She simply cannot survive the attacks they will mount - and the campaign will be completely unable to convey it's message through the noise they will create.

That being said - if she wins the nomination, I'll quit whatever job I may have at the time, and go to work for her.  The woman's great.

You spoke of NC. The primary reason Erskine Bowles lost the Senate seat to Richard Burr here was because of Bowles's ties to Bill Clinton. Burr's ads showing Bowles and Clinton side by side turned an 11 point Bowles lead into a dead heat within a matter of weeks.

I love Bill and Hillary Clinton, but the Clinton name automatically loses every southern state again, and as the previous poster said, the attacks would be relentless.

Hillary would energize the base and make a great president, but there is no way that she could win. With all of the Bush failures, and we couldn't vote him out..and you think we could get Hillary in?? There is, unfortunately, just no way.

1. electability. We will still have the same primary system, and electability as it was this year will play a role, she will polarize and people will be scared off in IA and NH.

2. SENATE. Need I say more ? If we nominate ANY one from the senate, we deserve to lose. They are almost unelectable now i think. Far too easy to kill them with their record

3. Who saw Dean coming in 2000 ? or clinton in 1990 ? Someone ALWAYS emerges unsuspecting...

If she did get the nod, I think she would get creamed by a Ruddy or similar. Reps think she is uber liberal, she is female, and a clinton but she aint no Bill. Even I would struggle to vote for her, and I doubt i would give money or time.

fwiw, my wife doesnt think a woman shuold ever be president, too dangerous at certain times of the month she says ! LOL

I wonder how the Republicans will handle the terrorism issue.  I can envision all sorts of whisper campaigns in which she is portrayed as a scared, equivocating woman who won't be able to make hard decisions under fire.  Whether reality reflects that, as we have seen, clearly does not matter when the Republicans start their dirty tricks.  They have clearly been anticipating a Hillary run and have likely already begun plotting their war plan.

What else might they come up with?  She is a senator so likely we will see the ever-popular flip flopper charge resurrected.  Senators, having voting records, are particularly vulnerable to such charges, regardless of their validity.  That said, I think Hillary will be more effective than Kerry was in refuting such charges.

As Rummy would say, there are many known unknowns and unknown unknowns, making speculation about what it might look like difficult at best.  Who will she run against?  What horrid things will Bush have done to our country by that time that Hillary will have to come up with proposals to get us out of?  Will we even have elections again? That last question is a joke (mostly).

I do know this.  The right hates Hillary almost as much as the left hates W.  The hatred is practically pathological.  (I imagine many on the right would say the same about our dislike of Bush.)

It seems to me the true wingnuts would not spend nearly as much time and energy trying to tear her down if they didn't think she was a credible threat.  2008 could turn into the mirror image of 2004.  Republicans working their hearts out with the primary goal being not necessarily their candidate winning but so their opponent losing.

So right wingers think Hillary could win. But is continued polarity best for the country?  I personally hope a better alternative comes into the scene over the next couple of years.

Hillary's main assets are universal name recognition and the Clinton legacy, both of which are double-edged swords, that are more likely to hurt us than help.

Finally, I'm not so confident about her re-election in 2006.  I think that the Republicans will throw everything they can at her, and I wouldn't be surprised if she lost.  (Hopefully) that would completely destroy her chances of running in '08.

Personally, I would vote for her in a second.  I just think, at this point at least, that it would be too much of a leap all at once for most people.

But who knows what four years will bring, who knows what names may rise and fall in that time and why.

Right now I vote a resounding "no" on Hillary.  It seems the Clintonistas contributed to Kerry's shortfall and if they try to run like its 1992 all over again they will miss the boat.

The one positive is that I don't see any GOP candidate who would have anywhere near the recognition, shy of Jeb.

We need dynamism and narrative and forward-thinking, not a re-hashing of the Clinton years.  Clinton was a so-so President, weakened both by his "triangulation" thinking and his moral myopia.  I would give Hillary more support and credit if she had dumped the guy.

Second, the hard left (greens, anti-war dems) are not big fans of Hillary's.  Schumer won with 70%+ in NY, Hillary will have a tough fight to get re-elected in 2006, even in NY.  We (the Greens) will certainly run a strong candidate in '08 if Hillary runs, as the last thing we need is another four years of a DLC democrat co-opting republican ideas as her own and setting back domestic programs and gay rights as much as Clinton did, not to mention her foreign policy from the Schumer "I'm more hawkish that Bush" mold on Iraq and the middle East.  I don't buy that she's more liberal that Bill.

