Yeah, yeah, yeah. I know.

Everybody's still hung over from the election. Everybody is sick and tired of politics, especially presidential politics.

Get over it. It's never too early to think about who's going to replace Bush in four years.

Will Al Gore or John Kerry try again with Bush out of the way? Will Bush tap a Frist or Giuliani as his vice-president if Cheney should hang it up soon? Can a third party candidate emerge and make a credible bid for the White House? Will McCain be too old or too moderate for his own party? Does Hillary think she can broaden her appeal to win a red state?

Who do you want to see run and win in the 2008 Presidential Race?

Of all the poeple on this board, NT, you and Wertz are two guys I could really hang with LOL

Love that attitude

I don't think you have any real viable candidates on the Dem side there- and I think McCain has done an awesome job of distancing himself from Bush, retaining his maverick image, and maintaining his national stature to walk away with the repub nomination without a hiccup.

However, it will take a couple of years for a real Dem candidate to surface I think- that is why I would love to see Bill Clinton or Caravalle become DNC chairman- we need one of those guys to pick a real winner.

I think it is too early in the game for Obama BTW- that is usually the next question!

Who do you want to see run and win in the 2008 Presidential Race?

I really think it's too early to speculate on this. Certainly Obama is a rising star in the Democratic Party, but he will have limited national experience in 2008--although more than Bush had when he ran in 2000.

I agree with CrusingRam that Carville would be an excellent DNC chairman.

Electing a Democrat in 2008 will depend on just how sick of George W. Bush people are at that time. My guess is that the next four years will produce plenty of Bush induced nausea and will drop the curtain on any chance Jeb might have; unless, of course, we're really interested in the beginnings of a monarchy. (In my opinion Jeb was better qualified for the presidency than George W., but that doesn't mean I want to perpetuate, what Hank, Jr. called, the "family tradition." To suggest that the Bush family holds some sort of monopoly on presidential timber reservers would be the worst sort of "elitism," that is, if Democrats are allowed to use that term.

Clark. Definitely Clark. I wanted him to win the Democratic nomination this time, and I hope he goes up for it in 2008. I think he would be an excellent, strong candidate, and he's got four more years to get his game plan together.

Of course, I do have a soft spot for Hilary. She's already got the experience And I believe she's doing a good job of getting out from under Bill's shadow. The only problem is that she is seen as a super-liberal. And then there is the small matter of the XX chromosome. I think it would be awesome for the Dems to have a woman run, but let's face it, I don't think the majority of Americans would actually have the brains to vote for a smart, strong female candidate.

I would also love to see Elizabeth Dole go for the Rupublican nomination. She is a smart, strong woman with a history of leadership, and she is definitely different from the usual Republican candidates (I think she could definitely call herself a "compassionate conservative" with her background at the Red Cross). And what a change from W! Hell, I might even vote for her if the Dems don't pick someone good (if the Republicans actually had the foresight and open-mindedness to pick a female candidate).

Clark was the candidate I preferred as well. I'm not sure who would be good for 2008 but I don't believe it's too soon to start thinking about it. I believe the Dem's have done a horrible job of selecting candidates and that's mostly why we have lost the last two elections. I do not like any of the choices in the poll above. We have to focus on finding and cultivating one or, better yet, a few appealing candidates now if we hope to win in 2008.

As for the GOP candidate I would be happiest if they went with McCain.

Clark was also my chosen candidate, but he got in late. He does have an impressive resume. If Hillary decides not to run, Clark may have the Clinton blessing.

I still think Gore would have won this year and, as of now, is the Dems best chance in 2008.

I would want Dean to be president but he can't win. The guy who I'd like to see run is Obama. Right now he looks like the candidate who has the most charisma and promise. He’d be the Jack Kennedy of my generation. I hope he runs in 2008 but 2012 would be nice too.
Hillary would be terrible. Nobody likes her. She gets the stain of Clinton morality too.
On the republican side:
Rudy Giuliani may look like a strong candidate but he would be a great gift to the democrats. He’s pro-choice and liberal on other social issues. Some far right party could run somebody like Pat Robertson or Rush Limbaugh siphoning a lot of hardcore social conservative votes. Add the fact that he’s nasty and from the capital of the liberal elite and the democrats could win in a landslide. Evan Bayh or Mark Warner would mop the floor with any republican who goes to Yankee games. I’d love to see Giuliani run.

