Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Rep. Duncan Hunter(R) has already announced his candidacy for president in 2008, and now Gov. Tom Vilsack(D) of Iowa announced his intent to run as well. Oh boy. <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/09/vilsack.president.ap/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITI CS/11/09/vilsack.president.ap/index.html</a>
Originally Posted By wahooskipper That didn't take long, did it? And, people were all breating a sigh of relief that things would settle down for a while. Think again.
Originally Posted By CrouchingTigger The phone calls will begin next week. "Hello, California voters..."
Originally Posted By DAR I know nothing about these two, but I'm sure both campaigns are working hard to discredit the other.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I don't know much about Hunter, but Vilsack seems like a good, moderate guy. He pretty much needs to get whatever bounce he can by being the first to officially announce, since he's little known nationally. I've been saying for a while that the Democrats are more likely to nominate the now-little-known governors/ex-governors like Vilsack, Bayh, or Warner, rather than Hillary - just based on the Democrats' history of rarely nominating whoever their front-runner is 2 years out (or even 1 year out). Warner's dropped out, but if they pick Bayh or Vilsack, you heard it here first.
Originally Posted By alexbook Vilsack's late to the party. Sen. Joe Biden (D-DL), Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-CT), and ex-Sen. Mike Gravel (D-AK) all announced before this week. Also in the race is Doug Stanhope, of The Man Show, who's running as a Libertarian. His slogan? "Drunk with Power" Wiki's list of candidates: <a href="http://tinyurl.com/yz7vj4" target="_blank">http://tinyurl.com/yz7vj4</a>
Originally Posted By TomSawyer The Dems need to run a moderate Midwesterner. Clinton should stay in the Senate.
Originally Posted By alexbook >>I've been saying for a while that the Democrats are more likely to nominate the now-little-known governors/ex-governors like Vilsack, Bayh, or Warner, rather than Hillary - just based on the Democrats' history of rarely nominating whoever their front-runner is 2 years out (or even 1 year out). Warner's dropped out, but if they pick Bayh or Vilsack, you heard it here first. << There's also the fact that four of our last five Presidents have been Governors or ex-Governors. A Governor can rail against "the mess in Washington" in a way that's difficult for a Senator. Rod Blagojevich of Illinois? Janet Napolitano of Arizona? How about John Lynch of New Hampshire? He'd be sure to win at least one early primary. ;-P
Originally Posted By Dabob2 From the link above in post #1: "Vilsack is the first Democrat to make a formal declaration for the presidency although a number of better known candidates are presumed to be running."
Originally Posted By Dabob2 No sitting senator has been elected since JFK (which will be going on 50 years in 2008), and no ex-senator has been elected since LBJ.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Blagojevich? Vilsack? Do we really have to make it that easy for people to make fun of them by changing their names slightly?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Do we really have to make it that easy for people to make fun of them by changing their names slightly?<< It's one of the factors most voters consider. That, and how easily caricatured they are in political cartoons. That's why Gerald Ford didn't stay long. Name was too ordinary, features to ordinary. Oh, he tried to make up for this with pratfalls occassionally, but along came Jimmy Carter and his giant toothy smile. Americans saw the humorous possibilities immediately.
Originally Posted By alexbook >>No sitting senator has been elected since JFK (which will be going on 50 years in 2008), and no ex-senator has been elected since LBJ.<< Don't forget Nixon.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Right you are. Forgot about his brief (2-year) senatorial career before he was veep.
Originally Posted By alexbook I remembered because I heard the "Checkers" speech again recently, and he keeps referring to himself in the third person as "Senator Nixon," as in "I say that it was morally wrong if any of that $18,000 went to Senator Nixon for my personal use." ;-)
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Ahhh, Nixon. Now there was a guy that was easy to caricature. Even had a name that worked well. That's why he won two terms.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer From America, the Book: - paraphrasing from memory During the televised Presidential debate in 1960, many viewers felt that Nixon looked shifty and untrustworty. History would later prove them correct.
