lot of people to notice.

Roosevelt could tell the truth partially because he was a .01%er and partially because the truth was painfully evident to most of the population and partially because the vast 1%er propaganda machine had not yet reached anything like the level we see today and most people weren't convinced of something completely opposite from reality.

[MannyGoldstein]

16. FDR was elected again (and again) because he got results

He fought like a sonofabitch for the 99%, and it worked: in his first term alone, unemployment fell by 40% and GDP grew 8% per year. *That* turned everyone into Democrats.

If Democrats want to end the Republicans, we need *results*. Not sucking less than the other guys.

[Fumesucker]

17. FDR got results because he publicly and correctly identified the problems to start with, honesty

I have a hard time imagining a presidential candidate these days saying that the welcomes the hate of the 1%.

There's at least one major area of public policy where it's blatantly obvious Obama is knowingly and deliberately lying and has been for years.

Either that or he thinks his life prospects would have been positively effected by being arrested, prosecuted and sentenced for his illegal drug use as a young man.

[MannyGoldstein]

21. Well, Sen. Warren sure doesn't seem to *worry* about the 1%'s hate.

I'll bet she actually relishes it!

[Fumesucker]

23. Indeed

We shall see come 2016, of everyone I'm familiar with I think Warren is the superior candidate for me which certainly doesn't make me think she is anything remotely resembling a shoo-in.

I'll be downright flabbergasted if she doesn't get the Kookinich treatment from all the Very Serious People.

[LuvNewcastle]

22. The Democrats made a fundamental mistake when they focused

their efforts on health insurance after the 2008 elections. Obama's slogan was "Change," which is exactly what the people wanted and why they voted for him. They wanted things changed right then, not several years later. They should have focused on changes that would show results right away, like a jobs bill. They also should have passed a much larger stimulus bill.

Immediate change would have built up support for other things that would have taken longer to take effect. The entire negotiating process of the ACA could have been much different if the Democrats had built up support from the public as a result of successful programs already seeing results.

The Democrats made a terrible error when they chose to go the route they did after the 2008 election, and it might be a long time before we have another chance like that to build grassroots support for the Democratic Party.

[MannyGoldstein]

30. I think you're right

Results beget trust which begets more results.

[Boom Sound 416]

28. Didn't the war having something to do with that though?

[MannyGoldstein]

31. FDR's first term was 1932-1936.

No war, yet. Not even a hint of it, really.

The war helped later on, economically. It was basically the greatest stimulus act ever passed. I'm not rooting for more wars, but large stimulus acts do work.

[Boom Sound 416]

34. I'll buy that

[Marr]

10. If the corporate media considers them one of the only "viable candidates"

months before any primary elections are held, you can safely assume they're in Corporate America's pocket-- no matter what they say on the campaign trail.

[MannyGoldstein]

11. 1. Honest

2. Gusto
3. Smart
4. Tough as nails

I din't put "Liberal" on the list because 1 + 3 guarantee it, anyway.

[flvegan]

12. A first name of Dennis and a last name of Kucinich.

[NYC_SKP]

14. How about a willingness to stand up to the 1%?

For any who missed this:

[limpyhobbler]

44. woot.

I like this person.

[Boom Sound 416]

49. Are their any candidates that aren't 1%ers

Including Warren (who I think is best for what that's worth)

[NYC_SKP]

51. I don't think she earns enough. It takes about $400,000/year to strart.

In fact, it took a little less than $370,000 in adjusted gross income in 2010 to make it into this elite group, according to newly released data from the Internal Revenue Service. That's up slightly from the $352,000 the year before.

[Boom Sound 416]

54. Yeah, but she's got a pretty stout portfolio

It may have been propaganda, but I thought she's worth about 15 million

[UTUSN]

15. The maximum quality (good choice of words, as opposed to qualification) is ability to WIN

It's been SO sweet over most of my life to sniff about so many of my NOBLE losers, what might have been if only this paragon had won. Finally, I've had to face the reality of this system, that ONLY winning will work, even if the winner is not my or anybody's ideal it's a matter of 1) just about any Dem is better than any Rethug, and 2) even a mediocre Dem will have an impact on who knows what policy decision besides the thousands of nominations, especially the courts, that will shape decades to come.


A subset implied in the above: Somebody with the common touch. Somebody who can relate to ordinary people and vice versa. Somebody with the basic skills of a carnival barker. Somebody who cuts the b.s. and talks some smack. Somebody who can project a sense of fairness to most people, not to niches.

[Fumesucker]

18. Someone you'd like to have a beer with, yeah?

[UTUSN]

27. Neh. I wouldn't want to have a beer with just about any of them, especially the beer dude/Shrub

In general, it has become a personality venue, without that much effect in the built-in gridlock. It takes an FDR, HST, LBJ to handle it. But we can't wait 30 yrs for an LBJ to geek himself up the ladder while mastering all the intricacies of the rules and how to get around the rules.

So on the personality thing, having a beer ain't it. More like what Adlai said, "Talk sense to the American people." (But Adlai is one of my "nobel losers" not what I want: a WINNER).