Whoever wins in 2008 I’d like to see a few more surprises than in 2004. How about Bill O’Reilly and Jesse Ventura running? How about George Sr. coming back for another term? How about Allan Keyes not running? Hopefully we’ll get a little more excitement this time around.

It's a tough question because it has so many conflicting considerations wrapped up in it. Who in each party could actually win the nomination? Having done so, could they win the general election? And once elected, who would be a good President?

I don't think there is anybody at all who could win the Democratic nomination, the general election and than go on to be a President I'd approve of. Evan Bayh and Mark Warner could maybe win the general election, and might be good Presidential material, but both are too moderate to be nominated.

I'd say the same for Giuliani and Schwarzenegger on the GOP side. Both have it in them to be good, maybe even great, Presidents, but are too moderate to be nominated. And of course the Governator would need a constitutional amendment to be eligible. That could happen, so I wouldn't rule him out on that account.

I'll have to say Frist. He could be nominated, he could win, and he could do the job. Maybe NY Gov. George Pataki meets all three criteria too. Can't think of anybody else. I like Condi a lot, but she lacks any political experience other than as a foreign policy wonk.

McCain? He could win the general, but I can't see the base trusting him. Elizabeth Dole? Hmm, maybe, but she didn't run all that strongly in the primaries last time she tried. Jeb Bush? I like him better than Dubya, but another Bush? I'm not sure the country is ready for that

I was thinking I'd like to see Jesse Ventura make an independent run, but he blew that by endorsing Kerry. I'll never trust his judgement again on anything.

My ideal candidate would combine Barry Goldwater's brand of hawkish libertarianism, Reagan's charm and communication skill. and Giuliani's crisis leadership ability. Know anybody like that? Maybe Jack Ryan (the Tom Clancy character, not the ex-Congressman with a taste for risque entertainment) is closest but unfortunately he's fictional.

I have a soft spot in my heart for Wesley Clark. I think he got in too late and was in over his head this time around, but he should be tanned, rested and ready for 2008. Hillary can raise a ton of money but no other Democrat nominee would polarize the electorate as she would and she'd be a total disaster in the South. The fact that Kerry couldn't win Ohio doesn't bode real well for Senator Clinton.

Someone will emerge between now and 2008 for the Dems and Bayh and Warner as Izdaari mentioned are names I've heard bandied about. I just wonder if they could raise their profile and the cash they would need to make a run. Kerry hasn't ruled out a second run and I'd be surprised if Gore sat the next one out. Edwards will be trying to add a little gray to his hair and hoping Kerry will give him his list of fat cat contributors.

McCain? He'll be 71 in 2008 and I'm not sure he'd be welcome by the movers and shakers of the party, especially the Christian conservatives. Giuliani would have the same problem being a pro-choice politician in a party that doesn't seem to want any. I don't think if Jeb Bush tests the water that he's a stone cold lock. His reign in Florida has been controversial and his family life seems a bit messier than George. Bill Frist has the same problem as Kerry: big shot in the Senate, but a unknown to most of America.

It's too soon for Barack Obama and too late for Colin Powell, so 2008 won't be the year America elects its first black Chief Executive. Oh well...

Jeez Nighttimer, starting this up already... it is going to be a looong four years

Who do you want to see run and win in the 2008 Presidential Race?
I voted other, because I'm not sure that we'll see any of the candidates mentioned above running in 2008. In fact, I really have no idea who'll step up to the plate from either side it is too early to tell in my opinion.

