Rice would draw off black voters from the Dems and prevent a Hillary candidacy from widening the gender gap in favor of the Dems.

But, she doesn't seem to wanna run.

So...Hillary vs. Rudy? Two obnoxious New Yorkers battling for the White House?

Stranger things have happened...

Rice would carry a large part of the burden of the unpopularity of the Iraq war, and if things go south over there, she becomes non-viable as a candidate.

I would like to see Hillary Clinton vs. Christine Todd Whitman.

That is your next White House ticket, no question > Rudy Guiliani w/ running mate John McCain.

>>That is your next White House ticket, no question > Rudy Guiliani w/ running mate John McCain.<<

No way on earth. You can't put that much ego on one ticket. It's got to be someone like McCain or Giuliani or Whitman with a real hard line neocon running mate - probably someone young and charismatic - the neocon equivalent of Edwards. Maybe Gov. Mark Sanford of SC.

I'm afraid Giuliani has too many skeletons in his closet, and McCain is going to be awfully old and has pissed the Neocons off too much, so I'm betting on Whitman/Sanford or something equivalent.

And of course they'll be running against Clinton/Obama.

The only way to beat Clinton/Obama is with a move to the middle. The question is whether the GOP realizes this and accepts it and manages to muzzle the Neocons to make it happen.

Dave

I don't think McCain will be too old. In fact, I see him as the clear frontrunner, at this early juncture, to be the 44th Prez of the United States. Thus, he swallowed his pride last year and openly supported Bush for re-election.

Rice would never stand up to the scrutiny of a presidential campaign. She speaks like a beurocrat, which won't fly during the countless debates and interviews she would have to endure. Tim Russert would rip her apart on Meet the Press, etc. She's happy with Sec of State, and she should be.

So: HRC / Obama is a good guess for the Dems in '08. My guess for the GOP side: McCain / Whitman. Now that would be interesting, eh?

I doubt seriously that Obama will run in '08. Hillary is a shoe-in to run for the Dems, and I think John Kerry, Evan Bayh and possibly John Edwards will all make another run at it.

And the Republicans will be looking at Giuliani, McCain, Bill Frist and possibly some other peoples...

Obama has a lock on the Dem VP slot, I think. He's too green to take their top position.

I love Giuliani, but I just don't see him as a viable candidate with so many problems in his past.

And McCain's wife will still be the hottest first lady in 45 years in 2008 so that might count for something.

Dave

I think it's way too early to consider anybody a lock for anything, Dave. This is all mystical-crystal ball-hot stove time, I'm afraid.

I'd bet on Eric B's ticket having a high degree of probablity if elections were held today. As things stand now I suspect the country would get solidly behind McCain. He is centrist enough to pull from center southern Democrats. The fringe right elements of the party could be a problem but a minimal one over time. It's up to the President to cool down the rhetoric before the election but right now, his role is to get as much in place to satisfy the far right as possible. Christie Whitman yes is a strong possibility as a VP on a ticket. She is already a voice attempting to keep the far right from going too far right.

The real item to watch however may be what Howard Dean does,(or doesn't do) for the DNC. The mid term elections will speak volumes.
--------------------------------------------
ZZ Bachman / ZardozZ News & Satire Portal

Eric B is wrong. It can't be McCain/Whitman. That's two liberal Republicans on the ticket at once. It has to be McCain and someone who's at least a nominal neocon - and young.

Dave

Dave - If a "liberal" Republican gets the nomination, they'll theoretically get the vote of everyone to the right of them -- except perhaps those mystical four million evangelicals. They'll also theoretically have a really good play on the Great American Middle. Adding a popular, articulate woman to the ticket -- especially one who holds popular views on the environment and women's rights -- would be a knock-out blow to the Dems. Therefore, I don't agree with your argument.

By the way -- people forget that McCain is a mainline conservative on many issues. And he's a traditional conservative -- as opposed to a neocon -- on some others.

