If you think that one president would have the ability to change the course of the middle east, as well as domestic issues, you give way too much credit and authority to the head of the Executive branch. They aren't kings or emperors.

@asxshadowsxfade I give Bush//Cheney 100% credit for the present condition of the middle east

Then you have no clue how our government works, or who all voted for war with Iraq and Afghanistan. Again, you are giving the president credit for more authority than the office actually holds.

Hillary.voted for the Iraq war

@macdaddy Bush brought it to Congress

Where do you stop throughout history, on trying to blame people for the mid east fiasco? It is a complicated place and no one has the answers...I mean, how is it, this very day, we are supporting Iran in Iraq and fighting against them in Yemen, in support of Saudis? Anyway, I thought this thread was about Carly F running for President.

Sorry, I was kind of aiding in derailing the thread. Apologies.

For my two cents we're all very naïve in regards to the presidency, especially from a historical context. NO ONE comes into the office knowing how to be president. The challenges that present themselves are far greater than all the speech making and critique by armchair pundits.Secondly the presidency cannot be run like a corporation. So in my view all the corporate executive experience in the world won't matter worth a damn when that person is sitting in the Oval Office. Additionally, as asxshadow indicates there are limits as to what a president can do. The best way to look at it is the president is the visible representation of a huge bureaucracy that encompasses millions of people and agencies most Americans never heard of. I don't know of a corporation that's comparable. So we have to be careful with the infatuation of so called experience. By some of the criteria used today Abraham Lincoln might not have been elected.