I will say that whoever gets nominated in 2008 from the Democratic party will have a lot to do with who is elected DNC Chair in the coming months. If we end up with someone like Vilsack then we'll know the Democrats haven't learned their lesson and we can expect a milquetoast candidate in 2008 and another loss. If someone like Dean or Rosenburg gets it, that says the Democrats are interested in reform and we can expect an interesting and exciting race in 2008. A Dean or Rosenburg candidate could very well lose as well, but at least it won't be because they tried the same methods that haven't worked for 20 years.

Of the candidates listed in the poll this is my commentary on them:
John McCain - As someone said, he'll be 71 in 2008 and that is a bit on the old side to be going through the stress of running for president. Secondly he has already run once and Bush pulled out every dirty trick imaginable to denigrate him, I would think that'd leave a bad taste in ones mouth. Finally, he is a moderate and I really don't see the GOP nominating a moderate anytime soon, already we are seeing steps being taken to marginalize moderates and snap them into line.

Hillary Clinton - The Democrats would have to be really brain dead to seriously consider Clinton. She wouldn't win a single state in the south because she is blatantly more liberal than Kerry was. Furthermore people would vote against her just because of who she is. Not a good choice.

Howard Dean - I personally would love to see Dean run again, but I don't think it'll happen. I really believe Dean's place is behind the scenes whipping the party into shape as the DNC chair. If he doesn't win the chair position, that'll mean an establishment candidate won it and there is no way they'll consider him a serious contender in 2008 if he decides to run.

Rudy Giuliani - Rudy G would make for an interesting Republican pick, but again I highly doubt that he'd stand a snowballs chance in hell of being nominated because of his position on social issues, you could almost call him a liberal Republican. There is no way that would fly with the Republican "base" and therefore he'd never be nominated to run for President. But, I'd actually love to see him run because the Democrats would win either way - either we'd get our guy in office or Rudy would win and we'd have a socially liberal president.

John Edwards - Edwards came off too inexperienced in this last round in my opinion and I don't think another 4 years in the senate will solve that. I think that he does have potential and he could make a good VP, but don't expect to see him at the top of the ticket in 2008.

Bill Frist - Out of the Republican picks, this is the only name I think might have a shot at winning the nomination much less the election. But, I don't think Frist has ever indicated any aspirations past the senate.

Jeb Bush - Not going to happen unless people do some serious sweet talking in the next four years. Jeb has already gone on record as saying he is eager to get back to the private sector once his term is up. Depending on how Dubya does the next four years, having the name "Bush" could be a liability.

Condoleeza Rice - This would be interesting, but again I don't think it'll happen. Her record while in office could be too easily attacked and quite simply I don't think she has the gravitas necessary to be president.

Ralph Nader - I'm sure that he'll run again and I'm sure that he'll garner 1% or less of the vote again. Nader has some good ideas, but he needs to quit running on his own and instead try and package those ideas in the Democratic platform. I don't ever see him being a viable candidate or anyone like him until we can get past this two party system.

Rudy, Rudy, Rudy! Giuliani, easily, a libertine Republican who's has strong leadership capabilities and who is fairly popular across the country, he's my man for 2008.

CP

I can understand why you support him CP (and I'm not saying he wouldn't be a good candidate), but what makes you think the Republican Party would go for him? Rudy would almost surely alienate the Republican "base" with his socially liberal positions on gay marriage and abortion amongst other things. I really don't understand how anyone could say that he would realistically win the nomination, much less the election unless the Republicans plan to appeal to a whole new base.

Well, that's the thing. I think that most Republican voters would support him [I don't think that social conservatives are a majority in the country, I could be wrong], but there is no doubt in my mind that "conservative" Republican politicians would attempt to destroy him in the primaries. So I'm not sure how realistic it is, but four years away from the election, a guy can still dream, right?

CP

I had to say "other" but really have no one in mind to challenge the stranglehold Republicans have on the country. I think it is too soon for Obama, although he is the only bright star in a gloomy landscape. Does any state have a good, solid (well-connected) Democratic governor? Governors seem to do well.

