PDA

View Full Version : Joe Biden says he'll run for president in 2008



savafan
06-28-2005, 11:38 AM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8278461/

WASHINGTON - Democratic Sen. Joseph Biden said Sunday he intends to run for president in 2008, two decades after he dropped out of the race amid charges he plagiarized a British politician's speech.

"My intention now is to seek the nomination," Biden, of Delaware, said on CBS television's "Face the Nation." He said he would explore his support and decide by the end of this year -- a sign the race may get off to an early and competitive start.

"If in fact I think I have a clear shot at winning the nomination, by this November or December, then I'm going to seek the nomination," he said.

Biden is the senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a frequent critic of President Bush's Iraq policy.

He previously indicated his interest in the 2008 race with a December 2004 comment he would proceed as if he were running, but he said then he would take two years to decide.

Biden would face potential challengers including New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, the former U.S. first lady who has led early polling on the Democratic side.

Other possible Democratic contenders include Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, the nominee defeated by Bush in 2004, and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, Kerry's running mate.

Biden campaigned for the 1988 Democratic nomination but withdrew early in the race after charges he plagiarized parts of a speech by British Labor Party leader Neil Kinnock and exaggerated his academic record.

The Republican field may also be crowded in 2008, with Bush barred from running and Vice President Dick Cheney saying he does not intend to run, thus leaving no incumbent with a head start.

Redsfaithful
06-28-2005, 12:59 PM
No shot at all. He killed any chance he had with how he handled the bankruptcy reform bill.

RedsBaron
06-28-2005, 01:17 PM
I very much doubt Biden ever had any chance, bankruptcy bill or no bill.
I assume Hillary Clinton will run. I'm not sure who can deny her the nomination. I can't see the Democrats nominating someone to the right of her politically, and I can't see the left abandoning her for another candidate more on the left wing.
Hey, I've been wrong before and will be wrong again, but I can't see Biden or John Edwards ever defeating Hillary for the nomination. Maybe Evan Bayh could if all those opposed to Hillary rallied behind him early, but I don't expect that to happen either.
I really believe the only thing standing between Hillary and the White House is how strong a candidate the Republicans nominate in 2008.

registerthis
06-28-2005, 01:23 PM
Obama '12. :)

Redsfaithful
06-28-2005, 02:10 PM
Obama '12. :)

That would require the Democrats to lose in '08, so I'd personally prefer Obama '16 myself.

Sweetstop
06-28-2005, 03:25 PM
I very much doubt Biden ever had any chance, bankruptcy bill or no bill.
I assume Hillary Clinton will run. I'm not sure who can deny her the nomination. I can't see the Democrats nominating someone to the right of her politically, and I can't see the left abandoning her for another candidate more on the left wing.
Hey, I've been wrong before and will be wrong again, but I can't see Biden or John Edwards ever defeating Hillary for the nomination. Maybe Evan Bayh could if all those opposed to Hillary rallied behind him early, but I don't expect that to happen either.
I really believe the only thing standing between Hillary and the White House is how strong a candidate the Republicans nominate in 2008.

Wow! RB! It almost sounds like you are a closet Hillary Clinton lover. ;) I'm still not as convinced as you that the democratic party would give her the nomination, though. I do agree that there doesn't seem to be anyone else that jumps out as a better candidate. My dream ticket might be Clinton/Obama, but I'm a dreamer through and through. McCain is my favorite Republican. I could look at him.

jmcclain19
06-28-2005, 03:32 PM
If Biden would have ran in 2004, I think he would have given Bush a run for his money, could have even won, IMO

Then he wouldn't have passed that ridiculously unneeded bankruptcy bill, cementing his legacy as the Senator from MBNA.

He'll get waxed by the oppo crews rom the big hitters, like Hillary.

Unassisted
06-28-2005, 03:32 PM
Biden's persona is too dour and uncharismatic to appeal on a national level. Plus, he suffers from the problems that all veteran legislators face, which is a tendency to speak of arcane legislative processes that make audiences glaze over or change the channel.

He knows foreign policy, though and is at times a centrist, which gets him point in my ledger.

The Dems don't need another nominee from New England, though. That hasn't been a recipe for success in over 40 years.

