Who should be the world's most powerful person?

Pro-Hilary article from the UK Guardian.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2234364,00.html

I started 2007 as an enthusiastic Obamaite. I go into 2008 a sober Clintonian. I continue to believe that Barack Obama is the only candidate who could change the United States' image overnight. It is now consistently less popular across the globe than at any time since international polling began. Obama personifies those aspects of American society that even some of Washington's fiercest critics admire, and he has some good ideas too. The trouble is, the more I watched him last year, the more convinced I became that he is not yet ready for the job.

The point about the Clintons is that they know the mistakes to avoid because they've already made most of them. They've learned the hard way. And let's be clear about this, in choosing Clinton, American voters would be choosing Clintons. In reality, this would be President Clintons, or Presidents Clinton. But that's another advantage.

Hillary herself has become, at 60, absolutely formidable. Superbly briefed on every issue, almost word perfect, scarcely ever putting a foot wrong, tried and tested as few human beings have been. At a cattle auction site in Ames, Iowa, the other day, she joked that they could "look inside mouth", as farmers do with cattle, if it helped them to make up their minds. And the truth is that if anyone in the world has been "looked inside the mouth", it is the Clintons.

Is she simpatica? No. At least not as a public persona. The outward warmth is all with Bill. Frank? That's not exactly what the record suggests. Shall we say, as honest as a lawyer. But we don't need the most powerful person in the world to be nice. We need her to be good at the job - grownup, knowledgable, responsible, tough, a safe pair of hands after eight years of a blunderer. And the more so for having to assist her one of the most articulate, well-informed and skilful politicians on the planet. Two for the price of one. And behind the two of them, several potential foreign policy teams of great experience to draw on, with views closer to those prevailing in most of the world's leading democracies - and therefore better placed to forge the indispensable alliances. Hillary's own pitch is that the US needs someone "ready to be president on day one". Well, she would say that, wouldn't she. But she happens to be right.

but I know who shouldn't be. *Any* of the Republicans!!!

I had to be the first to say it.
Actually I have a bit of a nasty temper for absolute power.
Seriously, I think it's got to be Edwards or Kucinich.

as powerful as was once the case. We are now the world's largest debtor nation, printing a sinking currency, exporting our manufacturing base, facing the real prospect that the next generation will be poorer than the last.

The next President is going to have to face the mountain of problems that Bush has created/enlarged/exacerbated. We may be looking at years of stagflation ahead. It's hard to imagine why anyone would want the job. I hope that the new Democratic President will have a lot of luck and will have a united Democratic Party standing firm for serious reform.

The power of a democracy lies in its people.

The people set the agenda, the people decide what they want the government to do and how to do it.

The president is simply the administrator responsible for making sure the will of the people is put into place.

The president is NOT a King, that is exactly why we have the type of government that the founders created.

In a real democracy the president should simply be working in the background getting things done. And once in a while suggesting some things to the people.

We have let this whole presidency thing get overblown. And to spend a billion dollars just selecting one is embarrasing.

Even if the "Big man" is a woman. What we need is democracy, which is anti-thetical to rule-by-bigshot.