And the 2008 candidate..

[question everything]

From last week Newsweek (last paragraph):

Of course, the Democratic nominee could easily be neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama. Two years before the 1992 election, the presumed Democratic front runners were Mario Cuomo and Al Gore. Virginia Gov. Doug Wilder, an African-American candidate, was considered an intriguing choice. Far down the list of possibilities, languishing in polls as Evan Bayh and Chris Dodd are today, was an obscure governor named Bill Clinton.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15790947/site/newsweek/page/4/

[JI7]

1. that's really interesting that Al Gore was early front runner for 1992

but he ended up not running in for the 1992 Primary. i wonder how it would have been if Gore did run.

would he have given Clinton some compeition in the South ? after all Gore's support base was from the South back then. very intersting.

[question everything]

3. As we found during the primaries, Clinton had an enormous machine

the "friends of Bill." I also think that many presumed front runners shied away since Bush had an approval rating of 90% immediately after the first Gulf war.

[LittleClarkie]

2. Indeed, which is why it annoys me when people keep saying Hillary's it

Some unknown could easily come out on top.

[question everything]

4. Another comment from the same story

about "Clinton fatigue." That if she wins in 2008 and again in 2012, this will mean that for 36!! years - since 1980 - we would have a Bush or a Clinton on the national ticket!

[UrbScotty]

5. Wow!!!!!

What an observation!!

[LittleClarkie]

6. Like the two families are saying to each other. "Your turn"

Some don't like it when the word dynasty is used. But that's what it feels like.

[zann725]

7. DU the MSNBC poll today that asks WHO for Prez. in '08?

With the first 16 "favorites" listed, ALL candidates being "heavily pushed" by Powers-that-be. Kerry shows up at #20, but considering all the clear "number fluffing", this #20 rating is really NOT surprising to me. Someone(s) "big" obviously do NOT want JK to run. Certainly not because he's unqualified. One has to ask why?

[FrenchieCat]

8. 2 years before the 1992 campaign would have been

6 years before the telecommunications act of 1996 was signed and enacted. That would be before Fox and MSNBC existed and before Newsweek was also part of the family. That would have been when CNN was still operating as a real newstation and wasn't owned by the same folks who put out Time magazine and the partner of Disney's ABC. It would have also been a time before CBS was owned by Viacom. It would have been prior to nothing but media whores on television editorializing the news; a time when Dan Rather and others still reigned. It was before Murdock and the moonie times; before tabloids ran by conservatives were quoted as much as mainstream newspapers. Before radio had been conglomorated into one giant agency or two. It was a time when the media was not called liberal every damn day. Hell, it was before the days of Ojay scandalous tales that go on for days and days.

All in all, those days are not these days. The polls and what the media does have different powers now. What they say goes....for the most part, and if anything unplanned shows up, they have learned to deal with it pretty quickly (see Dean Scream).

[question everything]

9. True, for 1992. But fast forward to 2003

and the leading Democrat was.... Joe Lieberman.

There is a lot to say to name recognition and, thankfully, once the debate starts in earnest, most of us are eager to meet the new people.