RedsBaron
06-28-2005, 03:33 PM
Wow! RB! It almost sounds like you are a closet Hillary Clinton lover. ;) I'm still not as convinced as you that the democratic party would give her the nomination, though. I do agree that there doesn't seem to be anyone else that jumps out as a better candidate. My dream ticket might be Clinton/Obama, but I'm a dreamer through and through. McCain is my favorite Republican. I could look at him.
I'm not at all a supporter of Hillary, but I try, not always successfully, to separate my bias from my analysis.
I don't expect her to have any cakewalk to the presidency; the general election would be hard fought, and vicious, and nasty (and the nastiness would come from both sides). I just have trouble seeing many, if any, Democrats who would do better in the Democratic primaries than her.
A lot can, and probably will, happen between now and November 2008, of course.
I'd guess that McCain would be Hillary Clinton's most formidable opponent, and, should he get the GOP nomination, at this point I'd favor McCain to defeat any Democrat, including Mrs. Clinton. Again, a lot can happen between now and then.

jmcclain19
06-28-2005, 03:55 PM
I think, on the Democratic side, and I'm showing a bit of regional bias, there are two governors that Democrats need to seriously consider in the 2008 race.

The first, is New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson. Many may remember him as the Energy Sec for Bill Clinton. He's cut taxes in NM, is very popular, and has experience and ties to the last successful Democratic administration

The second, is AZ Gov. Janet Napolitano. She's a former US Attorney, and AZ Attorney General. Her credentials with the Law enforcement community are what has propelled her so far. She been amazingly successful as a Democratic Gov in a state that President Bush won by a sizable margin in 2004.

I actually have done a 180 on Napolitano, I did not vote for her in 2002, but I will in 2006. She's worked with a GOP filled legislature, and has touched on quite a few issues I agree with, and she's got approval ratings in the mid 60's. She's shown to be so formidable, that just 18 months ago, there were at least 4-5 top AZ GOP members licking their chops to run for Governor. Everyone has since bowed out, leaving the only GOP hopes in 2006 on Dan Qualye's wife Marilyn.

Two people to keep in mind for the 08 election.

registerthis
06-28-2005, 03:58 PM
The Dems don't need another nominee from New England, though. That hasn't been a recipe for success in over 40 years.
Er, Delaware isn't in New England....

Falls City Beer
06-28-2005, 04:00 PM
Er, Delaware isn't in New England....

Yeah, you can trust me on that one.

Unassisted
06-28-2005, 04:04 PM
Er, Delaware isn't in New England....To people west of the Mississippi, it might as well be. ;)

guttle11
06-28-2005, 04:11 PM
I think it will be Hillary vs. Guliani in '08. That could get rather interesting. or not??

RedsBaron
06-28-2005, 04:15 PM
I think, on the Democratic side, and I'm showing a bit of regional bias, there are two governors that Democrats need to seriously consider in the 2008 race.

The first, is New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson. Many may remember him as the Energy Sec for Bill Clinton. He's cut taxes in NM, is very popular, and has experience and ties to the last successful Democratic administration

The second, is AZ Gov. Janet Napolitano. She's a former US Attorney, and AZ Attorney General. Her credentials with the Law enforcement community are what has propelled her so far. She been amazingly successful as a Democratic Gov in a state that President Bush won by a sizable margin in 2004.

I actually have done a 180 on Napolitano, I did not vote for her in 2002, but I will in 2006. She's worked with a GOP filled legislature, and has touched on quite a few issues I agree with, and she's got approval ratings in the mid 60's. She's shown to be so formidable, that just 18 months ago, there were at least 4-5 top AZ GOP members licking their chops to run for Governor. Everyone has since bowed out, leaving the only GOP hopes in 2006 on Dan Qualye's wife Marilyn.

Two people to keep in mind for the 08 election.
I'm not familiar with Napolitano. I've long been impressed with Richardson as a potential candidate, although he's probably more likely to wind up as a vice presidential nominee. As an Hispanic, he would bring an ethnic plus to the ticket. I definitely could see a Hillary-Richardson ticket.

RedsBaron
06-28-2005, 04:17 PM
I think it will be Hillary vs. Guliani in '08. That could get rather interesting. or not??
Rudy could challenge Hillary for her NY senate seat in '06. Guliani could easily get the GOP nomination for that race; getting the GOP Republican presidential nomination in '08 would be much tougher to do.

