People are already weighing in, so why not I for a sec?
Let's start with the Democrats. Right now, I'd agree with, well most everyone else, Hillary Clinton is looking pretty good for 2008 as long as she wins re-election in 2006 to her Senate seat (which Republicans will surely try and take). I believe Democrats, wanting what they will see as close to a sure winner as possible, we'll unite behind Clinton. Who are her challengers? Al Gore? I don't think he'll run again. Joe Lieberman? Please. John Edwards? Possibly, but it'd be hard. He lost an election, and he's out of the spotlight now. Wesley Clark? I think his oppurtunity is clearly over. Richardson? He won't if Clinton is. Obama? Too soon. The truth is, why would any of these kind of Democrats face Hillary is she decides to run? The pressure will certainly be on them not to.
Now as a liberal alternative, Howard Dean could run again. But his campaign was fueled by those again the war in Iraq and he lost at the height of his popularity in the party. Besides, I want him DNC chair after Terry McAuliffe leaves. Senator Russ Feingold could do it though. He has thought about it before. That would be very interesting. Others like Kucinich and Shaprton could run, again but they are irrelevant.
Short of some new awesome Dem governor or something coming on the scene, I say the Democrats are definitely looking to Senator Clinton right now. She's popular and Democrats love her, but the problem is, of course, she is very polarizing (then again, Republicans seem to hate anyone we put up anyway). But I think the Democrats will take that risk over putting up someone else.
As for the Republicans, I think all this talk of Guiliani, Schwarzeneggar, etc. running is bunk. Bush won because of social conservatives. These guys are social liberals, how would they ever get the nomination? Plus, the Republican party will want to continue Bush's policies. Bill Frist, Chuck Hagel, Bill Owens are much more likely. Jeb has said he is not interested. McCain is still a possibility, but he lost in 2000, and he's getting old. I see him fighting the Bush administration more the next few years as well.
So yes, right now I see Hillary Clinton as the clear favorite to be the next Democratic nominee and I believe we will see a Republican senator or governor of the non-famous kind get the Republican nomination.
Tomorrow: My essay on how the Democrats can rebuild their party and retake the country.
Thursday, November 04, 2004
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
As much as I would hope for a female president for America, I don't think this country is ready for one.
They wanted a Stepford first lady like Laura Bush; they disliked the strong Theresa Heinz Kerry who does not have perfect hair and perfect outfits. Like you said, Hilary Clinton would be too polarizing. I think the independent voters who did not vote for Kerry this time are unlikely to vote for her in 2008.
Well, I was just talking about who I thought would be the nominee. Whether she can win or not, who knows?
I'm not too keen on Hillary. She's popular, but she's also as much a "lightning rod" who would bring the same people to the polls that re-elected Bush. Even if she could win the popular vote, I don't see how she could do any better electorally than Gore or Kerry.
Of the governors' names I'm hearing bounced around, Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania sounds good... He's well-liked and comes off as a moderate but not a wimpy, afraid-to-be a Democrat kind of Democrat. Richardson could be VP I think, and help us carry the Southwest by getting the Hispanic vote. Vilsack is boring, and most of the other governors are too conservative or unappealing from what I see so far.
Post a Comment