Presidential Picks archived
Feb 24, 2007 at 3:37pm Edited
Feb 24, 2007 at 3:55pm Edited
Given that Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and Bush 43 all were state governors before becoming president, is there some kind of trend or preference there?
If there is, then Richardson on the Dem side and Huckabee or Romney on the Republican side might be said to have an edge.
I believe that the last time a Senator was elected president was the election of JFK (Massachusetts), succeeded by his VP, LBJ, former Senator from Texas, after JFK's assassination. LBJ was then elected in '64 against another senator, Barry Goldwater.
If there is, then Richardson on the Dem side and Huckabee or Romney on the Republican side might be said to have an edge.
I believe that the last time a Senator was elected president was the election of JFK (Massachusetts), succeeded by his VP, LBJ, former Senator from Texas, after JFK's assassination. LBJ was then elected in '64 against another senator, Barry Goldwater.
Being a governor (or possibly a mayor) is closer to being President than a congresscritter. Mayors and governors are leaders. They are working as executives. Congresscritters are used to reaching across the aisle to get things done. An executive works by fiat. A committee member works by compromise. A congresscritter is not used to making decisions or making things happen on their own. An executive is.
Or that is the conventional wisdom.
Or that is the conventional wisdom.
I don't favor anyone. Why? The 2008 election is more than 20 months away. A lot can happen between now and then. I think it's absolutely asinine that anyone is devoting serious time to thinking about whom they'll vote for almost 2 years from now.
But that's just my opinion. Apparently I'm in a minority on MOL. But I would guess 90% of America feels the way I do.
But that's just my opinion. Apparently I'm in a minority on MOL. But I would guess 90% of America feels the way I do.
Feb 24, 2007 at 10:51pm Edited
Dr. O'Boogie, I think asinine is in the eye of the beholder. Nothing wrong with a candidate-watch and a discussion all the way through to 2008. We should now be painfully aware, in the era of Nixon and Bush, of what could happen when we don't think carefully and discuss thoroughly the qualifications and tendencies and responses and positions of our candidates for the highest public office.
I think the best candidate for President, given his experience, his approach and clarity and precision of thought and communication, his social conscience and genuine concern for our country (not that Hillary, Biden, Obama and the others aren't genuine) is Christopher Dodd. He combines the intellectual fluency and perspective of Obama, the years of experience of some of the elder statesmen, and the energy and enthusiasm for leadership that we need for our presidency.
Biden led the call back in 2002 for the march to Baghdad. He was the most gung-ho member of the Democratic Party for this war. Then, when he finally listened to the people, he did a 180 with the same gusto. He is just plain goofy.
Hillary is a bit too "straddly" and noncommittal in her views on Iraq, although I think she would be a great President. She's my third choice, and I shall rejoice if she is elected.
Obama is my second choice, because he is so brilliant and capable, it doesn't at all bother me that he has less experience. I do think he needs some seasoning, but I think his level of intelligence is so extraordinary that he would be a remarkable leader and a tremendous statesman, a great negotiator and an incredible diplomat internationally. Obviously, leadership in Europe and the rest of the world has become far more intelligent than in previous centuries. It would be nice if America could allow herself to keep pace with that, and stop electing political hacks to the offices.
I like Kucinich's position on the war, but he is a bit impulsive in his public statements and seems inexperienced in weighing varieties of approaches to problem-solving.
Dodd is careful, metered, focused, intelligent, communicative, and actually speaks to the American people as if we were the same. He weighs approaches out loud, and arrives at logical positions right in front of the microphone, clearly having worked out much of the question, then bringing it to the people. I like his "gravitas" and his experience, his methodical nature and his perspective. He has my vote in the primaries, although if Hillary or Obama come forward, I'll flip flop and go for them.
Nice set of choices, indeed. I love to talk about them, no matter how soon before election it is. It makes the incredibile damage being caused by the current residents of the White House that much less painful, if we can just focus on the light at the end of the tunnel.
I think the best candidate for President, given his experience, his approach and clarity and precision of thought and communication, his social conscience and genuine concern for our country (not that Hillary, Biden, Obama and the others aren't genuine) is Christopher Dodd. He combines the intellectual fluency and perspective of Obama, the years of experience of some of the elder statesmen, and the energy and enthusiasm for leadership that we need for our presidency.