Falls City Beer
06-28-2005, 04:17 PM
I'm not familiar with Napolitano. I've long been impressed with Richardson as a potential candidate, although he's probably more likely to wind up as a vice presidential nominee. As an Hispanic, he would bring an ethnic plus to the ticket. I definitely could see a Hillary-Richardson ticket.

Too soft and cuddly a ticket. The Dems need to pick up SOME white male voters.

Falls City Beer
06-28-2005, 04:19 PM
Rudy could challenge Hillary for her NY senate seat in '06. Guliani could easily get the GOP nomination for that race; getting the GOP Republican presidential nomination in '08 would be much tougher to do.

They'd uncover so much dirt on Guiliani's past it would make Whitewater look like Candyland. Talk about a man with some blood on his hands. He will NEVER be the Presidential nominee.

Sweetstop
06-28-2005, 04:42 PM
I'd forgotten all about Bill Richardson. My daughter used to live in Albuquerque back when he was in the House of Representatives, and I was impressed with him then. I wouldn't mind seeing him in the mix somehow.

Guiliani is quite charismatic, but I don't think he could beat Hillary for the Senate race...she's been a good first-timer and there are way too many Democrats in NY. Maybe a McCain/Guiliani ticket?

Redsfaithful
06-28-2005, 04:45 PM
Rudy could challenge Hillary for her NY senate seat in '06. Guliani could easily get the GOP nomination for that race; getting the GOP Republican presidential nomination in '08 would be much tougher to do.

I don't think Rudy is looking for an ass kicking, so I doubt he'll challenge Hillary for Senate.

And what FCB said in regards to his presidential hopes. The guy isn't nearly as impressive as 9/11 made him out to be.

alex trevino
06-28-2005, 06:03 PM
cool...Biden is thoughtful, articulate and has extensive foreign policy experience..he will be a welcomed voice to the debate.

RedsBaron
06-29-2005, 07:04 AM
Too soft and cuddly a ticket. The Dems need to pick up SOME white male voters.
FCB raises an interesting point-what do the Democrats need to do to increase their votes among white male voters? Who can the Democrats nominate that would appeal to that huge group of voters?
A somewhat related issue may be what effect foreign policy and military matters may have on the 2008 election (yes, it is a long way off, so this is speculation).
The last time the Democrats won a presidential election in which foreign policy was one of the dominant issues was four decades ago, when Barry Goldwater's loose (or crazy) talk about "lobbing" a nuclear warhead "into the men's room of the Kremlin" contributed to Lyndon Johnson's landslide victory in 1964. Since then the Democrats have won only in 1976, when economic weakness and political corruption in the aftermath of Watergate propelled Jimmy Carter to a narrow win, and in 1992 and 1996, when foreign policy was not a big issue with the Cold War over, helping Bill Clinton win.
Although I assume Dick Cheney will not attempt to gain the GOP nomination, which will go to a non-Bush administration figure, the Republican nominee obviously will have a hard time winning if the Bush administration in 2008 is perceived by a majority of voters to have been an abject failure. Therefore, if a majority of voters in 2008 believe that Bush's foreign policies have totally failed, with a quagmire in Iraq, a faltering war against terror, etc., then traditional Democratic political weakness in foreign policy may not matter, and voters may decide that Senator Clinton or someone else cannot do any worse.
However, almost as bad a political result for the 2008 Republican nominee could be for Bush's foreign policies to be too successful (liberals, you may snicker here ;) ). A really successful result could remove foreign policy as a significant issue to a majority of voters. In 1992, the elder Bush's foreign policy was deemed a success, with the Cold War over and a victorious Gulf War----so voters ignored foreign policy and voted out Bush based primarily upon domestic issues (That election always somewhat reminded me of the defeat of Churchill and the Tories in the wake of Germany's surrender in 1945).
In short, I believe the Republicans need 2008 to be somewhat of a replay of 1988. The nominee needs the foreign policy of his predecessor, the outgoing incumbent, to be deemed a success by a majority of voters, but a majority of voters must also believe there are still very real threats "out there" for which the GOP nominee is better suited to meet than the Democratic nominee. If its 1992 all over again ,that should help the Democrats.

Sweetstop
06-29-2005, 02:57 PM
Any of you Republicans think the Bush dynasty should or could continue? Papa always thought Jeb would be the one. Clinton vs Bush 2008?

Falls City Beer
06-29-2005, 03:04 PM
Any of you Republicans think the Bush dynasty should or could continue? Papa always thought Jeb would be the one. Clinton vs Bush 2008?

