[PB2K]

I was just wondering who the Americans of this forum regard as the best presidential candidate for 2008.

As far as I know the democrats have no good presidential candidate except for H Clinton. Why would peope vote against her? Is there another candidate worth mentioning?

Who would be the best Republican candidate? Giuliani? Jeb Bush? Rice ? Anyone else?

[Millennium]

I think that Hillary will be the Democrats' candidate for 2008. Virginia governor Mark Warner is also apparently considered a serious possibility by some, but I see some serious issues with this, starting with the fact that he's a Republican. However, it seems that the chief concern among the Democrats is going to remain "electability" for the time being, which both helps and hurts Hillary -she's at least as far to the left as Dean, if not more- and so if Warner can be persuaded to switch sides then he could also be a good choice. Even though I say "if Warner can be persuaded", I think this is actually a very real possibility; see below.

The Republicans have a more varied playing field to work with. If Hillary runs, expect Rice to be her opponent: the only way Republicans can hope to counter Hillary's raw political correctness is with even more political correctness. This would also make for an interesting race, since it would virtually guarantee the first female President, and possibly also give us our first black President as well. In the latter case she'd be a Republican, and if that happens then I call dibs on selling tickets to the head-scratching among liberals the day after Election Day: how could Republicans of all people manage to pull off those two historic firsts? But in any case, Rice won't be put forward if Hillary isn't.

Guiliani would also be a strong choice. His leadership ability is proven, which will appeal greatly to Republicans and some post-Katrina Democrats. However, I don't think he'll run, mostly due to health reasons.

Everybody -even among Democrats- likes John McCain on one level or another, except for the higher-ups in the Republican Party. If he ran he would probably win, but he probably won't be allowed to run.

Jeb won't run. We might see him in 2012 or 2016, but not in 2008. He'll want to build more credibility in Florida first. The Bush family will want to put at least one Administration's worth of time between Dubya and him anyway, so that they can blame intervening problems on the Democrats.

Then we get to Mark Warner again. Yes, he's being courted by both sides. I'd imagine that the Republicans will have an easier time winning him to their side, but the fact that they haven't done so already (keeping in mind that he's already Republican) indicates that I could very well be wrong about that. Despite his Republican affiliation, he's actually very moderate if not slightly left-leaning, and this is what's led the Democrats to try and get him to defect. Clearly they're making an impression.

[RIRedinPA]

Originally Posted by PB2K

I was just wondering who the Americans of this forum regard as the best presidential candidate for 2008.

As far as I know the democrats have no good presidential candidate except for H Clinton. Why would peope vote against her? Is there another candidate worth mentioning?

Who would be the best Republican candidate? Giuliani? Jeb Bush? Rice ? Anyone else?

Joe Biden, Senator from Delaware would be an excellent Democratic choice but HC is going to dominate and control the media - by control I mean that if Biden starts polling well the Clinton only have to plan an event to quash any coverage of Biden.

On the Rep side I do hope McCain runs and sticks it to the Bushies in the process. I've heard Guliani as well and poor old Arnold won't even get elected governor again so he's out. They are trying to primp Frist for a run but the guy is a conservative Al Gore. The problem the Reps have is no one that can win appeals to the fundamentalist crowd, who now control the money.

As for Warner, I don't like people changing their political spots just to get elected so I wouldn't vote for him.

My voting pecking order would be:

McCain
Biden
Clinton
Kinky Freidman write in

[Moderator]

If Frist is nominated I'll shed an AIDS filled tear.

[cavepainter]

Ya know, the Washington Post ran an article about the O'Connor Supreme Court opening, and Bush's options. In it they mentioned 'pro-abortiion, civil rights, and civil liberties groups' as being liberal. And we all know what that means.

The Dems have pretty much given up on a real message. It's gonna take some REAL BIG problems for them to get traction. That leaves Hillary, Dean, and a player to be named later.

As a leftist, I'd hope McCain would launch an independant campaign. I might even be tempted...he's sensible. Leave the right to the right.

[OreoCookie]

I don't think Guliani will run, I heard (as mentioned before) he has health problems. I think Rice is definitely a candidate.

[Moderator]

Guliani is too liberal for the christian extremists anyway..don't know if he could get the nod without them.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by Moderator

Guliani is too liberal for the christian extremists anyway..don't know if he could get the nod without them.

He can play the 9/11 angle even better than Bush can; that would give him an edge with such groups.

[andi*pandi]

I would throw my money on Cain. Or give it to him, or something.

[nredman]

please not Rice or Jeb Bush....if it had to be a republican i'd say John McCain.

but i hope its a democrat John Edwards (probably not) Hillary Clintion (no thank you)

how about Barack Obama?

[andi*pandi]

does obama have enough experience to not be pegged as too green? (a main complaint about Edwards).

[RIRedinPA]

Originally Posted by nredman

please not Rice or Jeb Bush....if it had to be a republican i'd say John McCain.

but i hope its a democrat John Edwards (probably not) Hillary Clintion (no thank you)

how about Barack Obama?