It's a matter of SKILLS. I detest RAYGUN, but he started off (literally?) as a carnival barker, was a sportscaster, then got the best finishing school: the movie studio's training. Even a grade D movie actor had the basic skills. "If you can fake sincerity..."

Back to the Personality President, I just about don't believe that the person holding the title is doing that much decision-making, more like the beast of the machinery narrowing the policy options, even selecting the option, then shoving the President in front of the cameras.

It would help that the President, not actually doing all that work, would spend it meditating on what it means to be human and then project it.

[UTUSN]

35. Addendum: Might as well pin some names to start the election NOW: Start with Tom BERGERON then

mold him into Elizabeth WARREN.

Part of what's wrong, besides just about the entire governmental structure, is the endless election cycles. And this is not new: The Roman church debated, in its first centuries, whether to elect a pope every four years and the consensus was that, no, this would result in neverending campaigning and electioneering, and who can argue with that today?

Mexico has a one-time, six year term, no haggling for a second term.

[Fumesucker]

36. Meh, I still think the best President would have to be forced into office at gunpoint

Any sane person would run screaming from the pressures of that job, Atlas Shrugged indeed.

Considering the other side and the limitations inherent in our system Obama has done a good job in some areas, I just wish he hadn't gone the wrong way on a number of things that are vitally important to the 99%.

[UTUSN]

38. The best thing he has done is keep a life in office CLEAN from distracting scandals

What we need is for OUR AGENDA to be furthered, even if in TINY bits, and not for us to spend whatever precious time in office expending our energy in defending a particular office holder INSTEAD of the AGENDA.

How much OBAMA has done or not for me is more of an issue of, at least he hasn't totally given over the agenda for his own sake.

[SidDithers]

52. This...

Sid

[CK_John]

19. The next President candidate needs to brash, in your face, and a bully in order to have a chance.

[Fumesucker]

24. More Billy Jack than bully n/t

[bemildred]

20. Congress is the key.

A united Congress is the most powerful institution in the government.

[Fumesucker]

25. True, the voters forge the key and the President wields it n/t

[kentuck]

29. Yep.

Congress.

[BOG PERSON]

26. you sort of answered your own question

it does not make a difference what type of president you have but it's not the fault of congress

[Sunlei]

32. It's the local and state that must be changed or it won't matter who is president.

[Bunnahabhain]

33. We will never get this person but I would like to see

1) A true leader. A true leader is a leader of the 100%. He/she frames issues such that a broad majority will at least consider his/her opinion. He/she remembers 100% of the people need a leader not just his/her base.

2) Steadfast. Is not guided by polls, focus groups, or lobbyists. This person stakes out a position and is hard to move off it, and will only be moved off it, because a superior position has been found.

3) Thinks in, and acts for, the long term and not the next election cycle.

4) Country above Party.

Never happen.

[LWolf]

39. Give me a god-damned fighter,

who will go to the floor with everything he or she's got to accomplish restoring and expanding economic and social justice.

And give me Democrats in Congress who will help.

[1-Old-Man]

41. Sounds a lot like Elizabeth Warren to me ...

[LWolf]

42. I'll take ANY fighter

over another corporate neo-liberal Democrat, or another "compromiser."

Unless we can find a good replacement in Congress, I don't know if we can afford to lose any of our best from the Senate or the House. Warren would be good. So would Grayson. There are others.

I'm not picky. I want a strong, never-give-up NON-NEOLIBERAL lefty/liberal for president. I don't care which one. Just give me one. And fill Congress with more.

[liberal_at_heart]

53. exactly LWolf. I'm with you. I want a fighter too.

[1-Old-Man]

40. Fuck a bunch of Clinton types, we need an FDR with the balls of a Johnson.

[uponit7771]

48. FDR was FDR without an 83% congress?! This is where the Obama bashers lose credibilty in droves

[liberal_at_heart]

56. I would admire FDR even if he hadn't been able to accomplish what he accomplished, because at least

he fought. Obama does not fight.

[uponit7771]

58. false on its face! they had to drag fdr to admitting the issus with jews!

[burnodo]

43. - ----- --- ---- ---------...

----- --- -- - ------ -- ------ --------- -----. -'- ------ ---- ------- --- ------ ------- --- --------- ----- -- --- -.-. ----------.

* * R E D A C T E D * *

[uponit7771]

47. If you're looking for one that would please the purist left? Look for a dictator, the purist left

....and cosnervative bashers don't know how US gov works

[liberal_at_heart]

50. I want a President to say what FDR did. "I welcome their hate." and then back it up with action.

fight for the people of this country.

[HardTimes99]

55. I think the 3 qualities I value most are intelligence, compassion and humility in equal

measures. Explains why I will never vote Republican. Some of them may be intelligent (at least in a crafty, rat-fucking kind of way), but none of them have much compassion or empathy. And 'humility'? Fugedd-aboud-it.

[MrMickeysMom]

57. A vagina...

which would, of course, be recognized as a wholly owned subsidiary an emotionally and intellectually evolved human being, for starts.