As fall arrives in this long march to the White House, six aspects of the 2008 presidential campaign emerge that make it more historic and consequential than any election since at least 1980.

If you are a normal American, the campaign so far probably has been like elevator music — always in the background but never quite grabbing your attention.

But some attributes of this campaign already have been framed and are worth pondering as you start paying closer attention:

• Unless dramatic change occurs, this will be the first election since 1972 to take place during an unpopular war, although the historic comparisons are more akin to 1968. That year, Hubert Humphrey lost the White House for the Democrats despite breaking late on the war from President Lyndon Baines Johnson. Unless Ron Paul wins the GOP nomination in less than five months, the Republican candidate will start out on the defensive on Iraq, and the question will be how far he breaks from President Bush on Iraq. The Democrats are in a bigger state of flux on Iraq. Their presidential candidates have bigger differences on what the future course ought to be.

• This is the first election where a woman, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, is a leading contender for her party’s nomination and for the White House. But the New York senator is not just a gender trailblazer. As first lady, she was intricately involved in policy, providing executive-branch heft to her candidacy. But Bill Richardson, the governor of New Mexico, trumps her on executive experience among Democrats. Ex-New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, both Republicans, also have more executive experience than Clinton.

• Americans must for the first time factor into their decisions the possibility and advisability of sending a relatively popular ex-president, Bill Clinton, back to the White House, albeit as first spouse. In a country founded by rejecting dynastic royalty, the possibility that the presidency could be in the hands of a Bush or Clinton for as many as 28 straight years, if Clinton wins, could be a debate point in 2008.

• The election happens in the midst of an acrimonious and unresolved debate about immigration, a debate that is proxy for a larger, melting pot discussion about what it means to be an American in the 21st century. Immigration is also part of a broader debate about security in a world where borders are breaking down on trade, communications, travel and other facets of life.

• The election also comes during a period of extraordinary animosity in political discourse. One source of animosity is based on the inability of either party to establish a distinct majority in Congress, leading to intensely close elections every two years.

• Lastly, this will be the longest presidential general election in history, with the concurrent possibility that there actually may be more states in play Feb. 5 than Nov. 4 next year. More than 20 states now plan to hold primaries on the climactic “Tsunami Tuesday,” and the nominees of both parties could be in place by the end of that day. In recent general elections, the presidency has been fought over roughly 15 “swing states,” detouring around such population giants as California, Illinois and New York. All three states plan to have primaries Feb. 5 and will be big prizes.

This last scenario raises a big question. Will the 2008 presidential contest drag on so long that the public, finally fed up with the permanent campaign, demand a return to a saner election calendar?

Contact Chuck Raasch at craasch@gns.gannett.com.