Democratic Party

Announced candidates for the Democratic Party:

Senator Joe Biden of Delaware (Unite Our States PAC)

Senator Christopher Dodd of Connecticut (Senate page)

Former Senator Mike Gravel of Alaska (Campaign Site)

Candidates who have formed exploratory committees or have expressed serious interest

Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana (All America PAC)

Retired General Wesley Clark of Arkansas (WesPAC - Securing America)

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York (HILLPAC)

Former Senator Tom Daschle of South Dakota (New Leadership for America PAC)

Former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina (One America Committee)

Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin (Progressive Patriots Fund)

Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts (Keeping America's Promise)

Senator Barack Obama of Illinois (HOPEFUND PAC)

Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico (Moving America Forward PAC)

Governor Tom Vilsack of Iowa (Heartland PAC)

Republican Party

Announced candidates for the Republican Party:

John H. Cox of Illinois (Campaign Site)

Michael Charles Smith of Oregon (Campaign Site)

Candidates who have formed exploratory committees or have expressed serious interest:

Senator George Allen of Virginia (Good Government for America Committee)

Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas (Restore America PAC)

Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee (Volunteer PAC)

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich of Georgia

Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani of New York City (Solutions America PAC)

Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska (Sandhills PAC)

Governor Mike Huckabee of Arkansas (Hope for America PAC)

Senator John McCain of Arizona (Straight Talk America)

Governor George Pataki of New York (21st Century Freedom PAC)

Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts (The Commonwealth PAC)

Representative Tom Tancredo of Colorado (Team America PAC)

Former Governor Tommy Thompson of Wisconsin (Forward America PAC)

Third parties

Constitution Party

Actively pursuing or interested in candidacy for the Constitution Party:

James Gilchrist

Green Party

Actively pursuing or interested in candidacy for the Green Party:

Rebecca Rotzler, Deputy Mayor of New Paltz, NY and one of seven Green Party co-chairs

Kat Swift

Nan Garrett

Libertarian Party

Announced candidates for the Libertarian Party:

George Phillies, Libertarian activist and physics professor from Massachusetts (Campaign Site)

Doug Stanhope, comedian from Arizona (Campaign Site)

Steve Kubby, Libertarian activist (Campaign Site)

Dave Hollist, Libertarian activist and bus driver (Campaign Site)

Christine Smith, Progressive activist and writer(Campaign Site)

***

Who will be the primary candidate for the Democrats in 2008? There's even been some interest in Al Gore running again. Between Obama, Clinton, Clark, and Gore, there could be some interesting debates going on. Of all that are listed, are there any you would vote for?

Who will be the primary candidate for the Republicans in 2008? Gingrich might make another cameo. But it seems like the stars are more likely to be Giuliani and McCain. Are there any you would vote for?

Will third parties even make a dent in this election?

Any not listed that you think will probably make a run? Some wanted Rice to make a swing for it, I think, but I don't see that as likely.

On a (more) serious note, I don't see any third parties making a dent.

"Just as disturbing as McCain's conservative positions, however, is the boredom he so often displays with the legislative process. As an example, at the end of last year, McCain first tried to get Bush to explicitly outlaw torture through an amendment to a defense bill. He received all sorts of accolades from Washington Democrats and the media only to have Bush declare through a signing statement that he was not bound by the amendment. McCain didn't make a peep about Bush's actions."

McCain does have an unusual reputation among non-Republicans, and it does seem almost wholly to be due to the 2000 election run. Substantiation of his reputation has always been a little shady, although referring to him as "bored" by the legislative process seems a bit far. He's just not "rogue enough" by Stahl's standards.

Stahl's other article (http://www.mndaily.com/article.php?id=69530) on Obama follows a very different form of criticism in some regards, and yet is very similar in others.

"Finally, if the last election taught us anything, it is that a "deliberative style" can easily be portrayed as a "flip-flopper," as it did in the case of John Kerry. Democrats can avoid a repeat of this if we pick a forceful leader in 2008 to be our presidential nominee. Right now, Obama does not fit the bill."

So because Kerry got name-called into submission, Obama then should give up his most interesting trait (apparent sincerity and level-headedness) and become Bush the Democrat? An interesting idea, Stahl. Interesting indeed.

It is called 'the lowest common denominator'.

He might have imperialist economic views (actually they're nothing short of imperialist, but you have to be a sellout to be president, so meh), but I like his stance on keeping the guv'mint off people's backs.

It's important to remember that Nathan Davis's views are colored by Marx tented glasses. Capitalism=imperialism, and Dr. Paul advocates a more pure brand of capitalism than the other candidates.

I'm not talking about the rest of the world, I'm talking about right here in America. We're being, both directly and indirectly, controlled by the corporate bastards of America. On top of that, how would limiting the federal government's power stop corporations like Wal-Mart from exploiting other nations? I'm all for the Feds staying out of my religion, political philosophy, sexual orientation, and guns (man, I love guns), but it's obvious that big corporations can't be trusted to be responsible themselves.

And before you say something incredibly stupid, like "Teh peepol should regulate them!!!", realize that, if they do so, it will be through the establishment of an even *bigger* corporation, of which they will have no control. In other words, Ron Paul's economic policy is less 'imperialistic' than anything a commie would ever come up with.

Y'see, we've got this shiny new invention called "democracy", which revolves around the concept of "voting", and when people are disenchanted with their government, it's they're responsibility to do something; politicians have been known to bend to public pressure. So, yes, the people should regulate the guv'mint.

I mean, what do you think I am, so kind of anarchist? Say we do establish some kind of "dictatorship of the proletariate"; if (and that's a big if) it works for a while, it's going to degrade into despotism fairly quickly. Are you saying we should have no government? We do need the government, but it should be there to serve the people, not vice-versa, and the people should see that it remains as such. Any Dumkopf should no that. Would YOU just sit idly by and watch as the country degrades into despotism (which, it seems, lots of people are doing [including myself, unfortunately, but we're working to change that; and none of that "Buck Fush" crap])?

Do you know why there's a war in Iraq? Do ya? Do ya?

Something like that, yes.

I admit to being a bit of an anarchist at times. I do support violence over nonviolence and things like that. Say, the people shouldn't fear their government, the government should fear it's people (I think that might be from a movie). Just see what happens when the Feds try to take my guns . . .

Yeah. Walmart and Halliburton went over there, guns blazing, in direct defiance of the US government and Teh Will Of Teh Peepol.

Anyway, I'm pretty sure that line is from the V For Vendetta graphic novel (I haven't seen the movie, so I don't know if it's in there).

It made it into the movie, and the posters, too.

Why is there a war in Iraq? a) because America invaded. b) because deposing Saddam did not result in the war ending. c) because Iraq was a bad idea 60 years ago, and it's a bad idea now.

Anyway, as for "no government/corporate government/etc." no one option is inherently better than the others. A limited government with highly powerful corporations with corrupt officials is just as bad as a high-power government limiting corporations with corrupt officials is just as bad as an anarchy where everyone else is trying to pillage your women and rape your animals.

What if we all have fences first? :)

And then they all burn your fence down. With napalm.

Also, the fence is lime green.

That's not a negative for me, it reminds me of baseball.

I was talking about the oil. If you really think Bush was sincere about "weapons of mass destruction", you're even dumber than I thought.

There's a sliver of truth in this in that our culture is ultimately going to determine how free we are, however, things being equal, the less monopoly the better.