That would have disallowed Bobby Kennedy’s adminstration, which I’m sure would have been amazing and free and children would have danced with flowers in streets paved with gumdrops…
I’d prefer it if the best person for the job got it, whether or not his dad/brother/uncle/second cousin had the job first. Of course, the best person for the job would never want it, which is part of the reason he would be the best person for the job.
I like No. 3. I mean, in 2002, everyone was chattering about how the 2004 Democratic primary would come down to Al Gore, Joe Lieberman and Hillary Clinton… and we all know how that turned out. Even through much of 2003 the Howard Dean phenomenon was sweeping the country, and many of us thought he was a shoo-in. I thought so; I even campaigned for the guy (though I was disenamored of him as of a few weeks before the Iowa caucuses, which is just as well; that would have broken my heart.)
The point is that it’s far too early for presidential polls to actually matter. I doubt we’ll see any unknowns step forward. Some unknowns already have stepped forward, but it seems that only Tom Vilsack, Joe Biden and Mike Gravel are officially running as of this moment. The full list of declared, potential and already-former candidates (correct me if I miss any) is, from northeast to southwest:
Gov. Willard “Mitt” Romney (R-MA)
Sen. John Kerry (D-MA)
Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT)
Gov. George Pataki (R-NY)
former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani (R-NY)
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY)
Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) (dropped out)
Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE)
former Gov. Mark Warner (D-VA) (dropped out)
Sen. George Allen (R-VA) (will probably drop out)
former Sen. John Edwards (D-NC)
former Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-GA) (officially declared uninterested in 2008)
Gov. John Ellis “Jeb” Bush (R-FL) (dropped out)
Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN) (dropped out)
former Vice President Al Gore (D-TN)
Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH)
Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) (dropped out)
Sen. Barak Obama (D-IL)
Alan Keyes (R-IL) (you just know he’s gonna run!)
former Gov. Tommy Thompson (R-WI)
Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) (dropped out)
Gov. Tom Vilsack (D-IA)
Gov. Mike Huckabee (R-AR)
Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS)
Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE)
Gov. Bill Owens (R-CO) (dropped out)
Gov. Bill Richardson (D-NM)
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)
former Sen. Mike Gravel (D-AK)
Some of the above were never serious contenders to begin with, and some were wiped out due to losses in the 2006 midterms. There are others who get talked about but never seem to be running, like Gov. Ed Rendell (D-PA), Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R-MN) or Gov. Phil Bredesen (D-TN), who are probably named more for the geographic logic of putting them on the ticket than anything else.
While the presidential contest is more exciting, I’d say the Senate races are more interesting at this point, and easier to speculate on. I’ve got my favorites for the presidential, but at this point, I’m not getting too worked up about it. I’m going to fret more about Congress than anything else.
And Kucinich. (He’s on your list but you fail to note he has officially announced.)
Ah! So he has! Thanks for that. I knew I was going to forget someone, or something.
It is way too early to speculate on the 2008 election. I don’t believe any of the Republicans mentioned (McCain, Guiliani, Romney) have what it takes to get nominated.
Why not McCain? The True Believers don’t trust him. They smeared him good in 2000 in South Carolina and will do so again in a heartbeat. Plus I don’t think his hawkish stand on Iraq is going to do him any favors in 2008.
Why not Guiliani? WAY too liberal for the Republicans to nominate.
Why not Romney? Quite simply, the Christian Republican base is not going to rally around a Morman who in the past was a champion for gay rights.
On the Democratic side, I give Obama a better chance than Hillary to get the nomination. Hillary is not loved by liberals and again, being a strong and early supporter of Iraqalypse is not going to sit will with Iowa caucusers or New Hampshire primary voters.
I think it’s going to be someone currently in the “second tier” for both parties that wind up grabbing the nominations.
BobLibDem, I think you’re right about the Republicans’ quandary. However, I think voters in both parties are getting more mercenary in their selections of candidates, preferring “electability” over actual stances. So while the true believers will opt for anyone but McCain, he’ll most likely win the nomination because so many Republicans view McCain as the most “electable.” Indeed, he’s got more cross-over appeal to Democrats than any other Republican who’s running or thinking about running—though Chuck Hagel might change that. Hagel suffers from lack of name recognition, but he might be able to turn that around next year and edge McCain out.
As to the Democrats, it’s the same thing. I’m sure lots of Democrats won’t vote for Hillary Clinton because they perceive her as “unelectable.” I agree with them, and I don’t really care for her as presidential material, myself. She just doesn’t have what it takes to win (though the cynics among us will say that all you need is money and name recognition, though that’s certainly not true.)
The names Clinton, McCain, Obama and Giuliani keep topping the polls because most people haven’t been following the developing presidential campaigns that closely, so most people only recognize those names. So while someone might prefer Romney or Dodd as candidates, if they don’t know their names, they won’t say they support them, but rather pick the name they’ve heard of that closest matches their beliefs.
I agree that this is a year when a second-tier candidate has a good chance. I think the Republicans will most likely wind up with McCain (first tier) or Hagel (second tier,) while the Democrats will most likely wind up with John Edwards or Barak Obama—both of whom, frankly, I think of as second tier candidates (though Edwards is more a one-and-a-halfth tier candidate, really.)
I agree, but for different reasons in addition to yours.
Mainly because the bloom is off his rose. It’s been too many years, and he’s carried too much of Bush’s water. His popularity in 2000 was more with Democrats and independents than Republicans, anyway - his big turnouts were in states with crossover voting, and exit polls confirmed that’s who voted for him.
Too old, health issues, marital history, Diallo and Louima.
Empty suit, short resume, no ability to inspire, too much opportunism and too little accomplishment.
Not so much that, anyone can make a mistake, or believe someone who is lying to them, but because she hasn’t admitted it yet (and by now it’s too late to help her). Even Kerry has done it. Not that he has the chance at a repeat nomination that he thinks he does.
“Second tier” being defined by current media attention, that is. For the GOP, it certainly can’t be anyone from this administration (compare THAT to historical precedent, if you will), or who shares the responsibility for the war in any definable way, such as, for instance, voting for the resolution. In fact, nobody from inside the Beltway at all. For the Dems, considering that it’ll most likely be a reactive vote, the candidate least like the above might be likeliest. That could in fact be anyone who can put on a populist image and has some record to back it up.
Anybody recall who was leading the polls 4 years ago? Didn’t get the nomination.
Hagel gets a lot of points for being willing to speak his mind and go against President and party. He earns kudos for understanding that to question our governments decisions is patriotic. But cross-over? As elections near it will be very apparent that both of them are very conservative. See here for a list of where he stands on the issues. These facts will endear him to the core Republicans, more than McCain anyway, but limit the cross-over effect.
Has no one else noticed the 800-lb. gorilla in the room? Blooms and roses aside, I think we’re going to see the strong re-emergence of Al Gore. He’s the intellectual equal (or better) of any other contender, he’s got the chops from 8 years of VP-ing, and he’s got the moral high ground. He certainly has the name recognition that Bayh, Obama and 90% of the rest of the field will never have. And he’s looking pretty damned Presidential already, if you’ve seen him speak or watched “An Inconvenient Truth”.
I am afraid that even in 21st century America a man of color, or a woman, can not be elected.
I think being the intellectual better loses Gore the nomination, in this climate. That’s why he lost last time-- the current anti-intellectualism of our fine nation.