Biden led the call back in 2002 for the march to Baghdad. He was the most gung-ho member of the Democratic Party for this war. Then, when he finally listened to the people, he did a 180 with the same gusto. He is just plain goofy.
Hillary is a bit too "straddly" and noncommittal in her views on Iraq, although I think she would be a great President. She's my third choice, and I shall rejoice if she is elected.
Obama is my second choice, because he is so brilliant and capable, it doesn't at all bother me that he has less experience. I do think he needs some seasoning, but I think his level of intelligence is so extraordinary that he would be a remarkable leader and a tremendous statesman, a great negotiator and an incredible diplomat internationally. Obviously, leadership in Europe and the rest of the world has become far more intelligent than in previous centuries. It would be nice if America could allow herself to keep pace with that, and stop electing political hacks to the offices.
I like Kucinich's position on the war, but he is a bit impulsive in his public statements and seems inexperienced in weighing varieties of approaches to problem-solving.
Dodd is careful, metered, focused, intelligent, communicative, and actually speaks to the American people as if we were the same. He weighs approaches out loud, and arrives at logical positions right in front of the microphone, clearly having worked out much of the question, then bringing it to the people. I like his "gravitas" and his experience, his methodical nature and his perspective. He has my vote in the primaries, although if Hillary or Obama come forward, I'll flip flop and go for them.
Nice set of choices, indeed. I love to talk about them, no matter how soon before election it is. It makes the incredibile damage being caused by the current residents of the White House that much less painful, if we can just focus on the light at the end of the tunnel.
Feb 24, 2007 at 11:05pm Edited
For those who want to play this game take a look at the polls at (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/). Hillary has a big lead for the Dem nomination and Rudy seems well ahead of McCain. However, in polls on the general election both beat Hillary. Edwards does much better against either of the GOP nominees. Interesting, huh?
I read or heard that front runners this early rarely get the nomination. Last cycle I believe Joe Lieberman was the Dem front runner. :devil:
I read or heard that front runners this early rarely get the nomination. Last cycle I believe Joe Lieberman was the Dem front runner. :devil:
At this point, it is all name recognition anyway. The press wants to sell papers/airtime, and they know at this point that the public mainly pays attention to names that are familiar. To get their attention, the press keeps saying those familiar names over and over--this attracts eyes and ears. This makes it almost impossible for Dodd, Biden, Richardson, Brownback, Huckabee to get any real attention, and therefore any real polling numbers. Even Edwards gets a lot less press than his organizational strength would indicate.
Soon enough (or not soon enough) as candidates publically step on their private parts and as some real polls occur in Nevada and Iowa and New Hampshire and South Carolina, things will get more clear.
For my money, I think Hillary will flame out, Obama will make one mistake too many, and Edwards will be the nominee on the Dem side. Dodd will be his Veep candidate. On the Rep side, Giuliani will also flame out and McCain or Romney will fight it out because I do not think the GOP will, in the end, back a Huckabee or Brownback for various personality reasons. Romney is my first pick unless he makes many more mistakes. Huckabee or another governor/former governor will be his Veep choice.
Soon enough (or not soon enough) as candidates publically step on their private parts and as some real polls occur in Nevada and Iowa and New Hampshire and South Carolina, things will get more clear.
For my money, I think Hillary will flame out, Obama will make one mistake too many, and Edwards will be the nominee on the Dem side. Dodd will be his Veep candidate. On the Rep side, Giuliani will also flame out and McCain or Romney will fight it out because I do not think the GOP will, in the end, back a Huckabee or Brownback for various personality reasons. Romney is my first pick unless he makes many more mistakes. Huckabee or another governor/former governor will be his Veep choice.
Posted By: charlieDr. O'Boogie, I think asinine is in the eye of the beholder. Nothing wrong with a candidate-watch and a discussion all the way through to 2008. We should now be painfully aware, in the era of Nixon and Bush, of what could happen when we don't think carefully and discuss thoroughly the qualifications and tendencies and responses and positions of our candidates for the highest public office.
I never suggested we shouldn't think and consider who we elect president, but we don't need 2 years to think carefully and discuss thoroughly. Even a year is longer than any voter needs, but I understand to campaign across a country this large takes a lot of time. And if you think a guy like Dodd should be given a chance, you should disdain a 2 year process as well. The longer the process takes, the more money a candidate needs to raise to stay in the race. It disadvantages people who don't have big name recognition at this point in the process.