First, the Clinton name, and Hillary, in particular, would motivate Karl Rove's legions to a degree that will make the mountain very hard to climb. We didn't fail to get out our vote, Rove and Co. did a better job of getting out thier vote. If the Republicans can do that again in four years, its going to make life difficult, if we make it easy for them, it's going to make life hell.

Second, I'm not sure how well the Clinton legacy concept would play out. For every image about growth, jobs, and a balanced budget we'd run, we'd see a dozen bits of sleeze about Monica, Whitewater, and every bit of poison that was tossed at Bill during his term. It isn't about facts, it's about how much noise they'll make. We'll have "Arkansas Bankers for truth" hauling out every bit of crap they can find. We'll hear about how Hillarycare will have Washington bureaucrats deciding whether you can take an asprin.

Third, you can bet your bottom dollar that there will be several incredibly tasteless and nasty attempts to insinuate that we can't risk having a woman in chagre in a time of war. I think that's bogus beyond words, but I can see it playing depressingly well out in the battleground states.

Now, there's one big problem with the whole question. It is so premature it isn't funny. We need to see what happens in the next two years. The '06 elections will most likely have a susbtantial effect in terms of framing the lead in to the '08 election. Hillary's '06 re-election campaign, will tell us all a lot about how she's going to play on the national stage. New York's big enough to have its very own red areas, and while they're tame compared to the deep red states, how Hillary does in the upstate hinterland will be very important, when it comes to looking at '08.

- David

If she were the nominee though we would most likely lose.  She would have to fight like hell on her own turf. She could easily lose Wisconsin and Iowa and maybe even Oregon.  I  can't see her winning Florida or Ohio.  It just doesn't add up.  She is still too polarizing to most of the country.   She'll be far less radioactive in four years though, I think she'll quietly "campaign" for V.P,  but not in 08, in 2016.

Also, if we're looking for a woman, how about Janet Napolitano?  She's done very well in Arizona, and might be a great newcomer to the national scene.

she is a strong methodist and knows her bible...

Keeps oregon ,washington and california in the

fold...strongly goes after nevada,new mexico,

and colorado...the demoagraphics in nevada

are changeing...really kick that latino vote

into gear..pick bill richardson as vp or bring

back henry cisneros....Bill Clinton fights tooth and

nail to squeak arkansas into her column (arkansas

is changing more latinos all the time).

The way things could break in her favor...

bill frist is the nominee..right wing religious

culture got burned and staying home.. 60 million

without health insurance(she knows a little

about health insurance)...World recession

millions more drop into poverty and millions

more drop out of middle class....bushs stubborness

still has us in Iraq..she has a plan to get us

out...I hate to say all the above is negative

and not good for our country but its the

damn republicans fault.

If jeb drops out of sight perhaps florida

will come back into the fold...and she wins!

alot of prognostication but it is fun and

relieves tension. :) oh yeah one last

item Karl Rove keels over and has a lee atwater

conversion.

I don't know of any politician in America with negatives as high as Hillary Clinton among the right and the vast middle. It is entirely undeserved, but I don't think Hillary can overcome it by 2008.

Kerry ought to run again, after all, he probably won this election. But second chances are no longer permitted, you get one shot period.

Edwards is in a very strong position, depending on how he handles the next 2 years.

Barack Obama is exciting a lot of Democrats, it is not inconceivable that he will be a strong contender for the VP slot after a career in state politics and 4 years as Senator. It is interesting to consider how the dynamics of a white southerner running with a brilliant black midwesterner would play in the 'new south'. Could it counter the Republican 'southern strategy'?

Please!!!

What, you think she'll win reelection?

The analysis by southerndemnut is severely lacking.

While I appreciate his (or her) intentions, let's get serious here (and get a hold on ourselves).  There are lots of other viable candidates, and more that will come to the fore after 2006.

Women aren't going to vote for another women just because they're a woman, alright!  If this was the case, then many more women would be elected.

There is no Clinton legacy, at least not one to run on, becuase he's been brutalized by the right, which is exacerbated by the fact that the left failed to stand up for him.