Therefore, I think he's much more an independent, moderate Republican than a "liberal" one.

>>Dave - If a "liberal" Republican gets the nomination, they'll theoretically get the vote of everyone to the right of them -- except perhaps those mystical four million evangelicals. They'll also theoretically have a really good play on the Great American Middle. Adding a popular, articulate woman to the ticket -- especially one who holds popular views on the environment and women's rights -- would be a knock-out blow to the Dems. Therefore, I don't agree with your argument.<<

Sounds to me like you do agree with me Eric. That's exactly what I think. I just think they need a hardline conservative as VP to keep as many as the evangelicals as they can more than they need a liberal woman who would be somewhat redundent.

Of course, unlike moderates who might vote Democrat if dissatisfied the evangelicals will just not vote or vote for some loony third party if they feel slighted, so maybe their real value isn't that high if they can suck enough liberals away from the Dems. It might come down to how much Dean pisses off the moderate Dems.

Dave

My point was that if McCain can make it past the hard-right gatekeepers to get the GOP nomination, he then has the luxury of picking another moderate voice. A Northeastern female moderate could, at that point -- with McCain as the nominee for Prez -- really cripple the Dems and potentially dilute HRC as the Dems' presidential nominee.

Of course, Rove proved -- for the first time -- that the Middle can be largely ignored.

Again, this is all fun-time speculation. Lots can happen over the next few years.

I would think Obama would like to make it through one full term as senator before shooting for higher office. I don't see him running in '08. Come back in 2012 and we'll talk.

And after 8 years of W., don't you think moderate and conservative Dems will be ready to put a Dem in office? I think it would be enough that they would stand strong behind the Democratic candidate, no matter what Dean's actions may be.

Scott -- Who would be your choice for a moderate/conservative candidate for Democrats to rally around? Lieberman? Bayh?

Whitman will NOT get the GOP nomination. I pretty much guarantee it.

Hillary/Bayh is my pick for the Dems.

The GOP is more difficult to predict...

"Dave - If a "liberal" Republican gets the nomination, they'll theoretically get the vote of everyone to the right of them -- except perhaps those mystical four million evangelicals. They'll also theoretically have a really good play on the Great American Middle. Adding a popular, articulate woman to the ticket -- especially one who holds popular views on the environment and women's rights -- would be a knock-out blow to the Dems. Therefore, I don't agree with your argument."

Eric, this isn't about the most electable ticket. This is about the ticket most likely to get Republican support in the primaries and the convention.

McCain/Whitman is unlikely to fly...

"I would think Obama would like to make it through one full term as senator before shooting for higher office. I don't see him running in '08. Come back in 2012 and we'll talk."

I fully agree.

"Scott -- Who would be your choice for a moderate/conservative candidate for Democrats to rally around? Lieberman? Bayh?"

Bayh certainly seems to be a frontrunner. John Edwards is another. Lieberman is a good one, but he'll most likely have problems in the primaries again. Who knows really...after the wild 2004 year, I think anything goes...I believe that both parties will make their appeal to the middle (much like the Gore/Bush campaign of 2000) and it really could go either way regardless of candidate.

I totally forgot! Wesley Clark...I'm sure he'll get in the running again...

Roman Catholics in Rome have an old saying during College of Cardinals' Conclaves when electing a Pontiff: (paraphrased) "He who enters as Pope exits a Cardinal."

Same could be said of the 2008 election. On the GOP side there is Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts. Don't discount him as he is raising millions of dollars for his campaign warchest. On the Democrat side, my money is on John Edwards. He's shrewd and quietly gathering his troops for battle after the mid-term elections.

Giuliani will probably run, but will be demonized by left wingers and neoconservatives. In the end, I do not believe that Hillary will run as she is too polarizing. The religion card will be played against Mormon Gov. Romney. Tort reform and medical malpractice will be Edwards' liability.