Hillary would be a disaster for the Democrats and would ensure another 4 years of Republican rule. I would definitely have to move to Canada if Jeb or Rudy ran and won.

I'd certainly like to see someone younger than 70 in office. If you stuck bamboo under my fingernails and held my feet to the fire to make a choice from the list, I'd go with Edwards.

I see dark times ahead...

I can understand why you'd say that about Jeb, I'm not a fan of him either, but what's a matta with Rudy? Moderate libertarian, pro-choice, what don't you like about him, I'm just curious, I don't mean to call you out or anything.

CP

I'll have to say that I never really knew too much about Clark except that he was ex-military. At the time I was pushing for Dean and before I had a chance to even check Clark out he had dropped out of the race and he was no longer relevant. I'd definitely give him another look though if he ran again because I didn't dislike him or anything.


I don't know, I have a hard time believing that a social liberal from NY (republican or not) would get much support from the South. Plus, whether people want to admit it or not, there are quite a few people that voted in this election primarily because of social issues. That kind of thing doesn't bode well for the Rudy G's of the world.

I don't have a problem saying what I don't like about him - not at all.

My distaste for Rudy started way before 9/11. The first letter I ever wrote to a newspaper was when he got his panties all in a wad about some art that offended his Catholic sensibilities. I basically wrote that if his faith was so weak that a piece of (bad) art could threaten it, then the problem was his and not the artist's. Then there was his righteous mission to clean up NYC that turned into a campaign to suck the life right out of the city. The whole Diallo fiasco, under the flag of law-and-order, systematic harassment of street artists and those who supported them, his puritanical crusade to run all the sex shops out of Times Square (and wound up chasing them to other areas of the city). Now, I’m not from NYC, but I would think part of the city's personality is in its somewhat naughty, somewhat gritty atmosphere (think Las Vegas before mega-resorts). From what I’ve read and heard, the city has been “Disney-fied” to the point it has lost a lot of its “New Yawk” character. Rudy's deification after 9/11 erased most of the memories of the things he did to the city, when he was known as “Mussolini on the Hudson”. Oh, and let's not forget his adultery-a tawdry Hefner act with the mistress and city-funded security.

And the latest Rudy-ism regarding the looting of the ammo bunkers in Iraq:


Just a few of the reasons I don’t like Rudy.

How about Oprah Winfrey? You won't find a more beloved black woman.
She could have Dr. Phil as her running mate! But seriously, if she
were to decide to run, who knows!

I would have to opt for hillery clinton i would love to see her get the office, i think it would be the next best thing since sliced bread. democrats need to get together, or they will keep losing to the other group. I wish independent runners could get more power, but the fact is america is in a loop when it comes to stuff like this, its either a democrat or a republican, and those that vote for independents dont see that under a democratic government that it could foster more support for more change like that. Plus the old rich white man as the leader is getting old and moldy to say the least. I have no idea whom she could take as running mates, but i would say from the democratic landscape that she could put together a winning team to say the least, and that name clinton would just bring that little spot of hope back into my life. then we can get bill into the u.n or something, hey i can dream right...

i would love to see the green party if i had to pick get something going, but again i dont ever see them getting more then like 3% of the vote for the most part, they never have the bling bling for the battle per say, which will always hurt. I like mccain and how he had the guts to stand alone from whats going on in the gop, but he is to republican i think to care to help the democrats ever. Of course the liberal republican just does not exist and right now like during the cold war the liberal is a hunted animal i imagine for the most part, the always aim to monkey wrench fascism which just cannot happen right now.... so for the sake of generations that are just coming to realize what liberal arts are and what liberal is, we need to get someone in there that knows also how to reflect the finer qualities of it, not one of the various young liberals that can be a bit fascist themselves at times.