I don't know if maybe the democrats were in control of the senate that Clinton's record might be better, but as it stands now, she is not that distinguished.  What legislation has she introduced?  I don't remember her ever making any bold statements in any senate panels?  She's been a good steward for NY's interests, but even that's in question.

It's damn too early for 2008.

The democrats need to develop a message, need to counter the right-wing machine that been built up the past 20 years.

The religious/ evangelical/ whatever you want to call it voters will persist, but I think their numbers and strength will start to diminish.  The democrats should not ignore them, but should start to develop a message to draw in the moderate members.

Very very smart woman.  She would be able to hold her own but for her canidacy to work the left needs to start the work now about framing the party principles right now.  The race has to been on the issues starting today.

As far as the VP pick.  Evan Bayh..........

The first step is to admit you have a problem:  i.e. moderate. free-trade, pro military  strategy has lost us control of all branches of fed. gov't. The strategy made sense, but it didn't work.

Once you face the GOP backlash of 24 years square on..onnce you realize this conservative revolution isn't just about two narrow victories for them, but rather into the third decade kicking our asses getting handed to us...then you can start to understand.

We need to take firm positions representing our base, not positions intended to win over swing voters. Realize that Clinton was smart, but he had Perot. Clinton's move to the center hasn't worked, it's been a disaster. It might of worked, good people have staked their careers on it, but time to face the music. We need to go liberal and be prepared to lose for another decade(we will anyway) fighting for our people and our narrative. The GOP will mess up, we simply have to put up an authentic alternative when they do.

If we go with Hillary or some other moderate, we'll only continue to seem dishonest, inauthentic and half-baked. As someone else posted, I'm sure the GOP will do what they can to help get Hillary nominated, she is a dream opponent for them.

We ought do what we can to organize a far right party. Help Pat Buchanan or Pat Robertson or whomever form a Christian American party or something...borders, language, culture, faith. We need to split the GOP.

Second of all, we CANNOT nominate Hillary. I admire her greatly and am proud to have her as my senator, but she should stay in the Senate. She comes to the table with far too much baggage, she's probably the most widely despised person in the Democratic Party (unfairly, but still...), and she'd be torn to shreds by the right-wing slime machine.

Third, among all this talk about who can win, I haven't seen one person talk about who would be the best president. Funny notion, that the parties should nominate people particularly well suited to be the leader of the free world. It was on those grounds that I voted for Kerry in the primary this year despite a strong gut feeling that Edwards was really the one who could beat Bush. (I agonized over that one until the last minute.) But Edwards wasn't ready to be president after one--let's face it--lackluster term in the Senate, and I reasoned that the best place for him over the next eight years would be in the vice presidency, learning the executive ropes. So I went with JFK.

Similarly, suitability to lead the country ought to be the main factor in choosing a 2008 nominee. By virtue of his incredible resume (congressman, secretary of energy, ambassador to the UN, AND governor of New Mexico), I believe our best choice is Bill Richardson. Think about it--who else in the party has extensive experience in both foreign and domestic affairs, in executive, legislative, policy, and diplomatic positions? Though I can't claim extensive exposure to him, he seemed charismatic enough at the DNC, and he's a very popular Democrat in a closely divided purple state. (Anyone who's from New Mexico or a more seasoned political junkie than I want to provide more information?)

And for VP? Barack Obama. Everyone seems to agree that while he's clearly the future of the party, he's not quite ready for the top post. So by all means let's get him the hell out of the Senate, the place where passionate souls and presidential ambitions go to die. Compare John Kerry in 1971 to John Kerry in 2004 and you'll see what I mean. Obama's not going to challenge Blagojevich for IL governor, so VP is the best way to groom him for the presidency.

Fourth, can we please stop this silly talk about the party needing to move to the left or the right or the center? None of those is either necessary or effective. What we need to do to win elections is to grow some freaking balls. Period. Stop letting Republicans control the debate and the language (God bless you, George Lakoff). Take real stands on issues and make it clear that they come from moral convictions, not focus group-driven positioning. Develop a coherent, overarching vision, not a policy laundry list. Don't be afraid to go negative, within reason. (My congressman from 2000-2002 was Felix Grucci, and many of you I'm sure know what happened to him.) Intangibles win elections, not issues. It's all been said here before, but it bears frequent repeating.

