Mr. Stickball, if you include Thompson, you gotta include Gore. Neither have actually announced candidacy. Thompson is "testing the waters" and Gore is consistently barraged with draft attempts. I'd say they're equally likely to run. You should also include Ron Paul. Since the debate, he's been getting some decent attention, and if he's got a decent campaign manager, he can become a household name well before January.
So add one name to each list :-p
I kinda did this analysis in another thread already, so I'm probably repeating a lot:
Clinton has too much history. She wouldn't be an effective president, simply because she'll be under the shadow of her husband, regardless of what she does. That's basically what she's got going for her: her history as first lady. But that can easily work against her.
Obama is too much talk. He hasn't actually *done* anything. He looks nice, and has this "leader" vibe, but he hasn't said or done anything that differentiates him from anyone else. In a lull, this would make for a great candidate. He can keep the status quo, and make a few policy changes, maybe. However, we're significantly not in a lull.
Edwards has a similar problem to Obama, just a bit more track record (his "two americas" thing, whether or not you agree with it, shows he's at least got some ideas behind his head), and a bit less image. He found his niche as VP candidate, I think, but he wouldn't be an effective presidential candidate.
Richardson isn't well-known. He's going up against three political titans. If primaries were still caucuses that were *decided* at the National Convention, he'd probably have a good chance, but as it stands, I couldn't tell you a thing about him, other than that he's got a good leadership track record.
And of course, Al Gore would wipe the floor with the lot of them if he would just get off his ass. At this point even if you disagree with his policies, I think anyone will agree that he's the most *genuine* out of all people who might even be considered possibilities. I could go on for days about Gore, but Stickball would probably get nauseous, conservative that he is :-p
Republicans:
Guiliani: I've described him as "evil Obama." I completely stand by this statement. If you wold vote for Obama, but feel he's too angelic for you, vote Rudy. He's an asshole, a liar, and a media whore. But he has his image, and he can work it well.
McCain's age is starting to show. 8 years ago, I'd have voted him over any Republicans hands-down... probably over most of the Democrats, too. The more I see of him on this campaign, though, the more I see "worn out, past his prime." He'd make a great VP. Too old for president.
Romney has money, but nothing else. I think that in and of itself precludes him from consideration. People who can make money for themselves, and do little else, are NOT the kinds of people you want running the country. This isn't a fiscal policy thing, this is a corruption thing.
Thompson is a more radical Reagan. He' the only candidate who could compete against Guiliani's image, but really all I know of him is that he's good, but ultra-conservative.
Ron Paul is the Republican dark horse. He's quiet, but he speaks straight and honest. I don't agree with his fiscal policy, but I'm willing to put that aside if it means an administration that uses information as opposed to propaganda, and works to *stabilize* the economy even if they don't use the method I would agree with.
Major issues for the next five years(in no particular order): Mid-East, education, budget, media regulation (mainly TV and internet), government corruption.
Scarcely any candidates have said anything encouraging on any of those fronts. If anyone tackles three of those issues in a positive manner in one speech, I don't care if they're the Nazi party, I think I'd vote for them.