I think the problem for the most part is liberal found a home in the democratic party, and to understand liberal you have to have at least some interest in having an open mind or education, and that in general is then taken as the norm by liberals that people understand things like a worldview, or biology or perception or so on, and for the most part i think its easy for liberals to offend the people that dont really have a clue for the most part about a great deal of things to just be blunt about it. so that also will need to change i guess, save extinction and more of the dark ages i guess. Its a nice thing though that liberal arts is a collage requirement, i have to take about a years worth of classes and a year of a evil foreign language, and its like that at a majority of higher education institutions anymore, which is a nice thought. i wish it would not have to be made into a group, but i dont see any other alternative but to get insect like in social fashion, liberals are nothing new to the world, but never really have a home and the name is something new for the most part i imagine. Again hillery has exsposure time to the elements and that name and most likely connections and i imagine she could get money and ammo.

Who do you want to see run and win in the 2008 Presidential Race?

It is a bit early for this sort of thing, but oh well. Nothing like a Presidential election to stir things up a bit I suppose.

Nothing is going to happen with respect to 2008 in the GOP for the next two years. The next focus will be to implement President Bush's agenda and win the mid-term elections and that requires a united party - at least in public. After the 2006 elections I think we'll start seeing candidates from the Republican party begin to emerge and define themselves. If I were to make odds at this time, I'd bet on the nominee being a midwestern moderate/conservative governor. And, history is on my side. The last time that a person who wasn't a former governor or Vice-President was elected President was 1960. Cheney isn't going to run, so that leaves us with governors and Dan Quayle.... I'll go with a governor for now. And no, I don't think it's going to be Arnold. Right now I'm leaning towards Bill Owens of Colorado, although I think Romney of Massachusetts might be an interesting candidate as well. Long ways away, but it's fun to think about.

Who do you want to see run and win in the 2008 Presidential Race

Well from the Republican side,I'm rooting for John McCain. I have so much respect for him even though on some political views I disagree with him. However,
McCain shows a lot toughness for going against his party on some issues (like the tax cuts). But I believe the country would be better off with a person who has the respect of not only both political parties but most of the country. I think he can unite the country because he appeals to so many independents.

On the Democratic side, I wouldn't mind John Edwards as the candidate. Even though his political rep took a blow with the loss to Bush/Cheney in 2004. I like his passion from the campaign trail. His debate against Cheney was a thing of beauty.
he proved he could hold his own against the most experienced.

But I do hope a "strong" third-party candidate can emerge. I have the sense the country is ready to take a serious look from an independent candidate and maybe even elect him.

"2008 presidential election", in full quotes, gets 15,000 returns from Google, on Dec 2, 2004. '2008 election', without quotes, gets over a million. It may be unseemly, perhaps indecent, even patently pointless, but the 2008 Presidential Election is already a popular topic. Too late to fret...

The pros are always looking at least one full election-cycle down the road. Under some circumstances they are plotting three out - 12 years! But commoners don't normally show much interest in the next election. This time, things look a little different.


The conventional call isn't hard to find. The polls already show us who's on the list and how they fare with the public. PollingReport.com

I predict a strong showing for M. Darkhorse as the Democratic candidate. The Republicans will select their guy using the normal criteria, and the standard aparatchik. But the Democrats probably will not.

As (if) they come out of shell-shock, they will see that some (for them) radical changes are in order. Most (all?) of their current crop of ponies are trained to run on a different track than the one they'll be on in 2008.

Religion. The Dems have dropped the ball, by panning the religious element in America. Suddenly getting religion probably would serve only to make them look corny (more corny..), but there are ways to engage with Christians. M. Darkhorse will need to be able to walk into an average church, be comfy in the pews for an hour or so, shake hands & smile, chat, and get back to the car in the parking lot without inciting a riot.

Dark horse candidates are the stuff of American political legend. Look for the best showing in generations, come 2008.

Thanks for the link, Ted.

From that, we see that the polls favor Hillary Clinton and Rudy. So, we'll cross them off the list .

I don't think the next President is anyone on that list. I feel (as Aquilla does) that a current or former midwestern governor will be the pick for the Republican candidate.

