IMHO, a bag of hammers would be better than what Bush has turned out to be, and the Bipartisan Monopoly candidates generally all (including Hillary) belong to the same or similar classes. Their talk may sound different, but their walk is inevitably too similar to be distinguished by anything more than a distinction without a difference

So God bless America, such a big country, does it exist sombody who could be a good president?

IMHO, nobody who has a chance of winning the election could be a good president.

(By "good" I mean limiting his/her actions to what the Constitution—as written—allows; refusing to carry out acts of Congress that fall outside what the Constitution—as written—allows; discontinuing federal programs, agencies, and institutions, the nature of which are outside what the Constitution—as written—allows, etc.)

Your Latin should definitely help you with learning German grammar. You shouldn't have any trouble understanding the concepts of noun declension, verb conjugation and tenses et cetera.

By ''good'' I mean for the folks outside of USA, the economy is growing, in my eyes, I consider Bill Clinton was good. I don't get bothered about his scandals.

The economy isn't everything. Its condition is not always what it seems, and the U.S. president has far less influence on it than the general public give him credit for.

As far as "folks outside of USA" are concerned, consider that "good" Mr.Clinton used U.S. military force in Iraq, Bosnia-Hercegovina, Somalia, and Macedonia, without legal (i.e. constitutional) grounds, in addition to maintaining military bases across the globe (including Saudi-Arabia, which was the original cause of Al Qaida's resentment against the U.S. in the first place). During his administration the economy wasn't particularly help in general, as government-created inflation continued, and the U.S. national debt and budget deficits both grew.

(If the economy appears to have been "growing" during that time, it certainly isn't evidence that he deserves credit for that any more than Hoover deserves blame for the Crash of 1929.)

For all the "good" image he managed to maintain, Clinton was still a very typical member of the Bipartisan Monopoly club.

Nobody is perfect, but Clinton did preside over the longest period of peace-time economic expansion in American history, which included a balanced budget and a reported federal surplus, and everybody has to commit it.

Economy is not everything, and economy is also everything at the end of day.

If you can swing it, why not take some 'time out', come to Switzerland for a month or two, do a language course, put out your feelers and get the feel of the place before the two years are over? This way it won't be such of a culture schock and abrupt leaving the USA for a totally new continent.

Perhaps this is so, but it's not so significant when viewed in light of the big picture. The national debt still increased, inflation still increased, taxation increased significantly, and all the unconstitutional activity of previous administrations and Congresses continued unabated.

One "balanced budget" in light of all that is little more than a photo op; no honest president can personally take credit for "economic expansion"; and "peacetime" is debatable, since he deployed American troops to combat missions.

When I say "the economy isn't everything," I don't just mean whether it is important. Politicians love to take credit for the condition or direction of "the economy," and we should know better than to let them. The business cycle and free markets operate in spite of political meddling, not because of it. Government intervention invariable makes things worse. So there's no point in citing "the economy" as if it were ever the accomplishment of any American president.

While, I have to say that you have your point. It would be too complicated if we dug out everything about him, and put it on the table and just to be judgemental. Every coin has two sides, positive and negtive, and I consider it as the debating, it is just about how people is interpating it.

But from my own point of view, Economy is a comprehansive intergrated expression of capability of a president. I narrowed it down to the individule, money is not everything, and money is never so important as everything, but somehow, or in someway, it is a reflection of your own capability, and it is your equiavlent value that how company considers you. (But we don't talk about Paris Hilton's capability, )

That's true if you don't believe in the invisible hand...

That is a great idea. I would have to figure out some way of selling that idea to my current employer, though I doubt they would allow it. I will definitely keep this in mind though, thanks for the idea.