Jeb?

Jeb's the fat kid who eats paste. Not a chance in he-hockey stick land.

Jaycint
06-29-2005, 03:04 PM
Any of you Republicans think the Bush dynasty should or could continue? Papa always thought Jeb would be the one. Clinton vs Bush 2008?

Not a Republican here but I don't think the Bush dynasty will or should continue. Jeb has never struck me as having the desire to run, it seems like whenever I hear his name mentioned with running it is always by somebody else, not by him. I say more likely it will be Clinton vs. McCain or Frist which should make for some lively conversation over here.

RedsBaron
06-29-2005, 03:07 PM
Any of you Republicans think the Bush dynasty should or could continue? Papa always thought Jeb would be the one. Clinton vs Bush 2008? Not me, at least not in 2008. I expect that the GOP, to say nothing of the country, will want someone other than a Bush family member in '08. That's not a knock on Jeb Bush by the way, and I wouldn't rule out another Bush on a national ticket some year. I just think there will be a "Bush fatigue" among most voters in 2008.

jmcclain19
06-29-2005, 03:12 PM
Bob Woodward said a few weeks back that Dick Cheney was getting his ducks in a row for an 08 run.

Bill Owens, the GOP Gov of Colorado has been getting ready to run for seemingly forever, but he recently got a divorce, and that won't sit well with the extreme right. Sad, that it will come into play, even though Owens might be a guy who could come in a win in dominant fashion.

Bush will desperately want to put his stamp on a whomever the GOP nominates, and given that he's a two term President, his backing will have some serious umph. Meaning that Cheney is the front runner until New Hampshire.

There will be "Bush fatigue" no doubt, in the GOP, but the party will toe the line on whatever he wants as far as a successor goes. So it goes with two term Presidents.

Falls City Beer
06-29-2005, 03:13 PM
Not a Republican here but I don't think the Bush dynasty will or should continue. Jeb has never struck me as having the desire to run, it seems like whenever I hear his name mentioned with running it is always by somebody else, not by him. I say more likely it will be Clinton vs. McCain or Frist which should make for some lively conversation over here.

Clinton v. McCain. Bank on it. Frist is a nancy-boy who'd get plowed by a reasonably honest non-chickenhawk like McCain, plus Frist got behind the Schiavo thing (which should black-list him altogether).

I really think this country's fed up with the chickenhawk good ole boy act of people like Frist and Bush.

jmcclain19
06-29-2005, 03:17 PM
Clinton v. McCain. Bank on it. Frist is a nancy-boy who'd get plowed by a reasonably honest non-chickenhawk like McCain, plus Frist got behind the Schiavo thing (which should black-list him altogether).

Frist dances across that fine line of politics and medicine far too often to make most people comfortable.

At least that's my take on him.

I'll say the opposite.

I think it'll be Cheney v. someone we haven't heard of yet in the mainstream.

Everyone's banking on Hillary running. I'm not convinced.

But that's just my two cents.

RedsBaron
06-29-2005, 03:23 PM
Bob Woodward said a few weeks back that Dick Cheney was getting his ducks in a row for an 08 run.


I cannot see Cheney ever winning a general election. I know the left hates him, but that isn't the reason for my opinion. The left hated Reagan and hates Bush, but they both won general elections. Fair or unfair, Cheney reminds me too much of Mr. Potter in "It's A Wonderful Life."
Yes, I realize Cheney has an impressive resume, and pundits generally thought he won or at least held his own in his vice presidential debates with Lieberman and Edwards, but I just cannot see him winning, and I expect many Republicans share those misgivings.
Given the number of haters, crazies and terrorists out there, there is of course another morbid way Cheney could first become president, and as an incumbent he would then surely have the nomination if he sought it, but I suspect he'd still lose the general election.
At this point, 3 1/2 years away, I'd guess McCain is the best hope for Republicans to retain the White House in 2008, and I'd favor him to win a matchup against Hillary Clinton.

savafan
06-29-2005, 03:27 PM
Any of you Republicans think the Bush dynasty should or could continue? Papa always thought Jeb would be the one. Clinton vs Bush 2008?