Yes, Bill Clinton was able to triangulate and pander his way into two (IMHO) excellent terms as president. But he had working to his advantage an almost superhuman charisma and one of the most dangerous third-party spoilers in American history. As a general strategy, it's disastrous, and I can't believe the DLC types still don't see that after losing in 2000, 2002, and 2004.

I might suggest that nominating an all-minority ticket like Richardson-Obama would be an outstanding symbolic statement of what we as Democrats stand for and Republicans like to make transparently pathetic attempts at pretending to stand for. "But Josh, the country's still too racist to go for a Latino president and a black vice president at the same time!" Nonsense. I believe racism in America no longer has anything to do with the color of one's skin or the country of one's ancestry. It has to do with racial stereotypes. Richardson and Obama don't fit any such stereotypes (compare them to, say, Al Sharpton), and I think most Americans would be impressed with the boldness of such a move.

They, or any set of nominees, would of course need a strong, disciplined campaign with a fresh, overarching vision. Given that we can achieve that, Richardson-Obama '08 is my current choice.

I've laid out a lot here, and I'd love to see your reactions.

Can Hilary beat a Santorumesque nutjob?  I am not a political scientist, but my gut is yes she can.  But can Hilary beat John McCain?  My gut is no.   Look at the three moderates who allied with Bush this year - Arnold, Guiliani, and McCain.  I have no idea why Arnold did.  Guiliani probably did it for the spotlight.  And Bush probably cut a deal with McCain for 2008.  

So pretend McCain is the nominee.  Who can beat McCain?

On a seperate note, I feel bad for Barack Obama.  I live across the Mississippi so I heard about his campaign on the local level.  He is a really talented politician and he comes across as really honest.  I am just afraid this media hype around him is going to create a backlash against him.  I hope he is smart enough to keep a relatively low profile for a couple years - Hilary was.

And from our side, may I ask everyone to consider their honest answer to this question: do you think Hillary is an interesting or compelling speaker?  I personally find her strident and unexpressive -- a real monotone, and I find it difficult to pay attention to her for more than a few sentences.

(If I had my druthers, I'd pick Nancy Pelosi in a heartbeat -- she has true passion, and speaks extremely well.  But there are other Democrats out there with personality and charisma as well -- let's pick one of them!)

I am officially Anybody But the Republican Nominee (ABRN) in '08.

The primary reason i don't think she could win is because I feel that like most Democrats, she lacks a moral core. Conviction, if you will. She's perceivewd as willing to do anything, say anything, change any position, betray any friend to get elected, and I believe the Democrats need more people of conviction if they are to begin winning Federal elections.  

Case in point: As you can guess, Rupert Murdoch & his NY Post are the harshest possible critics of the Clintons.  Before her senate run, she asked for a meeting with Murdoch to call a truce, if you will. God knows what she was willing to sacrifice to get him to go easier on her.  In any case, MMurdoch turned her down flat -- No meeting.   So instead of fighting back, plotting to destroy the bastard our erstwhile first lady went begging and was prepared to roll over.

This is not the character of a winning Presidential candidate.

And whoever said above that the slime machine would kick into overdrive is exactly right.  In fact, the letters are already written and the campaign plans already made.

I sure hope we dont do this.  I dont want to lose again

I know, I know...the seemingly now prevalent wisdom of not nominating a senator due to their voting record.  But where did Kerry have his biggest problems?  Not taxes.  Not any other domestic issue.  It was Iraq, plain and simple...and if you don't think that Iraq will still be on the table in 3 years, then I'm not sure what to tell you.  Reasons why I am putting his name out there, in no particular order:

1. Feingold voted against authorizing the use of force in Iraq, believing AT THE TIME that is was detrimental to the war on terror. Sound familiar?

2. Feingold also voted against the Patriot Act, the ONLY U.S. Senator to do so.  

3. Oh, that little McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Bill.  Demonstrated ability to reach across the aisle on issues of great importance.

4. Feingold is a ranking member on the Constitution Subcomittee, something that could prove significant with the age of the Supreme Court.  

5. Feingold is a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, that is clearly significant with respect to the war on terror.

6. Feingold was awarded the highest score among Senate Democrats by Citizens Against Government Waste.  There is your fiscal reponsibility card.

7. Several Civil Rights organizations have awarded him perfect scores with respect to his voting record.  This includes African-American orgs, Hispanic orgs, and gay rights orgs.

