If it’s hard to remember a time when so many people were pondering a presidential run, no wonder: 2008 will be the first time since 1928 without either a president running for re-election or a vice president seeking his party’s nomination, according to Associated Press. So each party has more than a dozen people seriously eyeing the job. That said, most still think John McCain and Hillary Clinton hold the power to keep the nominating process from being a true free-for-all. “Both of these candidates will be so strong in the polls and fundraising that the other candidates will have a difficult time getting oxygen,” said GOP strategist Scott Reed. “These folks will have to decide early. If one chooses not to run, it will then be the Wild West.”
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- outlander on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- Chas on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Too many exemptions
30 Comments
McCain in 08. :)
Geena Davis. ‘08
Seriously Joe.. WHO runs with McCain?
Seriously kansassam… Geena Davis?
Well I would have said Richard Pryor and his “None of the Above” campaign… but he died!
no not seriously………
I don’t think McCain is up to it. My best guess is that George Allen will end up being the Republican nominee.
I have no idea on the Democratic side since Hillary seems to have moved center too quickly to suit a lot of the liberal base.
Ksam, wouldn’t be the first time a dead guy won an election.
Wouldn’t it be nice to have some real choice for the ‘08 elections? McCain is a fossil, and Hillary is probably unelectable.
Neither McCain nor Hillary will be in the Nov 2008 ballot.
XXX…For sure…. just ask John Ashcroft…
I would vote for ANYONE who runs a positive campaign… sigh… I won’t hold my breath!
Ksam, I predict the worst and dirtiest campaign in American history. Of course, that’s an easy prediction. Like you, I think I would vote for someone who didn’t use mud-slinging as a campaign tactic. It’s sickening what American politics has sunk to.
I’ll hope for the best, but expect the worst.
ABC News/Washington Post Poll. May 11-15, 2006. N=1,103 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3. Fieldwork by TNS.”If [see below] runs for president in 2008, would you definitely vote for him/her, would you consider voting for him/her, or would you definitely not vote for him/her?”Hillary Clinton:Definitely Would = 19%Would Consider =38%Definitely Would Not = 42%Not Unsure = 1%John McCainDefintely Would = 9%Would Consider = 57%Definitely Would Not = 28%Not Sure = 6%
If this generalizes, it seems that people are more likely to have their minds made up about Hillary. Both positively and negatively.
http://www.pollingreport.com/2008.htm#misc
I don’t think she’d make a good (electable) candidate, but I do think the Democratic nomination is hers to give away.—–
Mud-slinging is a widely used tactic, of course, but it’s not new. It’s as old as the republic, and recent politics is relatively clean by comparison.
Thomas Jefferson was portrayed as working with the devil. Andrew Jackson’s mother and wife were called prostitutes; Jackson blamed his wife’s fatal heart attack on the libelous charges.
Grover Cleveland was accused of fathering an illegitimate child in 1884. John Fremont in 1856 and Al Smith in 1928 were attacked as agents of the Vatican. Then there was LBJ’s “Daisy Girl” ad from 1964.
Recent infamous “dirty” ads are just part of the long train of history. And the republic survives . . .
I don’t say this to excuse it; rather to point out that despite our decrying negative campaigning, in our hearts Americans like it. It works. There is a reason it has been used, over and over again. So before we decry the red/blue state divide, and cry over the “balkanization” of American politics, remember: we’ve been through this kind of thing before. And survived. There is nothing truly new under the sun.
“Not Unsure = 1%” should be Not Sure.
GMC, you missed one. And this one’s for real.
William Gamaliel HardingMarried: Florence Kling De Wolfe (1860-1924), on July 8, 1891Children: Elizabeth Ann Christian (illegitimate child by Nan Britton) (1919- )
Religion: BaptistEducation: Graduated from Ohio Central College (1882)Occupation: Editor-PublisherPolitical Party: Republican
(The above from the Internet Public Library)
If you McCainheads knew how much this guy talks out of both sides of his mouth, you’d see he makes his buddy John Kerry look like the Rock of Gibralter.I’ll be supporting John Edwards in the primaries for as long as he can hold out…but if Allen wins the Republican nomination, I’d have to take a hard look at him. He’s the first honest conservative since Goldwater.
RD:
You lost me. I presume you’re referring to to Pres. Harding? That he had an illegitimate child? Perhaps so.
I’m not sure just how that fits “dirty” campaigning. If a candidate had an illegitimate child he sought to keep secret, and it was found out, I don’t know that an opponent pointing that out is “dirty” at all.
I did a quick google of the name and Internet public library, got nothing. Perhaps a link?
Didn’t John McCain father an illegitimate black child in South Carolina?
Actually no Ben. That was a tatical smear from the Evangelicals.
After McCain won the Primaries in New Hamphire, the next state was South Carolina. Then somebody decided to spread rumors that McCain had an illegitimate black daughter, because they knew S. Carolinans would despise that. Still very much a segergated thinking Evangelical established State. Since they don’t believe in inter-racial relationships, this became a big lost to McCain.
But the truth is, that McCain didn’t have an illegitimate black daughter. He did have an adopted daughter from Bangladesh that appeared black, but she wasn’t illegitmate.
Just goes to show the depth of what the evangelicals will do. And they call themselves compasionate christians. They will screw anybody over in a New York second.
C’mon Joe, you are usually more discerning and fair than that comment shows.
Do you really think that what you claim happened to McCain is conduct that would be accepted by most conservative Christians if it were known? Not around the ones I know.
And about 15% of the U.S. population or about 43,000,000 people are evangelical Christians. Do you really think that “they will screw anybody over in a New York second”?
Let’s try to stay away from the unfounded generalizations.
Outlander, Joe is right about South Carolina being racist about mixed-race children. And there are a lot of evangelicals there.
Didn’t S. Carolina go republican?
Outlander? How many evangelicals are blacks?
Angry white men in the south? Say it isn’t so!
I dunno Joe, a bunch. Why don’t you go look it up. What has that got to do with your ignorant comment?
Uh oh Joe!
You stepped off the reservation! You are on the right. You are not to DARE and question the goodness and wisdom of Evangelical Christians! Outlander is righteuosly outraged. To him, your earlier post smacks of judgement and persecution. And Heaven knows that special priviledge is reserved to and for only some evangelical Christians.
I know it was a smear Joe – I was being sarcastic. That was a Rove special.
Of course it was Ben. But, the audience was carefully chosen, as Joe and XXX pointed out.Which leaves us to wonderabout Outlander.Re; the smear of McClain he says,
“Do you really think that what you claim happened to McCain is conduct that would be accepted by most conservative Christians if it were known?”
This would tend make one question Outlanders support for bush. Or at least quiet tolerance of very unchristian behavior.
Rice/Giuliani vs. Clinton/Feingold
The Democrats will mistakenly make Condi’s race a factor and will lose the Black vote.
A buck says no; in fact I don’t think any of the 4 will be on the tickets
And LRB continues to “come out”
Um, I think it’ll be repubs that make race a factor when 25% of their base doesn’t go to the polls. That’s what repubs have historically done when a black runs as a republican candidate.
GMC,
Here’s your link. And the comment was nothing more than that–a comment. A bit of trivia.
http://www.ipl.org/div/potus/wgharding.html
Interesting…even if it’s from NewsMax:http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/7/5/00548.shtml?s=lh