To me, this whole "horse race" thing that starts as soon as the midterm elections end is profoundly undemocratic. Pundits pick their favorites and promote them on TV and tell voters that other candidates don't have a chance. It may be fun for the "inside baseball" crowd in DC and elsewhere, but when candidates are falling by the wayside before even one voter casts a ballot, this process isn't going to get us the best candidates.
But again that's just me, and I guess I don't get why this is so much fun for some people. My suggestion to people who love handicapping the race and following the polls is to join a rotisserie baseball league instead.
Feb 25, 2007 at 4:48am Edited
"But again that's just me, and I guess I don't get why this is so much fun for some people. My suggestion to people who love handicapping the race and following the polls is to join a rotisserie baseball league instead. "
Boogie, it's called democracy. It's not about guessing or wagering. It's about sizing people up for the most important job in the world. We need a running start. It's not about appearances, voice, presentation or panache, at least not to some of us. Maybe it is to you.
To some of us, our vote is a priceless commodity, our ancestors having fled despotic, undemocratic regimes to risk all to come to the seemingly undespotic democracy on these shores.
To cast that priceless commodity in a proper way, some of us like to have some information, and the more information, the better....to some of us....
...and to some of us, discussion and debate are a fundamental process in a democratic system, helping us to judge and analyze the situation.
Of course, the premise of that view is the humble opinion that discussion can enlighten us, as others may have views from which we can learn something. If we assume that we know everything, of course, why bother with discussion, indeed!!
Boogie, it's called democracy. It's not about guessing or wagering. It's about sizing people up for the most important job in the world. We need a running start. It's not about appearances, voice, presentation or panache, at least not to some of us. Maybe it is to you.
To some of us, our vote is a priceless commodity, our ancestors having fled despotic, undemocratic regimes to risk all to come to the seemingly undespotic democracy on these shores.
To cast that priceless commodity in a proper way, some of us like to have some information, and the more information, the better....to some of us....
...and to some of us, discussion and debate are a fundamental process in a democratic system, helping us to judge and analyze the situation.
Of course, the premise of that view is the humble opinion that discussion can enlighten us, as others may have views from which we can learn something. If we assume that we know everything, of course, why bother with discussion, indeed!!
True, Governors have been elected to the White House in the recent past. But when one takes in the larger picture, it seems cyclical. There have been periods where VP's get to the WH, then periods where Senators get in, etc.
charlie,
I don't agree that the next 20 months is going to be nothing but deep thinking, debating, and consideration of **Serious Issues**. Much of it will be pointless and aimless regurgitation of campaign trail trivia like the latest Joe Biden gaffe, or which Hollywood mogul said something mean about Hillary. If only it was about such things as the **Education of the Voter** and **Discussion** and **Deliberation**. If it was all those serious things, I wouldn't find it a big waste of time.
It was just such a two-year process that gave us George W. Bush. His tremendous name recognition by this time in 1999 had made him the presumptive front-runner, attracting mountains of cash, and scaring off all but one serious contender. And at the end of this **Serious** process, millions of voters chose him because they thought he'd be more fun to have a beer with than Al Gore.
:shocked:
I don't agree that the next 20 months is going to be nothing but deep thinking, debating, and consideration of **Serious Issues**. Much of it will be pointless and aimless regurgitation of campaign trail trivia like the latest Joe Biden gaffe, or which Hollywood mogul said something mean about Hillary. If only it was about such things as the **Education of the Voter** and **Discussion** and **Deliberation**. If it was all those serious things, I wouldn't find it a big waste of time.
It was just such a two-year process that gave us George W. Bush. His tremendous name recognition by this time in 1999 had made him the presumptive front-runner, attracting mountains of cash, and scaring off all but one serious contender. And at the end of this **Serious** process, millions of voters chose him because they thought he'd be more fun to have a beer with than Al Gore.
:shocked:
And at the end of this Serious process, millions of voters chose him because they thought he'd be more fun to have a beer with than Al Gore.
Perhaps that needs to be the sound bite for the upcoming campaign and perhaps the guiding light for the media. Ya think?
To get back to the question at hand: 2008 = Obama vs. Gingrich.