In short, one could argue that his 2-term record is more significant that John Kerry's (I am not slamming the man...I gave my heart and soul to his campaign, and would do it again in a second).  At minimum, it is more insulated against what could serve as the three large pillars of a 2008 election:  1) still Terror, 2) the Deficit, and 3) The Supreme Court.

Perhaps he could be paired with Obama, if the junior senator demonstrates on the promise that he so clearly shows.  Then there is Warner and Rendell, both previously referenced.

All that said, I agree wholeheartedly with a previous poster...let's not obsess too much on 2008.  It's fun to speculate, but the focus should be on the ground floor of our country.  Electing the local sheriffs, librarians, school boards, low level legislators.  Join your local Democratic Club/Society/Group...and if you need to lead it.  If there isn't a group, create one.  

THIS is how we build a political machine.

Sure Sen. Clinton has name recognition, but I'm not sure it helps her much since the conservatives have already defined her. She will have to redefine herself along the lines of the previous paragraph. I haven't seen much work along this line so far. Howard Dean has a head start.

And have you listened to her speak lately?  I think she is really coming into her own.

Seems to me it's about time we stopped trying to find someone who's 'electable' and, damn the republicans, find someone who truly embodies our values.

Lots of things can happen in four years...

Iraq will be a serious and deadly mess. I personally do not see anyone voting for a woman with a holy war going on between us and the Muslim world. Not that it might be relevant to voters but I would think the Pentagon would spend some serious energy undermining her.  

For   the good of the nation she should not run. In the case of a continuing war in the ME I would go with McCain or any other battle experienced presidential candidate.

And remember we had a great battle hardened candidate in Wes Clarke (anybody remember him?).

If the Dems had to mount another campaign right now, my ticket would be Bill Richardson and Evan Bayh, who is very popular in Indiana.  Given that they will carry the blue states, they need to run sbdy who is not from those states, but will play better in the "heartland" and plains and mountain states.  Richardson can possibly make inroads into the plains and Rockies, and Bayh can possibly carry IN and OH.  Plus, Richardson is a Latino (his mom is Mexican) and speaks fluent Spanish, which would play well in Florida and elsewhere.  Also, they both have executive experience as governors, unlike Kerry and Edwards.

Obama is probably the Dem with the most potential, but he has no record.  Even if he catches fire, I still think the Dems would be better off with sbdy from a non-southern red state.  Based on Edwards' (non) performance, I don't see them making inroads into the deep south (not counting Florida) any time soon.

So , who?  

the repubs have shown us the way!!! Reagan read scripts perfectly, Bush II resurrected himself after a life of drunkenness and debauchery, plus, he listens attentively to his black box.

The best person is some rehabilited lightweight actor/talk show host. Pee Wee Herman? Arnold would be good 'cept for his Austrian nazi background plus so far he is a repub. Jon Stewart? Leno might be looking for work. Four years is a long time--some future SNL type just might fit the bill. Then you need some heavy to feed him his lines.

As I said on my own fledgling blog, www.readcom.blogspot.com:

While I think it's premature to rule her in or out for 2008--face it, anything can happen and who ever heard of Howard Dean in 2000?--it is interesting to consider her candidacy. As I've said, I think having a woman atop the ticket in 2008 (and it's a shame Granholm can't run) would present some problems for the Republicans, since they wouldn't be able to use the your-guy's-a-sissy platform. (Would it become a your-gal's-a-bitch platform?)

Also, the Clinton years look increasingly good economically, and if the dollar continues to fall folks are going to really reminisce on the 90's. The Republicans' primary gripe against Hillary seems to be "Hillarycare," which by 2008 will be 15 years old (hard to believe) and which will also seem, in retrospect, a helluva lot better than having 45 million people--probably more in 4 years--uninsured.

So, I think a Hillary ticket could win, but no matter who the candidate is, we have to do a better job of marketing and framing him or her, an area where the Republicans have been kicking our ass, and an area on which I will be writing more in the coming days.

Granted, the far right hates her passionately.  Why should that be a disqualification?

we match the right wing noise..with our own

media and nuetralize..sean the human sphincter

hannity already hails his Hillary watch.

We are growing in radio and of course we

need to reach out to rural america...improve

in cable...we can rub their noses in it...