I'd vote for a straight Bush ticket. Lauren and Barbara.

http://www.style.com/style/view/39/67/100126739.jpg

Jaycint
06-29-2005, 03:29 PM
Clinton v. McCain. Bank on it. Frist is a nancy-boy who'd get plowed by a reasonably honest non-chickenhawk like McCain, plus Frist got behind the Schiavo thing (which should black-list him altogether).

I really think this country's fed up with the chickenhawk good ole boy act of people like Frist and Bush.

I agree with you that McCain would be the more likely Republican nominee, here's something interesting to consider though. Frist holds the values of the extreme right wing of the Republican party a lot closer than does McCain. Frist would have a lot of pull with that faction of the party. McCain is a much more moderate Republican and may not have the strong support from within his own party that Frist might.

Falls City Beer
06-29-2005, 03:35 PM
I agree with you that McCain would be the more likely Republican nominee, here's something interesting to consider though. Frist holds the values of the extreme right wing of the Republican party a lot closer than does McCain. Frist would have a lot of pull with that faction of the party. McCain is a much more moderate Republican and may not have the strong support from within his own party that Frist might.

Yeah, but Frist doesn't have the lethal combo of "the aw-shucks" likable jovial good ole boy plus Christian right values that W has; Frist is kind of wimpy, slimy and effete--plus he fell down hard on the wrong side of the Schiavo issue (which I think is the biggest black eye of the Bush 2nd term so far). Right now, the country hates the direction the far-right is taking it in--that may change, but I doubt it. The Republicans will want a strong but reasonable man in front--if they know what's good for them (and that strong and reasonable man ain't Frist).

jmcclain19
06-29-2005, 03:37 PM
I cannot see Cheney ever winning a general election. I know the left hates him, but that isn't the reason for my opinion. The left hated Reagan and hates Bush, but they both won general elections. Fair or unfair, Cheney reminds me too much of Mr. Potter in "It's A Wonderful Life."
Yes, I realize Cheney has an impressive resume, and pundits generally thought he won or at least held his own in his vice presidential debates with Lieberman and Edwards, but I just cannot see him winning, and I expect many Republicans share those misgivings.
Given the number of haters, crazies and terrorists out there, there is of course another morbid way Cheney could first become president, and as an incumbent he would then surely have the nomination if he sought it, but I suspect he'd still lose the general election.
At this point, 3 1/2 years away, I'd guess McCain is the best hope for Republicans to retain the White House in 2008, and I'd favor him to win a matchup against Hillary Clinton.

Presidential Primaries typically garner about 1/4 to 1/3 of each parties voters for the general election.

The types that vote, are the hard core partisans and extreme wings of the party. They vote for the candidate who gives the party hard liners lots of red meat to digest.

Look how at Dean skyrocketed last year in early polls, and Kerry overtook him because he gave those same voters the same lines but sold it with a veneer of "I can be elected"

Look at how Bush demolished McCain in the Primaries in 2000. McCain was running strong until the GOP Machine crushed him, and swept him under the rug.

GOP hardliners, hate McCain.

Let me restate that. They HATE him. With a firey passion of the blazes of the underworld, they hate him.

Which boggles the mind, because if you look at his voting record, he's right about in the middle of the GOP Senate contingent.

But he speaks loudly, so where other Senators quietly dissent, he lets the world know. And they hate him for it.

He'll never win a GOP nomination. He could win a general, no doubt about that. But the party faithful won't let him get that far. And he's too loyal to the GOP to bolt.

The DNC did the same with Joe Lieberman. I am of the opinion that Lieberman could be an extremely strong candidate in the general. But he'll never get that far. When given the chance, the DNC party faithful smashed him like a bug.

RedsBaron
06-29-2005, 03:38 PM
McCain does have his problems with part of the Republican base, but I don't believe any other Republican is yet close to securing that base. Bush defeated McCain in the 2000 Republican primaries because of his strong support from the base. I don't believe that Frist or any other Republican has near that support now, and I have trouble thinking of a Repubican who is likely to get that much support.

Falls City Beer
06-29-2005, 03:41 PM
Presidential Primaries typically garner about 1/4 to 1/3 of each parties voters for the general election.

The types that vote, are the hard core partisans and extreme wings of the party. They vote for the candidate who gives the party hard liners lots of red meat to digest.

Look how at Dean skyrocketed last year in early polls, and Kerry overtook him because he gave those same voters the same lines but sold it with a veneer of "I can be elected"

Look at how Bush demolished McCain in the Primaries in 2000. McCain was running strong until the GOP Machine crushed him, and swept him under the rug.

