Clinton is Democrats' favourite for White House but ....

"Please God, tell Al Gore to get up and run again so he may pull a Nixon and win 8 years after his previous loss.... But not to much Nixon because I do not want some criminal scandal."

That's very true, but also remember this: back in '91, no one had ever heard of anyone named Clinton running for a national office, either. There are actually many other names being floated around right now, some national and some more regional (in both parties, as a matter of fact). The public and the Democratic party as a whole will need the next year to have any real feel for who's who.

I agree. And remember in 1999, no one thought that those people pushing Bush were serious either, and many laughed it off.

I laugh every time some one says He's the governor of where? in Primary Colors.

Oluseye, I'm not entirely sure what you're saying there. Not to be condescending in anyway, but the US has a two-term limit so there can be no incumbent in the '08 presidential race.

I don't know, Oluseye. Bush is unpopular, but I think people are more capable of separating candidates than you might think. Clinton's popularity dipped extremely low near the end of his term, and Gore separated himself from him in public events, and then came very near winning. Bush's (lack of) popularity will probably hurt the Republicans, but I think the greater danger between the parties is overconfidence on the part of the Democrats. Don't assume you have it in the bag, or you'll lose.

The incumbent is the current President whose Presidency isn't going well. It doesn't look like he can turn things around. For that reason, the Republicans could be damaged for a long time by his record, making it irrelevant who the democrats field in '08 since they would have a generic advantage.

My apologies, I had mistakenly assumed you were implying President Bush would run for a third term.

While I jokingly question the sanity of anyone who voted for President Bush a second time (I know so many Republicans that just left that box blank), I agree with totally. A moderate with a track record of bipartisanship is what the country truly needs.

If the Democrats can't put up someone who fills that role but the Republicans do, then I'll vote for that individual.

If Edwards had been the candidate it would have been no question, but Kerry just gets under my skin. Plus the information that has come out since the election would have more than changed my vote, but they were conveniently able to suppress all of that.

I totally agree with you. I think that people get our two major parties confused with the ideologies they are "supposed" to represent. The reality is that both parties, when considered as a whole (I know I'm generalizing and I probably shouldn't be), are dirty. Neither party (as a whole, once again) is really interested in representing the public. Instead, both parties are representing themselves and their own interests. Unfortunately, due to the stranglehold that both parties have parties maintain on the elections (think of the debate contract between Bush and Kerry in the last general election), a major win for a smaller party is much more than an uphill battle.

I don't know what the exact rules are, but yes there are certain popularity / polling percentage rules for most of those debates. In part I'm sure to keep out the "crazies" and in part to solidify and keep the alternative parties you mention from participating in the process. (I believe this happened back in 2000 with Nader, in that some suggested he was actively kept out of the debates.)

Ross Perot is the only one in recent history that I know of that participated in a national debate with the main parties.

Back to your point about giving the spotlight to these third parties, besides Nader who managed to touch a nerve and Perot who had enough money to just buy his own way onto television, no one in those parties has managed to have the presence to be able to stand up get the media's attention.

Michael, I think you have it backwards. I think the parties as a whole are "good" and taken as a whole both parties have positive messages for America.

I think instead its the individuals in each party that are the problem, are "dirty", and want power for power's sake.

I as a Democrat don't believe the Republican Party is Evil or Power Hungry. But I sure as heck know that Tom DeLay was "dirty" and not good for America.

The Libertarian candidate didn't really get a lot of media attention, but I believe he got the most votes of any non-Democrat, non-Republican candidate, and possibly more than all of the other alternative candidates combined. If that can continue to happen then maybe people will start to pay attention.

Which libertarian candidate are you talking about exactly? As far as I know, Nader was a Green.

Don't take this comment the right way, as I'm not trying to troll here, but it seems you can't even name this candidate. Doesn't bode well for the party if advocates can't name the person, does it?

Michael (sp?) Badnarik was the LP candidate.

I didn't put his name in, but just referred to him as "the Libertarian candidate" since I didn't think that most people would remember him.

And, from Wikipedia:

"Badnarik and Green Party candidate David Cobb were arrested in St. Louis, Missouri, on October 8, 2004, for an act of civil disobedience. Badnarik and Cobb were protesting their exclusion from the presidential debates of the 2004 presidential election campaign. They were arrested after crossing a police barricade in an attempt to serve an Order to Show Cause to the Commission on Presidential Debates."

I would take Feingold.

In fact, he seems to be the only name for either of the major parties that has any integrity at all. I would like to see him as president, but god I don't envy him (or anyone else) if/when he wins. The next president will have a hell of a mess to clean up.

If it came to Giuliani or Hillary, I'm voting for Mickey Mouse and moving to Vienna, Austria (because I love the city, not for the politics). I'm tired of politicians propping themselves up on 9/11. If 9/11 happened a year later, 90% of the US would be asking, "Giuliani who?" While he made out well in the aftermath, anyone could have done just as well because the infrastructure was all still in place. What did he do that was so extraordinary and unique?

That is the point, I don't see you calling for the governor of Louisiana to step up to the presidency... Anyhow he was fantastic as a leader of NY, a state second only to California in contributions to the Union. I think he'd have the name for it, he just needs a running mate, someone as you say, doesn't need 9/11 to prop against.

Not to be rude, but I don't think you got my point. I would say that the Governor of Louisiana would have done as well as Giuliani after 9/11 and that Giuliani would not have done much better than the Governor of Louisiana after Katrina. The most important part of each of the catastrophes was the emergency response infrastructure in place, something that each politician had little to do with. Out of 9/11 Giuliani has ridden a wave of heroism because he was mayor when the attacks came. Without 9/11 he would just be a has been mayor, but instead he is a major contender for the leadership of the free world. What has he done to deserve this?

Guilliani was the mayor of NYC... not the governor of the state of NY.

Biden has a problem, though, which is going to be brought up should he be the front runner for the Dems. It has to do with some incidents while he was in college and afterwards, having to do with plagiarism. And you know the Republicans would seize on that and destroy his image on every media outlet. That's never going to go away for Biden.

I don't know. What I do know is that every candidate has a big defect much like everyone of us. It's a matter of running a good campaign in all 50 states.

Even the best run campaign in all 50 states may not matter so much as the integrity of the voting machines and the vote counting process. All Americans of whatever political persuasion should be concerned about that.

I know of Biden's past issues. I would hope that the American people are smarter than that. If he runs a campaign in the same tone in which he spoke on Bill Maher's show, I think he'd do fine.

It is hard to overcome a Republican party that really isn't concerned with the issues, but would rather play it like a junior high popularity contest. So in that respect, anyone with a solid message and hopeful ideas that could actually turn the country around is always going to have tough time.

Except every time McCain starts to make me think like he's the Real Thing, he goes and tows the republican party line. I like Stewart and Chomsky.

The funny thing, Myk, is that Republicans say that exact same thing in reverse. That's why he'll never get elected... he just confuses and infuriates everyone equally. ;-)

This is one reason a lot of people like Gov. Warner for the Democratic ticket. A Democrat with 70%+ approval rating in Virginia, a fairly solid red state.