Barack in 2012 - but he should run for governor, no one in the Senate ever wins.

[RIRedinPA]

Originally Posted by PB2K

I was just wondering who the Americans of this forum regard as the best presidential candidate for 2008.

As far as I know the democrats have no good presidential candidate except for H Clinton. Why would peope vote against her? Is there another candidate worth mentioning?

Who would be the best Republican candidate? Giuliani? Jeb Bush? Rice ? Anyone else?

Of course we're all talken about Walken, right?

http://www.walken2008.com/

[Spliffdaddy]

Gephardt & Gingrich

bet you twenty bucks.

[Sky Captain]

Zell Miller 2008!

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by RIRedinPA

Barack in 2012 - but he should run for governor, no one in the Senate ever wins.

Perhaps he should run for governor first, and then run for President next?

[Sky Captain]

Barak reminds me of the UPS delivery guy on Mad TV.

[loki74]

I would really like to see Condi Rice as the President.

I mean, imagine the irony--The first black president-a Republican; the first woman president, also, a Republican. Who says we're not for minority/womens' rights? Another senseless Dem's argument would bite the dust.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

Barak reminds me of the UPS delivery guy on Mad TV.

THAT'S where I've seen him before!

[subego]

Originally Posted by loki74

I would really like to see Condi Rice as the President.

While a HC/CR race would be so good it could be put on pay-per-view, isn't the rub on CR that she hasn't held elected office?

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by subego

While a HC/CR race would be so good it could be put on pay-per-view, isn't the rub on CR that she hasn't held elected office?

I personally think that's an asset.

[rambo47]

Charlton Heston in '08.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by Millennium

I think that Hillary will be the Democrats' candidate for 2008. Virginia governor Mark Warner is also apparently considered a serious possibility by some, but I see some serious issues with this, starting with the fact that he's a Republican.

Huh? Are you confusing Governor Mark Warner (D-Va) with Senator John Warner (R-Va)?

[Randman]

For the person who mentioned Arnie: He's a naturalized citizen so that would take a Constitutional amendment.

Rudy? I think the talk of his alleged affair(s) would come out in dirty play.

McCain? Maybe, unless he implodes in a Howard Deanesque manner.

Powell? Only if his wife gives permission.

Cheney? A dark horse.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Randman

Cheney? A dark horse.

Grabber.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Randman

Rudy? I think the talk of his alleged affair(s) would come out in dirty play.

It didn't seem to hurt Bill Clinton.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

Huh? Are you confusing Governor Mark Warner (D-Va) with Senator John Warner (R-Va)?

Hmm. Actually, that could be; I'll go back and check my sources again.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by subego

While a HC/CR race would be so good it could be put on pay-per-view, isn't the rub on CR that she hasn't held elected office?

True, but that's not a card Hillary can play very effectively: she's only held one elected office herself, and she got that one by moving to the right place at the right time. If Hillary wants to run against Rice, there are more effective means of attack: focusing on her Bush Administration associations would probably be most effective. The anybody-but-Bush crowd still has a strong influence, perhaps even stronger than it did in 2004. Of course, playing that card would greatly increase the political polarization we see now, but that doesn't matter to Hillary, and it probably shouldn't; the mere fact that she's even running would increase it anyway, no matter who opposed her.

That's the interesting thing about elections: everyone has ways that they could be attacked, but different people will be able to use different attacks more effectively than others. It's all a matter of tactics. Hillary could counter certain candidates more effectively than others. Of course, the Democrats have two major disadvantages here: they're being watched more closely than the Republicans, and their national convention is held first. This means that they're going to have to pick more carefully, because the Republicans get the opportunity to respond to whoever the Democrats choose with a candidate tailored to counteract that.

It's sad that the Presidential race has become a war of ideologies, rather than a battle between people. This isn't how things were supposed to turn out. However, if it has to happen, then let it be fought as what it is.

[Millennium]

Adding onto my previous post, where I mention that some candidates can run more or less effectively depending on their opponent: Hillary versus Rice is so ridiculously well-matched that I wish I could sell tickets to it; I'd make millions. Each is a near-perfect foil for the other on so many levels that although it would very quickly become a vicious personal fight, it would start out vicious on an ideological level and stay that way the whole time.

However, if you want an easy win rather than a good fight, Hillary would be most effective against Newt Gingrich, if his rumored 2008 bid materializes. I mean, come on; even the polarization surrounding Hillary wouldn't be enough to counter the many disgraces of poor Newt. He'd be not just beaten, but outright humiliated. Surprisingly, I think she might also do decently against Giuliani; they play to many of the same strengths, but they're seen as strengths more often by Democrats, so Giuliani would face trouble within the Republican ranks. The worst-case scenario for Hillary would be running against McCain, because she's so polarizing while he isn't; he already has mass appeal on a scale that Hillary is never going to achieve, and she knows that.