GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: A Date With 2008

• 10431
  

  80 years is incorrect. There was no incumbent president or vice president running in 1952. It was Eisenhower/Nixon vs Stevenson/Sparkman. The incumbent president, Harry Truman, was prohibited from running due to the recent term limitation amendment, since he served one full term and almost all of Roosevelt's term after his death. Sprakman was not Truman's Vice President. 56 years would be the correct time frame(as 0f 2008), not 80.

  GovExec.com reader Posted June 17, 2005 5:00 PM
• 9644
  

  Edgar, the entire government of the USA runs on elections and everything is based on getting re-elected or elected for another position. Decisions in Washington, DC are totally based on politics and that means elections. The interesting think about the lists of potential candidates shows again that the Democrats do not have a viable candidate that can beat the Republicans. They lost the last election because of the same problem and we have been stuck with a joke every since. It is never too early to think about the government of the USA.

  taxpayer Posted May 10, 2005 8:10 AM
• 9640
  

  Although we don't spend too much time worrying about who the two political parties will be backing for the 2008 election, I am sure there are alot of us who have discussed the disappointment of this previous election and the lack of substance it had. As a middle class American mother working full-time and taking care of my children in a married family setting, I really hope that the next election and everything leading up to it is more substantive than this last one. I felt there was more posturing by both sides than there was real thought or concern put forth regarding the American people.

  Hopefully Mr. Cook is right about the top nominees for the Republican party. I, for one, would like to see Rudy Giuliani or John McCain get the backing of the party for presidential candidate (or even both running together as presidential and vice presidential nominees).

  These two gentlemen have name recognition and reputations that I think would make many of us feel good about voting again.

  Kathleen Vernacchio Posted May 10, 2005 7:31 AM
• 9587
  

  Charlie Cook is good at what he does. But he should take a few months off and get out of D.C. Nowhere else in the country are people worrying about the 2008 election.

  Life is too short to spend worrying about politics. When was the last time Mr. Cook went hiking in the woods? Or looking at wildflowers? We have nice wildflowers out here in Wyoming.

  Edgar Posted May 6, 2005 7:13 PM
• 9488
  

  Eighty years? Who was the incumbent president or vice president in the election of 1952?

  GovExec.com reader Posted May 3, 2005 12:02 PM
• 9487
  

  On the Democratic side I couldn't help noticing a name not mentioned: Al Gore.

  GovExec.com reader Posted May 3, 2005 10:13 AM
• 9480
  

  This is a great overall look at the 2008 race. I'm glad that Charlie Cook doesn't discount Wes Clark as many do. I've supported him before and will again if he runs. Cook is right that Clark lacked the experience last time, but he has acknowledged that and he will be much better this time if he runs. Personally, I can't see the Democrats nominating another Northeastern liberal if the party wants to win. It tried and failed in 2004. If Wes Clark keeps improving as a candidate, he just may be the Democrat's best bet for the White House. Check out securingamerica.com, where Clark puts out his personal agenda for the security of America and the advancement of the Democratic party. He's a guy I like on my side.

  Back to the article. Charlie Cook is as good as anyone laying out the battle lines and analyzing the field. If I thought the race was wide open before, I really feel it now.

  joe phelan Posted May 3, 2005 1:09 AM