I've read that Bob Kerry is considering another run. Gore, though, will probably bury everyone, considering his evident fundraising skills, much as Bob Dole did in '96- it's difficult to beat an insider, especially when he's outspending you 5 to 1. The republicans have several attractive candidates- John Kaschich (sic) comes to mind- but they will certainly choose someone else. Personally crossing my fingers for Hunter Thompson. "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" is currently in production (with Johnny Depp portraying the eminent doctor)- hopefully, this will produce a groundswell...

I believe it would be a perfect time for a female vice president. If Gore would choose someone like Ann Richards, and it being the year 2000 and all, I believe it would get past the voters. WER

I agree, and Ann, I think, would make a terrific national candidate. But wouldn't she and Hunter make a great ticket? Irredeemable and redeemed- great balance. And instead of doing the boring bus thing like Clinton and Gore, they could do it on Harleys (it would be great TV)...

Not too mention novel... WER

How about a team of ANGRY WHITE MALES such as Pat Buchanan, Newt Gingrich, Bob Dornan, Pat Robertson, Dan Quayle etc? So what if a bunch of wimpy weak ass people don't like them? They know whats right for this country! God told them! The U.S. doesn't need another wimpy Democrat like Clinton! Reagan and Bush proved their manhood by invading weak countries like Nicaraugua, Grenada, and Panama! We also don't need another woman like Ferraro insisting that they have a women have a right to decide what t do with their bodies. Why can't they stay home--where they belong??

I think it's shaping up to Al Gore vs. who knows, probably George Bush Jr, the current governor of Texas. Polls show that he's the only viable Republican outside of Colin Powell. My prediction Al Gore and Bill Bradley vs. George Bush and Colin Powell. (President and VP, respectively). There's an outside chance Hilary would be the VP choice.

I think Gore-Bradley is a safe-money choice. Must believe that any ticket containing Colin Powell would be headed by same- and cannot imagine George, Jr. being secure enough to choose a man of Powell's stature, anyway (Dukakis-Bentson all over again). Powell would be a formidable candidate, regardless of one's opinion of him- but I still wonder if the mussing up he would recieve from primary fights will cause the process to remain unpalateable to him. Also, every other general-become-president regarded the office as a sort of ceremonial post, due him in his retirement; Colin Powell does not suffer such delusions, though, and must question, I would think, whether he is truly prepared- in training or by temperament- to serve the office well. A few years ago I would have laughed at the notion of Jr. Bush becoming governor, much less president- but these are indeed strange, twisted times we live in. I laughed at the idea of the Gipper becoming president, too...Come to think of it, thought the idea of Georg , Sr. being elected seemed kind of out there,too (even Nixon didn't want to be seen with the guy)...

Gore and a woman vp would be a great choice. Diane Feinstein's a democrat right?

Diane Feinstein would be a hell of a good choice as VP- but I don't think a ticket with her name on it would be electable. She's too closely identified with the percieved California/Frisco liberal axis that dominated the party a few years ago (and gave birth to all those "angry white males" we keep hearing about). Just as "only Nixon could go to China" can only a republican from California hope to help a national ticket (assuming he's not Pete Wilson, of course). I sense that Al Gore's candidacy is goi g to suffer from some of the same problems that derailed Bob Dole's- big monied insider beating up all the comparative little guys (thus creating lots of hard feelings within the party); great popularity among party activists, but projecting a rather detached and aloof image to the general electorate; and no clear- and more importantly, concise- reason offered for wanting to be president. Gore does have a few competitive advantages compared to Dole- he's more comfortable with rhetoric, and thus if he's a le to concoct even a half-assed theme for his candidacy, he'll deliver it better than Dole did (and with less evident embarassment), and he's a better sell with female voters (and that's the segment that really made Dole's candidacy untenable from the outset). A compelling female ticket mate could very well put Gore over the top- and I think Ann Richards would merit great consideration...

Ann Richards would be great. Bush Jr. might counter with former cheerleader Kay Bailey Hutchinson, current Texas Senator. She's pretty safe.