GOP hardliners, hate McCain.

Let me restate that. They HATE him. With a firey passion of the blazes of the underworld, they hate him.

Which boggles the mind, because if you look at his voting record, he's right about in the middle of the GOP Senate contingent.

But he speaks loudly, so where other Senators quietly dissent, he lets the world know. And they hate him for it.

He'll never win a GOP nomination. He could win a general, no doubt about that. But the party faithful won't let him get that far. And he's too loyal to the GOP to bolt.

The DNC did the same with Joe Lieberman. I am of the opinion that Lieberman could be an extremely strong candidate in the general. But he'll never get that far. When given the chance, the DNC party faithful smashed him like a bug.

If the Republicans send Frist to the big fight, he'll lose. Badly.

RedsBaron
06-29-2005, 03:41 PM
Presidential Primaries typically garner about 1/4 to 1/3 of each parties voters for the general election.

The types that vote, are the hard core partisans and extreme wings of the party. They vote for the candidate who gives the party hard liners lots of red meat to digest.

Look how at Dean skyrocketed last year in early polls, and Kerry overtook him because he gave those same voters the same lines but sold it with a veneer of "I can be elected"

Look at how Bush demolished McCain in the Primaries in 2000. McCain was running strong until the GOP Machine crushed him, and swept him under the rug.

GOP hardliners, hate McCain.

Let me restate that. They HATE him. With a firey passion of the blazes of the underworld, they hate him.

Which boggles the mind, because if you look at his voting record, he's right about in the middle of the GOP Senate contingent.

But he speaks loudly, so where other Senators quietly dissent, he lets the world know. And they hate him for it.

He'll never win a GOP nomination. He could win a general, no doubt about that. But the party faithful won't let him get that far. And he's too loyal to the GOP to bolt.

The DNC did the same with Joe Lieberman. I am of the opinion that Lieberman could be an extremely strong candidate in the general. But he'll never get that far. When given the chance, the DNC party faithful smashed him like a bug.
GOP hardliners may hate McCain, but who do they beat him with? If hate was all it took, the Democrats would've defeated Bush last year. You can't beat somebody with nobody-who will defeat McCain?
I'm not saying McCain is unbeatable, but right now I'm not sure who beats him.

Jaycint
06-29-2005, 03:46 PM
G I'm not saying McCain is unbeatable, but right now I'm not sure who beats him.

Good point. We still have a year or two before things start to heat up significantly and whose to tell what kind of momentum shift there may be in BOTH the Dem. and Rep. parties between now and then. We may end up with two candidates that none of us have even mentioned, although if I was betting the title to my house I would say that Hillary is about as much of a lock as can be.

jmcclain19
06-29-2005, 03:46 PM
We're a solid 36 + months away from the election.

99% of America outside of Vermont had never heard of Howard Dean before 2001.

Let's not forget, America, oddly enough, has a thing about Governors and Vice Presidents in the White House.

Both parties keep trotting out Senators in hopes of breaking that streak, but again and again, it's a Governor or a Vice President who wins.

That's my bet until the two conventions in 2008. A Vice President against a Governor.

(Keep in mind, that could be a Gore v. Pataki type of matchup)

dsmith421
06-29-2005, 04:26 PM
McCain does have his problems with part of the Republican base, but I don't believe any other Republican is yet close to securing that base. Bush defeated McCain in the 2000 Republican primaries because of his strong support from the base.

... and one of the most shameful and disgusting smear campaigns in modern American history.

pedro
06-29-2005, 04:28 PM
cool...Biden is thoughtful, articulate and has extensive foreign policy experience..he will be a welcomed voice to the debate.

I'll second that.

I've always liked Biden.

Puffy
06-29-2005, 04:33 PM
I'll second that.

I've always liked Biden.

Me, three.

Falls City Beer
06-29-2005, 05:12 PM
I don't loathe Biden, but he does like bombing stuff.

RedsBaron
06-29-2005, 05:34 PM
We're a solid 36 + months away from the election.

99% of America outside of Vermont had never heard of Howard Dean before 2001.

Let's not forget, America, oddly enough, has a thing about Governors and Vice Presidents in the White House.

Both parties keep trotting out Senators in hopes of breaking that streak, but again and again, it's a Governor or a Vice President who wins.