Media Matters support that sight! its great.

But to say its too late for Hillary she has

been branded beyond recognition is falling

for the bullys ways...we can counter punch

and win it for her...she would be a great

president...and I like two over her....

John Edwards and Wesley Clark.

Much would depend upon who the opponent might be.

Given a coherent message, smart tactics and a strong ground game, I think she might be able to win.

The same could be said of any democratic nominee. Without a coherent message any candidate is going to be in trouble.

She has name recognition. How did George Bush win in 2000? By being the son of a not very impressive former president. His record in Texas amounted to practically nothing. His past was full of business failures, drinking problems etc etc yet he had name recognition, he had money backing him and he was folksy. (and his brother controlled the voting process in Florida)

Hillary would need to pick up a lot of the female vote. I think this is possible. The vocal minority would detest her but so what, they vote Republican anyway.

Of course she would get slaughtered by Rove et al in the media but as we have seen, that is a given regardless of the name of the candidate.

Just as any other candidate she would have to find a way of getting past the magical 270.

It is far too early to tell what the state of play will be in 2008. But given favourable circumstances, I think Hillary could make it to the White House.

1960:
John F. Kennedy 49.72% popular vote, 303 electoral votes
Richard Nixon 49.55% popular vote, 219 electoral votes

1964:
Lyndon Johnson 61.05% popular vote, 486 electoral votes
Barry Goldwater 38.47% popular vote, 52 electoral votes

2004:
George Bush 50.95% popular vote, 286 electoral votes
John Kerry 48.09% popular vote, 252 electoral votes

2008:
John McCain ? popular votes, ? electoral votes
Hillary Clinton ? popular votes, ? electoral votes

Think 1964.  And don't let it happen.  Hillary Clinton cannot be our nominee.  She needs to do her part to move the Democratic Party forward right now, by announcing that she is not interested in the 2008 nomination.  If she runs, she will set back our chances of taking back the country by another four years.

I bring up the comparison between 1960-64 and today for another reason too.  The early 1960s were the beginning ferment of today's New Right - just like today there is the beginning of a resurgent liberalism.  Nixon was the right's man in 1960, but by 1964 the real true believers thought Nixon was too liberal, and they practically took over the party and nominated Goldwater.  That was jumping the gun.  America wasn't ready for Goldwater yet.

In 2004 our man was Kerry - but I am already seeing talk (not so much here as on certain another forums) that Kerry is too centrist and we need to nominate somebody way to the left.

Let's not make that mistake.  Kerry is exactly where we need to be politically.  Remember that after the big Goldwater wipeout in 1964 the New Right reorganized, while Nixon made a comeback.

If we nominate either Hillary Clinton, or somebody too far to the left (Kucinich for example), I'm afraid we are going to have to learn the same lesson that the right wing learned the hard way in 1964.

Also keep in mind where the right wing is today.  Reagan easily got elected in 1980 running about where Goldwater did, and the Bush regime today is way to the right of where Goldwater or Reagan were.  But they got there by building a conservative movement and conservative institutions over 4 decades.

What I'm saying is, our day is coming, but taking back our country is going to be a long, slow process.  Let's get on with that process of building the new liberal think tanks, reorganizing the labor movement and reunionizing the workplaces, reconnecting with working class people in red state and rural America, building the new liberal base out of all the grassroots energy from the 2004 campaigns, etc.  And let's keep the long run in mind, not jump the gun by nominating people too far to the left, and not get sidetracked with pointless conspiracy theories which only promote apathy  (if elections are rigged, why bother voting?).  

We have a lot of work to do.

The most important thing we could do to push that work forward is to drop any further talk of Hillary Clinton running for President in 2008.

If Hillary runs, you will see a mass-defection to a third party by the Left. The reason? They tried to play the two-party game, and it still didn't work. If the Democrats are not seriously viable as a party by 2008, the left will cut bait. At least that way they can get their ideas out there without having to be muzzled by moderates so that the party can "win".

First of all, What value can there possibly be to having this conversation now?

I mean, besides helping Republicans raise money.  That's certainly why THEY like to talk about running Hillary in '08.

So much can and will happen between now and 2008 that we cannot predict.  Handicapping a presidential candidate who hasn't even announced an intention to run yet seems like something that should be rather low on our priority list.

