One thing I have been noticing over the years, watching American presidential elections, is how those who do NOT go on to become President usually fade from the political news.

In a parliamentary system, like we have in Canada, it doesn't really work that way. It is not unusual for at least one contender for party leader (the equivalent of Edwards, say, if Obama gets the Democrat nod) to go on to a high place in the winner's cabinet, and often to another stab at leadership 6 or 8 years down the road. And of course, the leader of the losing party, in the general election, usually gets a nice long time to sit in Parliament, taking jabs at the government.

This works to the benefit of the country, in my opinion, as all of these high quality people are still working away in government.

So, my question is, is the impression I get true, or just a function of media coverage? I can only really think of Nixon as an example of someone who lost in a Presidential race and then went on to political success. Do all of those talented 'losers' just go on to other endeavors, or is there a place for them in public life that I just haven't heard of? Seems to me that's a lot of brain power and political experience getting wasted, unless there is a place for them.

By the way, this is not meant to be a dig at US politics, or a "Parliament is better" rant. I like our system and think it serves us well, but it certainly has its own inherent flaws. I'd just like to understand the US system better.

A lot of Presidential "losers" do go on to cabinet positions, yes. Al Gore was a Democratic contender in 1988, for example, and was then selected as Bill Clinton's running mate, eventually winning the Vice Presidency. Lloyd Bentsen was Mike Dukakis' running mate in 1988, but kept serving in the Senate after his defeat, then became Clinton's Secretary of the Treasury in 1992. John McCain lost his bid for the presidential nomination in 2000, but kept his Senate seat, and is now giving it another try. Likewise, John Kerry remains a US Senator, and may take another run at the big job at some point.

So, yes, they do stick around, and do often run again - Ronald Reagan's 1980 victory was his third run at the office, for instance. Their post-election activities may not be big enough news to cross the 49th parallel, though.

An admission: right now, without looking I haven't any idea who the Prime Minister is. Pathetic?

It is interesting, though, how many of them do just kind of 'fade away' (at least in a public view kinda way). It's almost like those publicy overexposed talk show hosts who are hot this year, not so hot next year, cancelled the year after that ... and never heard from again (Sally Jessy Raphel comes to mind ). I think that analogy pretty much explains it, though, in many cases. To get all that TV camera exposure, and then lose makes taking a nicely private low-profile spot somewhere probably not only wise but also less humiliating. And, too, considering how their characters are so soundly trounced across-the-board by each other as these things heat up? They probably think it best to find some distance from the public for a while, to give the voters the chance to forget how painfully horrendous they've been accused of being (coast-to-coast) for months on end. Just in case they might like to try again?

Interesting question, though, I think. It would be rather gut-wrenching, though, to hold one's head up if one was *say* John Kerry some days. Being voted for by significantly fewer people than George W. Bush was? Must knock the wind out of a person's "sails" in very short order...