LAST EDITED ON 03-27-15 AT 09:07 AM (EST)

To be clear, I hope we don't have another Bush v. Clinton contest too. I really do. I disagree with many of their positions, and either might be a capable president, but well, just NO.

Anyway, to continue the thought experiment, the elder Bush wasn't responsible for Iraq invading Kuwait, and the younger didn't instigate 9/11. It wouldn't really have mattered who was president at those times, our reaction would very likely have been the same. So a lot of what has happened very well could have happened no matter who was in the hot seat.

Even with the second Iraq invasion, things weren't as clear then as they are now, and as many would have us believe. The unintended after effects weren't all that predictable either. The threat of those invisible but not disproven and very possibly real WMDs could have induced whoever was president to get rid of Saddam once and for all.

But Ford as VP? Hadn't heard that before, and it's a bit hard to believe that a man who had been president would then consent to be a VP.

His sons may not be in politics, but a lot of ex-presidential relatives are. I can't even count the number of Kennedy's that have run for office. And, of course, there's the Bushes. To me it's obvious that Chelsea is being groomed for a political role.

Cuomos, Romneys, Gores, etc. etc.

My feelings: Cruz? Just NO there too. I kinda wish Christy wasn't in such a bind and could be a serious candidate on the republican side. I don't see much hope for a candidate for me to like on the Dem. side. I said up there ↑ that Clinton might be a capable president, but to be honest, I have grave doubts about her as a leader in times of crisis.