That's my bet until the two conventions in 2008. A Vice President against a Governor.

(Keep in mind, that could be a Gore v. Pataki type of matchup)
You're right. No incumbent U.S. Senator has been elected President since JFK in 1960, and I think Kennedy was the first Senator to be elected directly to the Presidency in decades. Goldwater, McGovern, Mondale and Kerry all made unsuccessful attempts, as Dole more or less did (he resigned from the Seante a few months before the 1996 election).
I'm still not impressed with the chances of Cheney (or Al Gore for that matter). Who is/are the governor(s) who can win in 2008?

Redsfaithful
06-29-2005, 05:34 PM
Jeb?

Jeb's the fat kid who eats paste. Not a chance in he-hockey stick land.

I've actually read that Jeb is the smart one.

I think Al Gore is honestly a pretty strong dark horse, as far as beating Hillary for the Democrats.

I think the GOP nominee will have Karl Rove working for him, so I pick whoever Karl picks.

Falls City Beer
06-29-2005, 05:38 PM
I've actually read that Jeb is the smart one.

Well, if that's the case, you KNOW the Republicans won't pick him. ;)

Ah, all hilarity aside, you're right: I see no reason why ole lock-box Gore couldn't make another serious run.

I think we'll see a refashioned, remolded John Edwards come on strong as well.

Redsfaithful
06-29-2005, 05:38 PM
I also wouldn't count out John Edwards. The guy's charismatic as all get out, and he's been staying visible within the party.

Kerry is going to run again as well, I'm quite sure. I think the Democratic nomination is going to be tougher than the GOP nomination, unless Cheney tosses his hat into the ring.

Falls City Beer
06-29-2005, 05:40 PM
I also wouldn't count out John Edwards. The guy's charismatic as all get out, and he's been staying visible within the party.

Kerry is going to run again as well, I'm quite sure. I think the Democratic nomination is going to be tougher than the GOP nomination, unless Cheney tosses his hat into the ring.

Jinx.

Kerry's still my main man. I'd vote for him till the crack o' doom.

RedsBaron
06-29-2005, 05:41 PM
I think the GOP nominee will have Karl Rove working for him, so I pick whoever Karl picks.
I've read that Rove has said he is retiring from presidential politics and won't be involved in the 2008 campaign. I'm not saying I believe that, but I have read it.

Chip R
06-29-2005, 06:46 PM
I've actually read that Jeb is the smart one.

He hasn't been too smart on this Michael Schiavo stuff he's pulled lately.

KronoRed
06-29-2005, 06:48 PM
I think the GOP will run Jeb in 12 or 16, running him in 08 might be "too much Bush" and kill his chances of ever getting elected.

Johnny Vander m
06-29-2005, 07:13 PM
What is every ones thoughts on Colin Powell running? Or Cany Rice?

RedsBaron
06-29-2005, 07:19 PM
What is every ones thoughts on Colin Powell running? Or Cany Rice?
I don't expect either to run. Powell had a real chance in 2000 IMO, but he didn't want to undergo the rigors of a campaign. Rice has never held public office,and while some generals have successfully moved directly from the military to the presidency, I can't see someone such as Rice, whose resume is that of national security adviser and secretary of state, doing so.

pedro
06-29-2005, 07:31 PM
What is every ones thoughts on Colin Powell running? Or Cany Rice?

Condi Rice?

Are you serious?

She has all the charm of a pit bull. I just don't see it.

Unassisted
06-29-2005, 07:50 PM
He hasn't been too smart on this Michael Schiavo stuff he's pulled lately.Read an article somewhere (Time magazine maybe?) that said said Jeb was doing that against the counsel of his political advisers. Some close to him were wondering if his ulterior motive in taking that very public position was to burnish his image with the base for a presidential run.

I agree that it seems like a poorly chosen limb to go out on.

GAC
06-29-2005, 08:13 PM
Too soft and cuddly a ticket. The Dems need to pick up SOME white male voters.

I agree. And Hillary is not gonna accomplish that.

It's really just too far away to try and say who will get the nominations from either of these parties, regardless of how popular they are at this moment. Means very little IMO. Look what happened to Dean.

cincinnati chili
06-29-2005, 09:11 PM
Biden's persona is too dour and uncharismatic to appeal on a national level.