My hope is John McCain as the 44th President with a Democrat as Vice President while one side of Congress goes to the Democrats. I know it sounds insane, but the quicker we bring the reasonable voices from both sides of the aisle together, the better.

If McCain chooses a Dem as his VP, it will be as an Independent. The GOP will NOT allow him to put a Dem on the ticket, assuming he can even get the Republican nomination in the first place...

>>I totally forgot! Wesley Clark...I'm sure he'll get in the running again...<<

Not if Hillary runs. He's her meat puppet. Plus he's such a political lightweight that if he does run it will be an obvious play for the vice presidency.

As for McCain with a Dem VP, that balloon was floated last election and laughed at by all. McCain would never do it unless maybe the running mate was Zell Miller.

Dave

I would say watch Arnold Schwartzeneggar for a read on McCain. They are liberal Republicans, but committed Republicans to be sure. If Arnold, and others like him begin to gather support, McCain could gain broader GOP support, which, as others pointed out above, I don't believe he has.

Hilary is my current front-runner for the Dems, and that seems like a very easy call. Bayh will have to put himself on the map in order to surpass Hilary, and Obama will simply have to get the experience under his belt and similarly put himself on the map by authoring some significant legislation.

Arnold's problem is the ... uh ... US Constitution.

It is unlikely that it will be amended simply for his sake.

I'm not suggesting that he's a Presidential candidate. I know better, Constitution and all. I am suggesting that as a governor of a bellweather state, he will get a lot of coverage. If his brand of Republicanism is a hit, I would expect McCain, who strikes me as similar (and apart from the GOP establishment) to glom on to Arnold and ride the wave.

Okay, gotcha.

I still don't think McCain is conservative enough for those who vote in GOP primaries. But we'll see...

"Not if Hillary runs. He's her meat puppet. Plus he's such a political lightweight that if he does run it will be an obvious play for the vice presidency."

Well, aren't all the candidates making a play for president and/or vice-president or other high-ranking official or cabinet member? Yes, if Hillary runs, all the other Dems may be doomed to lose but my bet is that Clark will make another attempt. I think he learned some valuable things in 2004 and will come out all the wiser in 2008.

I think you all are missing the historic trend of America electing anyone but a northeastern liberal to the presidency, especially if they are a senator. (Kennedy being the obvious exception, but Hillary is no Jack Kennedy)
The Dems will pick a governor, and probably one from the south like Clinton or Carter. Can you say, 'Mark Warner'? Pro-business, pro-guns, moderate on abortion but against the 24 hour wait, a mild shade of green, increase the minimum wage but not go too high, implement enterprise zones...
Clinton is a socialists dream and a sure loser in a presidential election, with negatives higher than her positives. The dems may choose Dean to lead the party, but they don't want to lose the presidency again, so they will choose a moderate governor, probably from a southern state, and they will probably win. Hillary vs. Rice is a joke, won't happen in '08, though if Rice runs as the veep in '08 she may be back in '12 as the presidential candidate. Giuliani/ Rice in '08? Moderate presidential candidate with a progressive veep? McCain is never going to be nominated, and always to be touted by those that listen more to the PR firms than to history and common sense.

RJ - You're missing a fundamental point, I think. The nominee of either party has carte blanche to pick whoever they want as a running mate. (How the hell do you think Quale made it onto the ticket in '88?).

Therefore, my McCain / Whitman idea is based on: what if McCain can run the gamut and get nominated. Then, he can tell everyone to screw off and pick an unusual (and unusually compelling) running mate. The party can decide not to enthusiastically support him and the evangelicals can stay home, but the nominee gets the pick, plain and simple.

Scott -- You bring up a great point with Clark. I think he'll make a very appealing VP pick, especially if the non-veteran Edwards or the all-woman Clinton gets the nomination. He may be seen as a nice bolster to the ticket (and the Clinton people love him!).

Mike - California's not a bellweather state, just a liberal-ish state that elected a moderate Republican Gov. Bellweather means, 'as goes ________, goes the nation.'