One would probably preclude the other- thus, if Hutchinson were chosen (which is a distinct, unsettling possibility, though not by Junior, because 2 Texans on the same ticket wouldn't play well to a nation half sick of Texans already), then Ann couldn't be, as the republicans convention a month before the democrats. In that scenario- Ann being unavailable- If I'm Al Gore I still look west, and preferably still for a female, though no one comes immediately to mind. And it cannot be someone similar to Pat Schroeder or Mosely(?)-Braun (i.e., perceived ideologues, captive to narrow/special interests). Patty Murray (I believe that's her name- she's a senator from Oregon or Washington) seems rather interesting. Even though she's a first termer- and entered politics as pretty much a single issue candidate (the Brady bill, I believe)- she's projected intelligence, good sense, and integrity the few times I've seen her. Don't know, however, if she possesses the requisite campaign skills vital to be Al Gore's ru ning mate, nor whether she possesses any such ambitions. Mary Landreaux (again not sure I got the name right- haven't been paying much attention to politics lately, obviously) is certainly one to watch- she's extremely telegenic, articulate, principled, bright, is a terrific campaigner (any liberal elected senator in Louisiana merits immediate tenure)- and probably drips with ambition. Louisiana is a southern state, though, and a small one at that, and Landreaux would have served less than 2 years at th time of her presumed selection- hardly long enough to merit real consideration, probably (assuming she'll be permitted to occupy her seat at all- former sen. Woody Redneck, or whatever his name is, has been raising holy hell with anyone that will listen since she had the audacity to whip his inbred you-know-what)...

What year, month is the GOP convention. That's good for the Democrats to get second pick, how did they luck out this way?

Republicans meet in July, Democrats in August, 2000. Just tradition, I guess. And not sure the positioning really matters, all that much. For all the hoopla generated by VP choice (and it really is fun to handicap), don't know of a single lesser half this century that actually appreciably influenced an election, much less decided one, with the arguable exception of LBJ, in 1960. The margin of victory was a little more than 100,000, out of nearly 70 million votes cast, and 84 electoral votes. The Mass. born, Harvard educated, Catholic Kennedy actually carried the ten states constituting the "old south" by more than a half-million votes (5 pct. points), winning in Texas (by a mere 40,000 votes), Arkansas (30,000 votes, but only 50.2% majority- Harry Byrd carried 7%), Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana (again, only 50.4%- Byrd polled 21%), N. Carolina (58,000 votes), and S. Carolina (9,000 votes). Losing Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, N. Carolina, and S. Carolina would have swung the election for Nixon (and would ave given him 31 states, to 18 for Kennedy, 1 for Byrd), and one could argue this may well have occurred without the reassuring presence of LBJ on the ticket. And doesn't Nixon's choice of Cabot Lodge for his running mate seem rather bizarre? What could his logic have been? Lodge could hardly help him win the northeast- a dim prospect for Nixon, where Kennedy played best (and won resoundingly)- especially considering that Kennedy had beaten the incumbent senator Lodge badly (in '52), tete a tete. So, ust how in the world did Nixon expect Lodge to help his ticket? Could it have been compelled by his legendary sense of inferiority- the idea of heading a ticket over an effete, old money type like Lodge? (If it were a fault, grievously hath he answered it, I guess...)

Good observations, it would seem pretty clear that LBJ put JFK over the topic and, ironically, inherited his legacy. Certainly, Gore beat Quayle in the debates but probably wasn't the deciding factor. I hope that Gore learns from the example of JFK and finds someone who will complement the ticket. Gore is an absolute shoe in right? For the GOP, it would almost have to be Bush Jr. or Colin Powell or a joint ticket with both of them. That latter would be very scary for the Democrats. Both Sr and Jr Bush seem to picking up popularity lately but Clinton may have taken teflon coating classes from Reagan, the GOP is going overboard with this campaign finance pot calling the kettle black stuff, it may backlash them in 2000. Are the people ready for one party Democrat government? Are they fed up with Congress to the point where this could possibly happen?

Al Gore would, it seems, be a shoe-in for the nomination, I would think. Consider, though, recent history (post WW2) of "shoe-in" candidates- this defined as candidates possessed of such momentum, connections, and- most important of all- warchests that their nomination seems a foregone conclusion. By my count, 9 men fit these criteria: Dewey('48); Eisenhower('52); Stevenson('52 and '56); Nixon('60); Goldwater('64); Muskie('72); Mondale('84); Bush('88); and Dole('92). You see where I'm headed with this, I'm sure- these men lost 80% of the ensuing general elections (except poor Ed Muskie, of course- unable to secure his party's nomination after publication of the "cannook letter", and other assorted fabrications of Nixon's USC mafia). And I would argue that the two winners were aberrations- Eisenhower was perceived as a war hero (and, inarguably, had more hair than Adlai, an important consideration), and Bush- well, I guess the words "Michael Dukakis" pretty much say it all. There's something to be said or the conditioning a candidate recieves in a tough, open primary fight- it tightens his message, by necessity, and forces him to deal with important issues, sooner and within the arena (the inevitable debates, these days), and it forces him, too, to assess the strengths and weaknesses of his candidacy in realistic terms, while there's still time to do something about it. All in all, an important edge, I believe... Al Gore is a pretty smart guy, though. I would be shocked if he chose a Dan Quayle type for his ticket. And I think you can tell a lot about a candidate from that choice (though the electorate obviously could care less). It spoke well of Bill Clinton to have chosen Al Gore- spoke well, I thought, too, of Bob Dole to have chosen Jack Kemp (a really top notch person, in my estimation- and I am NOT a Republican- just think politics needs more people of Kemp's quality, disposition and intellect). I'm sure Al Gore will make a good choice. And don't think it too likely that Democrats (or Republicans) will gain control of White House and Congress- I basically subscribe to materialist conception of history. People generally vote their pocket books, so if economy stays good, look for more of same...