I get the opposite vibe from him. I've always thought he comes off as slick and insincere as opposed to bland. Experience-wise, he's probably a great choice, but I don't think he'd have the necessary "sex appeal" to middle America. He's not bland enough.

IIRC, he got busted for plaigarism at some point, which affected his last presidential run. If I were the Dems, I'd go squeaky clean if at all possible.

Hilary Clinton has no shot to win the presidency. Rightly or wrongly, too many people actively loathe her. Dem leaders should do everything they can to dissuade her from running.

If McCain can win the nomination, I think he's almost a sure thing to win.

I disagree about Giuliani. I don't think scandal will hurt him. People will forgive him for cheating on his wife. There's enough sympathetic qualities about him (his performance in 9-11, his surviving a terminal illness).

Instead, his position on abortion will be what does him in during the primaries. I don't think a pro-choice Republican survives the primaries.

Falls City Beer
06-29-2005, 09:14 PM
I get the opposite vibe from him. I've always thought he comes off as slick and insincere as opposed to bland. Experience-wise, he's probably a great choice, but I don't think he'd have the necessary "sex appeal" to middle America. He's not bland enough.

IIRC, he got busted for plaigarism at some point, which affected his last presidential run. If I were the Dems, I'd go squeaky clean if at all possible.

Hilary Clinton has no shot to win the presidency. Rightly or wrongly, too many people actively loathe her. Dem leaders should do everything they can to dissuade her from running.

If McCain can win the nomination, I think he's almost a sure thing to win.

I disagree about Giuliani. I don't think scandal will hurt him. People will forgive him for cheating on his wife. There's enough sympathetic qualities about him (his performance in 9-11, his surviving a terminal illness).

Instead, his position on abortion will be what does him in during the primaries. I don't think a pro-choice Republican survives the primaries.

Guiliani had mob ties. Literally, blood on his hands.

Unassisted
06-29-2005, 09:50 PM
Guiliani had mob ties. Literally, blood on his hands.But before he was elected mayor, he was the NYC district attorney, and served in that position without the taint of scandal. NYC politics is bare-knuckle stuff. No way he wins those elections if he gets painted as mobbed-up.

He's no Tony Soprano, but he may be on a first name basis with some folks who are in that business. I imagine Koch and Dinkins were, too.

I'm not sure his health is good enough for a presidential run. He's not that far removed from his bout with prostate cancer.

Falls City Beer
06-29-2005, 09:55 PM
But before he was elected mayor, he was the NYC district attorney, and served in that position without the taint of scandal. NYC politics is bare-knuckle stuff. No way he wins those elections if he gets painted as mobbed-up.

He's no Tony Soprano, but he may be on a first name basis with some folks who are in that business. I imagine Koch and Dinkins were, too.

I'm not sure his health is good enough for a presidential run. He's not that far removed from his bout with prostate cancer.

Eh, people survive prostate cancer all the time and live for decades after. I'd be much more worried about Cheney's ticker, honestly.

Even a cursory glance at Giuliani's past shows a man fairly or unfairly soaked in a mob ties; his father had mob dealings (voluntary or unvoluntary I don't think it much matters to middle America; the perception would be enough to sink the guy).

top6
06-29-2005, 10:05 PM
Forget about Giuliani. There is no way - no way - that the GOP nominates someone who is pro-choice. Simple as that.

RedsBaron
06-29-2005, 10:11 PM
Forget about Giuliani. There is no way - no way - that the GOP nominates someone who is pro-choice. Simple as that.
There is also no way that the Democrats nominate anyone for president who is not pro legal abortion. Each party is fairly well controlled by their respective bases on this issue, and for either to go against their base would probably split the party and doom it to defeat.
By the way, I was wrong in one detail on an earlier post. Although Walter Mondale served in the Senate, he was not a Senator when he ran unsuccessfully against Ronald Reagan in 1984.

Jaycint
06-30-2005, 06:45 AM
Eh, people survive prostate cancer all the time and live for decades after. I'd be much more worried about Cheney's ticker, honestly.

Even a cursory glance at Giuliani's past shows a man fairly or unfairly soaked in a mob ties; his father had mob dealings (voluntary or unvoluntary I don't think it much matters to middle America; the perception would be enough to sink the guy).

The mob ties thing would not stop me from voting for him assuming it was a thing of the past and not gonna happen anymore. Not sure if the rest of middle America would feel the same as me though. Most likely not...