California not a bellweather state? Hmm.. California institutes anti-smoking laws, other states follow suit. Etc. That's how I meant it, as a trend-setter.

very interesting theories all around - my thoughts are that the actual names involved are unknowable at thsi point, but I see the Democrats as similar to the Republicans after Clinton won his second term: they will want to settle on someone early whom they can rally around after 8 years out of power. There will be an air of inevitability about someone by about a year from now and the nomination will be his/hers to lose, much like Bush prior to '00. I have no idea what the Republicans will do

As goes California, so goes the nation... eventually. Yep, it's the bellweather state.

So you're saying the nation's heading to the left politically? That's a new one on me.

Salon has an article up on the non-moderate nature of Ahnold - and the word is 'bellwether'

Left or right, the nation, and the world is becoming more polemic - a bad sign, historically

So you're saying the nation's heading to the left politically? That's a new one on me.

Again, have you been keeping up on smoking bans? Tax revolt? Emissions regulations? Gay rights? (Overall the trend is toward more acceptance of gays, even if several states just voted to ban gay marriage (which California did four years ago.))

When did tax revolt become a leftist issue?

Dave

"I think you all are missing the historic trend of America electing anyone but a northeastern liberal to the presidency, especially if they are a senator. (Kennedy being the obvious exception, but Hillary is no Jack Kennedy)"

Ah, but what if Hillary runs as a moderate Southerner??? ;-)

people i think Jeb Bush And john McCaine
should go for the republican ticket

That could well be a KO ticket (especially with McCain at the top of the ticket) but there are numerous reasons why it would likely never happen.

A woman at the top of the ticket in one of the major parties would be a great sign of maturity for the country.

I'd love to see it and purely on strategic terms - not a right or wrong value on my part - I think Dems will pick a woman or an African-American or an Hispanic, if only to remind people that most of all those three groups ARE Democrats after all.

Eva Mendes for Presidente :-)

my thinking has changed quite a bit on Hillary and it wouldn't surprise me terribly if she gets the nom

I wish GW Bush could run again. Is there any possibility that an amendment could pass to allow him for a third term? Or extend his current term?

not much, FDR sort of killed that dog by breaking the unwritten rule and leading to the 2-term only amendment

I'd say it's more likely you'll see foreign-born citizens made eligible

Yep -- that's what I've been saying for months now, Eric. I think she's clearly the frontrunner at this super-early moment in time. "Hardball" reported last night that Gore is definitely out in '08, so that eliminates the possibility of a Gore/Clinton bloodbath.

So we're talking Richardson, Edwards, Kerry as the current heavies that come anywhere close to Clinton's star-power.

This thought just came to me: a Clinton-Wes Clark ticket might be just about the strongest ticket the Dems can come up with. There's regional balance, domestic/foreign affairs balance, and the two camps get on very well.

"This thought just came to me: a Clinton-Wes Clark"

I'd vote for them

With me, we've got two, Scott!

I think Clark will be serious #2 potential with the troika of Clinton, Edwards, and Richardson without military/foreign affairs backgrounds.

Sweet! Start the running tally!

I like Wes Clark alot. And I think he could have a very wide appeal to independents and moderate/liberal republicans.

Clark has many appealing qualities, and the fact that he's already gone through his first presidential campaign should make him a much more seasoned candidate the next time around.

The way things are looking, HR Clinton is looking to become the moderate force in the Democratic party, which will likely end any thoughts of running by Biden, Lieberman, etc. She'll likely face a number of challengers who will have no choice but to go to her left in the primaries.

If Clinton can snag the nomination under that scenario, she'll be well positioned for the general election. Adding Clark to the ticket would make excellent synergy at that point.

(Can someone wake me up in January, 2008, please?)

"Hardball" reported last night that Gore is definitely out in '08

Oh! Do tell...

Wes Clark is a drag. He gives a lousy speech, and he's never held elected office.