1) McCain: The maverick is suddenly too calculating and too Bush friendly. The blush is off the McCain rose. Badly.
2) Hillary is too calculating and too divisive. She always has been and always will be. She is serious and skilled and thoughtful and an asset to the country but, ultimately, unelectable.
3) Rudy is too divorced and too Gay for the national Republican agenda. The Religious Right won't have it.
4) Mitt Romney is a Mormon from Mass. Enough Said.
I could go on but that's my bet. Let's have it.
1) McCain: The maverick is suddenly too calculating and too Bush friendly. The blush is off the McCain rose. Badly.
2) Hillary is too calculating and too divisive. She always has been and always will be. She is serious and skilled and thoughtful and an asset to the country but, ultimately, unelectable.
3) Rudy is too divorced and too Gay for the national Republican agenda. The Religious Right won't have it.
4) Mitt Romney is a Mormon from Mass. Enough Said.
I could go on but that's my bet. Let's have it.
This is an easy question.
It will be Hillary vs. Rudy. You can quote me in 17 months.
It will be Hillary vs. Rudy. You can quote me in 17 months.
Oscar nominee
Nobel nominee
Democratic Nominee
Ya think.. the next president of the United States:
Nobel nominee
Democratic Nominee
Ya think.. the next president of the United States:
I suspect Hillary will get the Dem nomination. The Clinton name is still magic to the Dem faithful.
The early polls show her having trouble against either Rudy or McCain. I suspect the two GOPers would do very well in swing states against her. Unfortunately, Hillary is a polarizing figure. People either lover her or hate her.
The early polls show her having trouble against either Rudy or McCain. I suspect the two GOPers would do very well in swing states against her. Unfortunately, Hillary is a polarizing figure. People either lover her or hate her.
If only Al looked anywhere near that good. The photo above was about 75 pounds ago. He doesn't look well at all.
If he took off 30 pounds, he'd look great. (Wouldn't we all....)
Early 2008 Polls Provide Important Clues
By WILL LESTER
AP
WASHINGTON (Feb. 25) - Hillary Rodham Clinton is the clear favorite in early polls for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination. So, what does that mean? Not a lot, if history is any guide. Republican hopeful Rudy Giuliani , however, is sitting pretty.
If recent patterns hold true, 2008 Democratic front-runner Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's chances to win her party's nomination may be worse than those of GOP favorite Rudy Giuliani's chances to win his.
For at least three decades, Republicans have been far better than Democrats in early polls at getting behind the candidates who end up winning the party's presidential nomination.
Note that Edmund Muskie in 1972, George Wallace in 1976, Ted Kennedy in 1980, Gary Hart in 1988, Mario Cuomo in 1992 and Joe Lieberman in 2004 were early front-runners among Democrats. None won the nomination.
Republicans have picked the early front-runner in seven of the past 10 elections, according to Gallup polling. In the other three elections, Republican incumbents cruised to re-election.
Democrats nominated a former vice president, Walter Mondale, in 1984, and a sitting vice president, Al Gore, in 2000. For those elections, the early polls were more predictable at picking the front-runner.
Why has the GOP been better at predicting winners?
"There is this sense among Republicans - a belief that it's a certain person's time to run for president," said Thomas Mann, a political analyst at the Brookings Institution. But the GOP track record is probably due more to chance and the Republicans' success at winning the White House since 1968, he said.
In 2008, neither party has a former vice president or president competing for the nomination for the first time in almost 80 years.
Giuliani, a former New York City mayor, is a favorite in early polls. But many people feel his personal history and moderate positions on social issues may cost him support among some conservatives.
Arizona Sen. John McCain is running even or second to Giuliani, with former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney running a distant third.
Among Democrats, New York Sen. Clinton looks strong at this point, with Illinois Sen. Barack Obama and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards giving her the stiffest competition.
Despite their occasional difficulties in picking eventual winners, early polls can provide important clues about the campaign.
Among the more interesting findings from recent national polls:
Democrats are more likely than Republicans to be paying close attention to the presidential race, by 31 percent to 20 percent, according to a poll taken in February by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press.
Romney may find his Mormon faith an obstacle with many voters. One-quarter of people questioned say they would not vote for a Mormon candidate, compared with 8 percent who say they would not vote for a woman and 3 percent for a black candidate, according to a Newsweek poll in December.