I hope he picks Bradley or Ann Richards. Now, what about Jerry Brown? Is he positioning himself by running for Mayor of Oakland? Will Clinton run for Mayor of Little Rock?

I've always liked Jerry Brown, and I think he could make some noise in California politics- nationally, though, can't see him ever becoming more than a peripheral player (too wedded to that "Governor Moonbeam" image, from the '70's). What Bill Clinton will do after his presidency is rather intriguing, conceptually- what does one do, after being president of the United States? And he will be a relatively young man, too. We'll learn a lot about who he is, I think, based on the decisions he makes then...

Colin Powell as veep would clinch the presidency for any Republican candidate. I am still not convinced Powell wants to tangle with the right wing of the Republican party. Powell definately is a moderate. He could even be described as liberal on such issues as affirmative action, etc. The right wing would crucify him if he ran for prez--mainly in the primaries. Powell's wife doesn't seem to enjoy living under the microscope of politics. It is my opinion that Powell would readily be elected president if he could make it through the tortuous primaries. I do not see Bush as a viable candidate--but I know that in politics to expect the unexpected. It is my belief that a moderate Republican could beat ANY Democrat. The electoral college currently favors Republicans. The NE usually goes Democrat, The south and west go Republican. California is a swing state. The Midwest also switches. Illinois in particular, as always, goes to the highest bidder. The Republicans, with Bob Dole in 1996 came very cl se to winning. Bob Dole was the Democrats answer to Dukakis, a poor speaker, perceived as out-of-touch, and despised by most females, Dole still made a better showing than Dukakis. I would venture to say that any other candidate (except the crackpot Pat Buchanan) could have beaten Clinton. Don't look for the Republicans to make the stupid mistake of nominating another unelectable chump. Another item that will influence the election is the kooky Ross Perot. He can be counted on to suck off 5 to 10% of the vote. John

Good points, but I think that Bush Jr. is a lot stronger than you think, the polls already have him ahead of anyone else in the field. And he's playing it cool, tending to Texas and making an occasional foray in the national spotlight. Do you think Hilary will venture into politics someday?

No VP can clinch a presidency for anyone- and though it appears now that Colin Powell would be an asset to a ticket, he remains unknown and unproven until he has endured the rigors of the process. And it remains unlikely that he will offer himself up in that capacity- he has stated in the past that he would not, for one thing, and unlike most practiced politicians, Powell is not, I think, a man who gives his word lightly. Whether he would win an election as his party's nominee is problematic, of course. any candidates have appeared invulnerable in the year before the shooting begins. Most have withered. Colin Powell cannot only be described as liberal regarding social issues- he manifestly is one. On what issues can he be construed as being Republican (other than perhaps a visceral dislike for Bill Clinton)? He has as much business being in the Republican party as Bill Weld, and probably only a slightly better chance of securing the nomination of a party often captive to the whims of types like Jesse Hel s and Ralph Reed. And I don't buy that conventional wisdom crap about the electoral college- it favors the political wind. Good candidates reflecting that wind get votes and win states, and the electoral college favors them, regardless of party. To equate Bob Dole with Michael Dukakis is terribly unfair- that "unelectable chump" had one of the most distinguished careers in the history of American politics. He is a man profoundly respected by Democrats and Republicans alike, and a man who damned near died in the service of his country- he is that rarity of rarities, a real hero, in a time when heroes are pretty much served up on the cheap. (Of course, I still didn't vote for him. Do admire him, though...) I would be very suprised if Junior Bush didn't enter the race, at this point. But don't be too impressed with early polling numbers- most folks around the country don't yet know him, and much of his support now derives from name recognition. And I would be delighted, in a sense, if Hillary Clinton entered politics, because I'm an admirer- but in what capacity do you think she could do so? She galvanizes Republicans ala Gere/MacLaine/Fonda. At this point, she would, I believe, be a serious detriment to a national ticket. Perhaps she could enter Arkansas state politics- maybe run for senator or governor. Not familiar enough with Arkansas to know if that is tenable, though...

Let me reword my previous response. I referred to Bob Dole as a chump. He is a chump only in the context of being a serious electable presidential candidate. As to Hillary Clinton running for political office, in my humble opinion, this is unthinkable. Do I think see would be capable--yes. The main thing wrong with Hillary is that she is a very strong willed, intelligent, professional woman with liberal leanings. This is completely emasculating to the men of this country. Hillary needs a political c nsultant to soften her image. Elizabeth Dole would be a much more viable candidate. Even though, Mrs Dole is every bit the strong willed professional woman, she comes off as someone less threatening to the men of this country. At least this is the public persona these 2 women have. I see in the news that Colin Powell has taken himself out of the running for the GOP presidential nomination. This throws the field wide open for the GOP. John

Open for Bush Jr. He's the only real viable candidate at this point. Kemp is a distant second. Comparable to Bill Bradley.

