WL>You're right and I know it -- but I don't have to like it, and
WL>I don't.  I still hope for a political climate in which someone
WL>with a relatively short, but distinguished, political career
WL>can become a serious contender for the presidency.  And it
WL>could happen; after all, Tennessee's two sitting Senators had
WL>no history as officeholders prior to 1994 -- in fact, one had
WL>not even voted until a few years before his own election!
 
        Breakthrough campains at a state level, especially when
personalities have distinguished themselves in other fields, such as
Thompson, Reagan, and Glenn demonstrated, are still possible. 
Breakthrough campaigns at a national level, however, are rare. 
Eisenhower did this and it remains possible that Powell could, but such
exceptions are the exception rather than the rule.  Forbes, in a way,
falls into this catagory as would have Buchannan, Perot, and Keyes had
they been sucessful.  
         It's awful hard for an outsider to crack the very carefully
constructed nut political insiders have created to preserve their own
favorable position to seek higher office.  It can happen, but remains
highly unlikely.
WL>Then there's Steve Forbes.  He didn't need either party for
WL>campaign funds, and wasn't beholden to any powerbrokers for
WL>anything.  No, he didn't come all that close to winning the
WL>GOP nomination in 1996, but I think he did influence the
WL>party as a whole.  And that was his first attempt for high
WL>public office -- if he tries again in 2000, he'll have
WL>a much higher recognition factor in his favor.
  
      Actually I agree with you.  I still don't believe Forbes will win
the nomination, but I would be willing to place my money on him comming
out a strong second behind Bush.  He simply seems to lack something
when he talks to people.  I get a sense of lack of depth of conviction
and can't remember him altering the 12 sentences he repeats over and
over again since he entered the nomination process three years ago. 
His money, no doubt, will be a factor, but not enough to win.  He may
have an outside shot at the vice-presidental nomination though.  A
Bush-Forbes ticket does offer a degree of regional balance.
WL>Considering the most likely Democratic contenders for the
WL>2000 nomination are Gore and Gephardt, I don't think there
WL>are words strong enough to express my agreement with you.
 
        Gore and Gephardt may not make the final cut.  Democrats have a
habit of pulling a rabbit out of the hat and nominating people noone
considered ahead of time.  Carter, Dukakis, and Clinton all came out of
nowhere to take the Democratic nomination.  Mondale was the only real
insider they nominated in the last six election cycles not counting
Cater's and Clinton's renominations.  
         They tend to have a more open nomination process than
Republicans traditionally have and it is therefore far less
predictable.  At this point I would be reluctant to suggest who the
Democratic nominee will be, but, I would be willing to wager Gore will
not be on the ticket.
WL>I don't go quite this far...at least, I haven't so far.
WL>In general elections, I almost always vote for the
WL>candidate *with a reasonable chance of winning* whose
WL>positions most closely parallel my own.  It usually takes
WL>more than just one or two issues, no matter how important
WL>they are, to turn me against every candidate with a
WL>reasonable chance of winning.  (By "reasonable chance", I
WL>mean a chance of getting a plurality of the vote in a
WL>general election.  In a three-way race, this might mean as
WL>little as 34 percent of the popular vote.)
 
      I wish "electable" candidates would be remotely representative of
my views.  I'm always left with a "killer" issue or two by all major
contenders that leave me unable to vote for them. 
 
                                     Mike Angwin
--- RBBSMail/386 v0.997
---------------