I personally like George Voinivich as a candidate. He is moderate, but also pro-life. He has been mayor of one of the most Democratic cities in America (Cleveland). He was a two term governor in Ohio (winning re-election in a landslide). He won easily when he ran for the Senate.

He has shown he can stand up to the power that be (which might be a bad thing when trying to win a primary, I guess) when it came to tax cuts.

I think George Voinivich would be an excellent candidate and could easily win the Presidency.

Amlord I'm curious, why don't you feel most Republicans wouldn't want Rudy in office? I would think he would be high on their list for winning the Republican nomination. I do agree with you about Hillary Clinton. If the Dems nominate her in 2008 they might as well talk about 2012.

Rudy's record is often not examined when he is mentioned as the forerunner.

Rudy does have a quite conservative record when you look at it. Except the all important abortion issue. He is not even against partial birth abortion, which would put social conservatives entirely off the table for him. They make up about 1/3 of the Republican base. He cannot win the primary without them and he cannot win the election without them (Bush narrowly won in 2000, but lost the popular vote, mainly due to social conservatives sitting it out).

Rudy has health issues (prostate cancer) and little foreign experience.

I personally like Guiliani (despite his abortion stance), but I highly doubt that Rudy can win the primary, let alone the general election, without social conservatives.

I'm not so sure about it being too late for Colin Powell. I don't think he would want the job, but if he did, I could see him running successfully, as a Democrat.



Slightly off topic, but something to consider (I'll make it here since I couldn't participate in the Democrat Forum discussion ):
I don't think Howard Dean is really the right guy for the DNC Chair. I am not sure who is, but the party has all but forgotten that rather large voting block known as organized Labor and has done next to nothing for labor in quite awhile. I personally feel the big weakness of the party is there. Too many members of unions no longer feel any loyalty to the Democratic party because they don't feel the Democrats have been loyal to them in years (this comes from one). Add to that the fact that the average blue collar union member is basically a moderate. I think the best thing the Democrats could do for themselves is to elevate someone from Labor to the chair, and start looking at ways to try to REALLY help labor legislatively and make the effort, even if the GOP is the majority. Bringing back the labor vote is the real key to success for the Democrats IMHO (And if they think they have it now they are seriously kidding themselves).



I'm with you. I like the guy, but I don't see how he could possibly get the nomination. But who knows, even pigs can fly (if one employs a catapult ).



I liked Edwards. Who knows, maybe if he was the nominee and I heard him speak more I might have changed my mind. But, based on how I felt about him during the primaries I could have easily voted for him as President.

One thing to consider when suggesting a re-run of Kerry or Edwards, or new run of Hillary or Frisk: A Senator has never won the White house. Better to look at Governors or outsiders for a realistic chance of winning.







I'm with CP on this. I could be wrong too, but I don't think the "Base" of the republican party is socially conservative anymore then I think the "Base" of the Democratic party is fiscally Liberal. However, the reality is that the power brokers and money launderers.....err......handlers in both parties are generally extremists, and those are the ones you have to win over to get the nomination. So in the end, I am with CJ as I don't think Rudy could make it through the primaries either.




I agreed with, or at least understand most of what you said. However, I had to take issue with the above. I grew up in New Jersey and frequently went to New York for fun. My favorite past-time as a teenager was to goto Times Square and watch the "crazies" go by.

I just got back from working in New York, and I have to say. I have never seen Manhattan look better or feel better. And based on what Times Square is today, I am all but certain that a ton more money changes hands there now then ever did back in peep show days.

In the end, I think the clean up of Times Square was a boon. It is a wonderful place to visit now. And the though the "seedy" shops are much more out of sight now, they are still there, while places like the NY Museum of Sex (a fascinating and thought provoking place) is right there on 5th Ave.

I too thought that every city needed a "Red-Light" district to thrive. After seeing the new and improved Times Square, I am forced to reconsider.

But hey, why are we talking about 2008? 2006 is our next chance to change the system by change who sits in those seats in Congress and that's just two years away, so enough relaxation and chit chat, we have work to do people!!

GO! GO! GO! GO! GO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!