Disagree.  I know at least one possible candidate that's been showing off the fact that he's considering running.

Donald Trump has announced a while ago that he was considering running for President in 2012.  He has been particularly opposed to Obama with regards to US trade policy with China (Trump believes that the US should put an additional 25% tariff on all Chinese imports).  According to Trump, China has been deliberately devaluing their currency in order to gain a trade advantage against the US and become a global exporter.  Trump believes Obama has done little to assist the disparity.

If he does run for President, I think he's got an extremely good chance at winning.  This may seem odd, but Trump may be able to gain a level of personability in the election.  Before running, his TV series, "The Apprentice," introduced people to Donald Trump, the person.  In addition, in a recession period, people may see it beneficial to elect a person who came straight out of Wall Street to rebuild the economy, especially after Obama's years, in which the US tested a political novice as President.

Oh, and one more note: Trump has done this consideration before.  The only difference is that now, the Trump brand is much more widespread and well-known.

Trump would be clobbered, he got sued a few years ago and testified in court and that transcript would finish him.

He testified that he described his investment in a development as a "50% interest" to prospective investors, even though he'd only put up 30% of the money, "because I put so much time and effort into helping them make the project work, I considered my interest to be half the project."

And Perot claimed to be chased onto his lawn by Black Panthers sent by the CIA.  Which is outrageous, when Black Panthers are sent by the CIA you invite them into the lounge for a drink and then gas them from the bunker control room.  That's what a President would do.

Many of us prefer a president who can tell the difference between 50% and 30%.  It matters 200% of the time.

@wfs:
noone stands any chance.

Yup, the US needs new parties.

BS she knew it and Biden lied.  VP is president of the Senate and casts votes to break ties. 

Better Obama than a RINO.

Nope.

PALIN: No, no. Of course, we know what a vice president does. And that

I didn't know what to do with the urge to correct that error. I compromised over an annotation of the error

most favorites fail in the race for US-presidency. last example: H. Clinton
Palin is good for propaganda and votes on the right, which means she'll be vice-president. the rep. candidate will be formed in the elections. someone mid-right, perhaps a general. a person with a career that tells of honour and "i love the US and i risked my life for it and god brought me through bad situations...". With this fields covered, he can charm the poitical center. Why a general? 1. There are enough. 2. The US is "at war". 3. a general is no politican and has nothing to do with the budget dept. 4. has per definition honour. 5. can claim to have served to protect the US. 6. can link his survival to direct help from god in a critical combat situation (if there is proof that such a situation took place in the past, i. e. vietnam, desert storm 1991). etc.

might as well, since Obama won't do diddly to stop them