Clinton is viewed unfavorably by at least 40 percent of people, many of them Republicans who will be difficult for her to win over, various polls have found.
Four in 10 Democratic voters say they have not heard enough about Obama to have an opinion yet. Only 3 percent say that about Clinton, according to a CBS News poll in mid-January.
Most Republicans and those who lean Republican are unaware of Giuliani's support for civil unions for same-sex couples and abortion rights, according to a Gallup poll in mid-January.
Public support for Clinton and McCain is probably based on a fairly firm base of knowledge about them, said public opinion analyst Charles Franklin. Knowledge of Giuliani is probably based mostly on his response as New York's mayor to the Sept. 11 attacks.
The old complaint about early polls as measures of name recognition is probably less true today because of the intensity of coverage by 24-hour cable news, GOP pollster David Winston said.
But most poll analysts agree that the polls six months from now will be far more meaningful.
"For the most part, the political polls don't mean much now," said Scott Keeter, of the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. "But political junkies have an endless appetite for them. People are looking for some kind of evidence of how things are going to turn out."
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press
By WILL LESTER
AP
WASHINGTON (Feb. 25) - Hillary Rodham Clinton is the clear favorite in early polls for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination. So, what does that mean? Not a lot, if history is any guide. Republican hopeful Rudy Giuliani , however, is sitting pretty.
If recent patterns hold true, 2008 Democratic front-runner Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's chances to win her party's nomination may be worse than those of GOP favorite Rudy Giuliani's chances to win his.
For at least three decades, Republicans have been far better than Democrats in early polls at getting behind the candidates who end up winning the party's presidential nomination.
Note that Edmund Muskie in 1972, George Wallace in 1976, Ted Kennedy in 1980, Gary Hart in 1988, Mario Cuomo in 1992 and Joe Lieberman in 2004 were early front-runners among Democrats. None won the nomination.
Republicans have picked the early front-runner in seven of the past 10 elections, according to Gallup polling. In the other three elections, Republican incumbents cruised to re-election.
Democrats nominated a former vice president, Walter Mondale, in 1984, and a sitting vice president, Al Gore, in 2000. For those elections, the early polls were more predictable at picking the front-runner.
Why has the GOP been better at predicting winners?
"There is this sense among Republicans - a belief that it's a certain person's time to run for president," said Thomas Mann, a political analyst at the Brookings Institution. But the GOP track record is probably due more to chance and the Republicans' success at winning the White House since 1968, he said.
In 2008, neither party has a former vice president or president competing for the nomination for the first time in almost 80 years.
Giuliani, a former New York City mayor, is a favorite in early polls. But many people feel his personal history and moderate positions on social issues may cost him support among some conservatives.
Arizona Sen. John McCain is running even or second to Giuliani, with former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney running a distant third.
Among Democrats, New York Sen. Clinton looks strong at this point, with Illinois Sen. Barack Obama and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards giving her the stiffest competition.
Despite their occasional difficulties in picking eventual winners, early polls can provide important clues about the campaign.
Among the more interesting findings from recent national polls:
Democrats are more likely than Republicans to be paying close attention to the presidential race, by 31 percent to 20 percent, according to a poll taken in February by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press.
Romney may find his Mormon faith an obstacle with many voters. One-quarter of people questioned say they would not vote for a Mormon candidate, compared with 8 percent who say they would not vote for a woman and 3 percent for a black candidate, according to a Newsweek poll in December.
Clinton is viewed unfavorably by at least 40 percent of people, many of them Republicans who will be difficult for her to win over, various polls have found.
Four in 10 Democratic voters say they have not heard enough about Obama to have an opinion yet. Only 3 percent say that about Clinton, according to a CBS News poll in mid-January.
Most Republicans and those who lean Republican are unaware of Giuliani's support for civil unions for same-sex couples and abortion rights, according to a Gallup poll in mid-January.
Public support for Clinton and McCain is probably based on a fairly firm base of knowledge about them, said public opinion analyst Charles Franklin. Knowledge of Giuliani is probably based mostly on his response as New York's mayor to the Sept. 11 attacks.
The old complaint about early polls as measures of name recognition is probably less true today because of the intensity of coverage by 24-hour cable news, GOP pollster David Winston said.
But most poll analysts agree that the polls six months from now will be far more meaningful.
