I LOVE EWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 852 posts, RR: 8 Posted (11 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3052 times:
With Hillary really pushing her new book it is quite clear to me that if a Democrat does not beat my favorite Texan in 2004 Hillary WILL run in 2008. However I expect the Republicans to have these candidates oppose her.
Fomer Mayor of NYC Guiliani
or Secratary of State Powell
(sorry if the spellings are off)
If this is the case I think Hillary does NOT have a chance against these canidates. What do you think?
Alpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (11 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2887 times:
Aww come on Alpha, the 2008 Election will be a lot more interesting that the 2004 one.
Keep being that smug and overconfident. Suits me just fine, thank you.
Also Alpha just out of curiosity who do you like in the 2004 election? I am assuming you are a democrat. If you want to keep that private I understand.
A year ago, I would have voted for George Bush, but not now. Between the time of 1441, and the start of the Iraq war, he lost my vote. I still support him in the basic thrust against terrorism, but as you've heard from me, he's taken that even too far, in my view.
I have no clue who I'd vote for in the primary at this time-absolutely none. The field needs to thin a little for there to be serious looking at the candidtates. There are three I definitely, under ANY circumstances that are real, who I would never vote for: Kucinnich (I grew up in Greater Cleveland, trust me-keep him in The House. He's fine for there, but no further), Sharpton or Mosley-Braun. As I've said, we don't need to swing the pendulum from the far-right, where Bush has gone, to the far left, where these three reside for eternity.
Talk to me again in March or so. I might have a better clue.
Jwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 19
Reply 5, posted (11 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2871 times:
OK Alpha, I think the question would rather be "would you vote for anyone as long as it's not Bush?".
I can consider that even for you there would be worse options?
Pol Pot comes to mind (or similar)
As to the above list of potential Republican candidates for 2008, it's interesting.
Guilliana makes little sense, 2008 is too long after 11 Sept. 2001, he'll be forgotten by then.
The others are interesting because they're women (never been a woman as US president) or black (never been a black US president).
If the elections were run today with one of them against Hillary Clinton I'd agree the bitch doesn't stand a gnat's chance in hell among the non-alligned voters (the party members will usually vote on whomever their party puts forwards of course, and both parties are about the same size).
DeltAirlines From United States of America, joined May 1999, 8910 posts, RR: 12
Reply 7, posted (11 years 5 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 2801 times:
I don't think it will be any of the three mentioned. Giuliani will not be as familiar as he is now; Dole is in the Senate, and Senators don't normally make the best candidates for President (governors do because they are in the executive branch already), and Powell might be a little too moderate for the Republican Party. Maybe Mitt Romney might run though. He is relatively conservative (moderate enough though to be popular with the independents), has incredible charisma, is currently the governor of a state, and he was elected governor in Massachusetts, arguably the most liberal state in the Union. I wouldn't be the least surprised to see him run.
Srbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (11 years 5 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 2750 times:
2004 could be interesting if no Democratic candidate pulls ahead as the clear front runner. Even though Hillary has already nixed a run in '04 (to an extent), there is still the possibility that she could be drafted as their candidate (there's even rumors that they may still try to get John McCain to switch parties to run against Bush). I think the eventual Democratic nominee in '04 isn't even in the race right now. Retired Gen. Wesley Clark has been making the rounds on the political talk show circuit a lot lately, and sounds like he could be the fallback choice for the Democrats if no single candidate currently in the race garners enough support to win the nomination. Back in '92, nobody thought George H.W. Bush was beatable when the first candidates announced they were running for the Democratic nomination. If the Democrats get thrashed in '04, they definitely would have to find another Bill Clinton to energize the voters. Whether it is Hillary or a currently lesser-known Democrat, '08 could see whether or not the Bush Family Dynasty can continue (it is expected that Jeb Bush will seek the nomination for the Republicans in '08).
IMissPiedmont From United States of America, joined May 2001, 6326 posts, RR: 33
Reply 13, posted (11 years 5 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 2720 times:
And you think that Bush is a lock next year? Perhaps so as the other so called party is not quite acting like it cares. But then, why should it? As long as the US government is controlled by corporations, there will be no change. This is the reason that Colin Powell will not win at any time. He has a brain and thinks for himself.
I'd vote for him in a heartbeat if he were to show that he still has a backbone after the last 10 years.
The USA is badly in need of a "none of the above" on our ballots.
Alpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 2705 times:
You guys can talk about Liddy Dole, or Mitt Romney, or Colin Powell all you want. There's no doubt in my mind who will run in 2008 if George Bush wins a second term. And that is still very likely, though not the sure thing all his supporters on here would like you to believe.
Why do you think he chose a VP with a bad heart and who is closing in on 70? Normally, the VP for a successful is literally automatically the heir-apparent to run for President after his "Boss" is done: Nixon ran after Ike, Mondale after Carter; Bush after Reagan; Gore after Clinton. But Cheney won't run, and picking him was deliberate for one reason-it will let Jeb Bush make his own run in '08 if Big Brother wins a second term and serves till then.
Trust me, if Dubya wins re-election, Jeb Bush will be the immediate front-runner as soon as 2006.
Goingboeing From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 4875 posts, RR: 16
Reply 16, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 2696 times:
Maybe with the crappy treatment that Powell has received from Rummy, it's not out of the question that he could resign and run as a Democrat.
I'm with Alpha1 - if the election were held in the days immediately after 9-11, Bush would have had my vote in a heartbeat. But his warmongering late last year and early this year has cost him my vote.
Klaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21495 posts, RR: 53
Reply 19, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 2661 times:
If Powell was to become president, he´d come with his international credibility severely damaged "right out of the box"; It might not be a factor in the election itself, but his foreign policy would be crippled from the start.
Not exactly what the USA will need in the future...
Cedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 8163 posts, RR: 54
Reply 20, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2638 times:
I absolutely agree, if Bush Jr gets a second term, Jeb will be the candidate in 2008; and similarly, if the Democrats lose in 2004, they'll put Hilary up in 2008. So 16 years after Clinton (Bill) beat Bush Sr in 92, 2008 will still be a Bush fighting a Clinton to a standstill, another tied election (with a turnout of 26%) and a dodgy result. And a Bush or Clinton in the White House until, if the winner gets two terms, 2016.
(Colin Powell will never, ever run, by the way.)
fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
ScottysAir From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 2572 times:
No, Bill is not for first lady and that was Hillary Clinton were first lady of president Clinton. It's time to bring it back of president Clinton again at the White House now. George W. Bush is worst person were too many signed by the contract and new things to do on Nov 19, 2001 from 2 years ago about with Federal Government at the US Airports and just want pulled it out from TSA off of the airports now. These are no longer used at the US Airports and bring with old security is back again at the checkpoint.