Ok, so maybe some people are talking about it. What I'm referring to is the fact that for the first time in, I believe 56 years, a vice-president of a two-term president wont run for election by himself. I guess 8 years is exhausting enough for Cheney. Ba-dum-dum! Going back to Nixon in 1960, VPs of two termers have run for office. I guess you could argue some exceptions. LBJ wasnt exactly a two termer when Humphrey ran in 68. Ford was only VP for a couple of years and president for a year before running. But fact is, Humphrey represented the JFK/LBJ presidencies, as Ford did for Nixon and as all VPs do, whether they like it or not.
Every election involving a VP is an implicit referendum, as Charles Krauthammer called it, on the past eight years. Will 08 be any different? Obviously we'll have to see where we are then. But, and I hate to be pessimistic, I dont see things being better. Iraq, I fear, will still be an issue in 4 years, just like Vietnam was for 3 elections. Domestic issues like education and healthcare wont improve. One of my professors predicted nearly 50 million uninsured by the time Bush leaves office. The economic recovery is the worst in history, and Bush, we should know by now, doesnt change course on anything. But could a GOP candidate effectively argue he could do things differently? And if things are somehow going well, could he take credit and argue he could continue it? Seems like an awkward position for a candidate to be in, especially considering Bush will support(I suppose) whoever it is. Thoughts?