It would appear so. But how viable a candidate did Bill Clinton seem in Nov., '89? Or Dukakis, in '85, Carter in'73, McGovern in '69, Nixon in '65, etc...? During this period, each nominee, other than these mentioned, was either an incumbent president, or a former VP- with the exceptions of Reagan (who had run for president before, and had an experienced org. in place), and of Dole (the consummate Washington insider, a former VP nominee, and a veteran of several pres. runs, as well). Junior Bush has not et completed a single term as Governor, and that is the extent of his public career. It stands to reason that another candidate will emerge. The Republicans possess several potentially attractive candidates, Jack Kemp being one, though he not well regarded among the fringe elements which seem to exert such tremendous control among them these days. Plus, he's a genuinely nice guy, averse to naked partisanship, which doesn't set well with Republican activists nostalgic for those heady, happy Ailes/Atwater ays. John Kaschich (msp. again, but you know who I mean) is the candidate who scares me most- he seems quite electable, but he is pretty young, and not yet a member of the Senate. Personally, my fingers are crossed for our own Sen. Goober Gramm (I KNOW he's beatable)...

Never heard of the latter two. You're not talking Phil Gramm are you?

What about John McCain, the soft spoken Senator from Arizona. He is an actual Vietnam War veteran. In this cynical age, credibility should be given to those who actually where pro-war and served in it. Dan Quayle was pro-war as long as he didn't have to put his butt on the line. I am unfamiliar with Junior Bush's military history (or lack thereof). John

He might have been in the National Guard or something. I'm not familiar either.

Yes, by "Goober" Gramm I was referring to our own Phil Gramm ("Goober", of course, an epithet denoting endearment)... John McCain is an interesting candidate, and seems to be well thought of in Washington. Certainly bears watching... Is particularly odious, I think, for a Republican candidate to have avoided military service, given all of the belligerent posturing many in that group are wont to do. Anyone read Al Franken's "Operation Chickenhawk" (from Rush Limbaugh Is...)?

Why on earth do you like Gramm?

I was kidding- I detest Phil Gramm (as does, from what I understand, most everyone in Washington)- and it embarrasses me, as a native Texan, to be represented by a man that is essentially a booze-sodden, publicity-seeking cracker. Probably true, though, that referring to Gramm as "Goober" unfairly demeans Goobers, everywhere.. Was kidding, too, when I suggested that I favored Gramm for Rep. nomination (even latest incarnation of GOP isn't dumb enough to give him a chance at that)- just meant that Gore could easily beat a boob like Gramm, and, not belonging to any organized political party, I naturally would like to see Gore win...

OK. that's clear about Gramm. He would make Gore very electable but is the GOP dumb enough to run a candidate like this? He'll undoubtedly enter the primaries. With Powell out, it's looking more and more like Bush Jr. who already has tasted some of the power of the White House through Bush Sr.

I see on CNN that Lamar Alexander, the candidate that was so roundly trounced in the Republican primaries has thrown his hat in the ring for 2000. He makes no secret of his driving ambition to become president. I doubt if he does much better this time around. I'm not sure on this, but doesn't the "heart and soul" of the Republican party despise moderate/liberal Republicans--despite what is publicly said. The "Holy Rollers" and "Angry White Men" seem to be in charge of the party and rule with an Iron ist. Nixon advised fellow Republicans to run "right" in the primaries and then move to the "center" for the general election. Is it my imagination or have the Republicans (since Reagan) run "right" in the primaries and then stay "right" during the general elections?

That's right.

Right on.

Yeah, they're held captive by activists, much the same way Democrats were in the 70's and the 80's...Pat Buchanan has sort of become their Jesse Jackson, showing up every 4 years to undo their "best-laid schemes"(heartwarming, really, and it could well happen again)... I'll grant you Lamar Alexander doesn't appear, on the face of it, to be a promising candidate...Stranger things have happened, though, and a lot depends on how successful he is raising money between now and the first straw-polls...Because he ran last time, the rudiments of an organization is in place, and by withdrawing when he did, as he did, he collected some chits that will undoubtedly benefit him this time around...And Alexander strikes me as the kind of guy unabashedly willing to do what it takes to e nominated/elected...If I'm Alexander, I add a little supply-side rhetoric to my own- I think it's essential for him to keep Forbes-Kemp out of the race, and not divvy up the suburban vote any more than necessary...He might also consider wearing more ties...