"For the most part, the political polls don't mean much now," said Scott Keeter, of the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. "But political junkies have an endless appetite for them. People are looking for some kind of evidence of how things are going to turn out."
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press
Feb 26, 2007 at 6:29am Edited
I've thrown this out before, but personally, I've found it to be a daily must read. This guy's not always right, but who is? OK, O'Boogy comes close. A lot of the comments in this thread are addressed or debunked in The Howler, he posts daily at noonish. Check it out and tell me what you think.
Feb 26, 2007 at 8:04am Edited
Posted By: The Soulful Mr TIf he took off 30 pounds, he'd look great. (Wouldn't we all....)
Well... Nearing 50, weighing in @ 173, 5"11", no longer able to dunk, but I still have a shadow left of a bad assed post up move. AL should loose some pounds though.
I will weigh in with some of my current views.
If Gore runs, he goes straight to the White House.
He polls very well against everyone, of any party.
Hillary Schmillary
Rudy or Judy?
The McCain Mutiny
Do you want your bagel, er ah Hagel toasted?
Al Gore can take his Oscar, make an appearance or two on Oprah, and he's the new frontrunner.
More to my taste is Ron Paul's video announcing his Presidential Exploratory Committee, although he won't win an Oscar for it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPlPT4bncq8
More to my taste is Ron Paul's video announcing his Presidential Exploratory Committee, although he won't win an Oscar for it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPlPT4bncq8
I'd be delighted to see Al join the race. I'd work for him and vote for him for sure.
3ring: Thanks for the link--I enjoyed the read and put that on my favorites list for my lunchtime reading.
3ring: Thanks for the link--I enjoyed the read and put that on my favorites list for my lunchtime reading.
ae35unit,
thank you for the kind words. Funny you should mention me and The Daily Howler in the same post. I too am a regular reader of Somerby. He's one of the best at critiquing the MSM, and the proof of it is in his archive. If you think he sounds smart today, it's more of a revelation to go back and read what he was posting back in '99 and '00. His batting average isn't 1.000, but it's pretty damn close.
thank you for the kind words. Funny you should mention me and The Daily Howler in the same post. I too am a regular reader of Somerby. He's one of the best at critiquing the MSM, and the proof of it is in his archive. If you think he sounds smart today, it's more of a revelation to go back and read what he was posting back in '99 and '00. His batting average isn't 1.000, but it's pretty damn close.
southerner, would you care to make a wager about that Clinton/Giuliani race?
I heard today that of the Rep candidates only Romney has been married once. (!) Just an interesting twist.
Posted By: Tom Reingoldsoutherner, would you care to make a wager about that Clinton/Giuliani race?
I'll bet you a cup of coffee that Clinton/Giuliani never happens.
If Southerner is forecasting a Hillary/Rudy race, its time to short their poltical "stock".
You can not reply as this discussion is Closed!
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
Employment Wanted
Latest Jobs
Employment Wanted
-
Apr 19, 2024 at 9:42am
-
Amazing Housecleaning available call! (201) 889-5521
Apr 18, 2024 at 12:40pm
-
Apr 18, 2024 at 11:17am
-
Apr 17, 2024 at 6:35pm
-
Administrative Assistant/REMOTE-Part Time
Apr 17, 2024 at 1:19pm
Help Wanted
-
NPF509 FT Nanny/Family Assistant for Twins (ASAP Flex)
Apr 19, 2024 at 12:38pm
-
CF582 FT Nanny/Family Assistant for 2 (Late May Start)
Apr 19, 2024 at 12:18pm
-
SF5001 FT Nanny for 2 (ASAP Start)
Apr 19, 2024 at 12:02pm
-
Full-Time / Part Time Nanny Needed
Apr 19, 2024 at 11:51am
-
MF519 PT Nanny for 1 (ASAP Start)
Apr 18, 2024 at 5:23pm
Lessons/Instruction
Advertisement
Who do you favor and why? This is a question for both Dems and Republicans.
The leading Dem candidates are Clinton, Obama and Edwards, but Richardson, Dodd and Biden are also in it. (Vilsack is out). So Dems, who do you favor and why?
The leading GOP contenders are McCain, Giulianni and Romney but there's also Brownback, Huckabee,Hunter and maybe Newt Gingrich! So Republicans, who's your pick?