Second, How many unsupported statements can you make in one post?

if Hillary Clinton wants the nomination in `08 it will be hers

Really?  So no matter who else might run against her, and no matter what she might do between now and then that could affect her viability, and no matter the emerging activist community that is actively seeking to diminish the power of the Clintons and their crowd, represented, for instance, by the very website on which you are publishing this baseless speculation?

Dean likely wouldn't be able to compete as he has already ran once and lost

Really?  So, you are so unconvinced by the ubiquitous comparisons of Dean to Reagan (in terms of getting beat in the primaries and coming back) that you don't even feel the need to acknowledge the possibility that Dean could be using this four years to build his network and his credibility to position him for another run in '08?

as soon as Hillary would announce the race would effectively be over

Really?  So despite the aforementioned disgruntled anti-Clinton/DLC segment of the base, you think it's impossible that no other candidate might have the ego to challenge Hillary, and impossible he might have the support to give her a good run for her money?

*Hillary is clearly liberal or left-leaning.
Except for that business about supporting the war.

NY is hard to define what is already largely defined. Like California, NY is too big to be bottlenecked into clichés and false asumptions the same was Massachusettes or Vermont is maligned. Also with NY being the site of most of the 9/11 carnage, opponents will loathe to make direct attacks on the state itself as they would likely backfire.

REALLY?  You don't think California has been defined by stereotypes?  You don't think that to the rest of the country, New York = New York City, scary urban babylon full of gangs and brown people and homasectials and latte-drinkers?  And you think that Republicans fear some kind of consequences to be paid by villifying New York because of 9/11?  Can you point me toward any consequences they've paid so far for doing exactly that?  

*She brings all the goodwill that The Clinton's (mostly Bill) accumulated over the 8 years that Bill was President.

Good god...I can't...I can hardly even address this one and the next.  She doesn't bring all of Bill Clinton's goodwill - she brings some of it at best.  But she brings aaaaaaaaaaall the bad will and then some.  You could not give a better gift to the right wing noise machine.  She is not inoculated against Bill's baggage - she reactivates it in the mind of everyone who sees her.  She's the betrayed wife.  And she's also got some baggage of her own - she's the one who "ordered Vince Foster killed", remember?

It would be dangerous to underestimate the potential strength that Hillary might have among women in general. It is probably true that Hillary might lose some male support in general, but it would likely be made up in kind and them some with added support from women.

Yeah, and it would be dangerous to make up from whole cloth a popularity with women that she doesn't actually have, based on wishful thinking.  I don't know what her approval ratings look like as senator, but she was not a popular first lady - among women.

If our reaction to the ass-whipping we're getting from Republicans is to concentrate, in 2004, on electing in 2008 a candidate whose principal feature of interest is being the wife of the last president we managed to get in office, we are so very screwed.

This, from a liberal feminazi attorney from Memphis who kept her own name (as in Hillary Clinton fka Rodham) - but who works in a hotbed of Wall Street Journal Op-ed types.  

There is no way.  Repeat, no way.  She would be torn to shreds.  And unlike Bill, she doesn't have the ability to remaining warm and charming while being attacked.

Let's forget this pipe dream and focus on strategy and reframing the debate instead.

JFK.

Governors are usually better candidates.  They aren't linked to Washington, and they have less of an audit trial on which to build negative attacks.

BTW, yes, it is way to early for these discussions and I would support Hillary but think she starts out with too much "baggage", lots of other good candidates too...but don't dismiss Kerry, he deserves to be on the short list.

And while I think Obama and Edwards are great charismatic speakers who can really connect with people, neither has the credentials to be elected president in 2008.  Edwards didn't win the 2004 primary because he wasn't qualified.  His only relevant experience is a single 6-year senate term, and argubly only 4 of that was truly spend working on the hill since he was actively campaigning for the other two years.  He would be perceived as weak on defense and inexperienced--and they would really pound him on being a medical liability laywer.  He wouldn't even win his home state.

Obama rocks as a speaker, but he also lacks the credentials to be elected president.  In 2008 he'll have completed 4 years of a US senate term, to be added to his 8 years in the Illinois state senate.  He has no foreign policy experience and his voting record would be portrayed as out of touch with the mainstream; his record reflects the fact that his constituency was a poor urban district on the south side of Chicago.

My own senator Russ Feingold is phenomenal, and would make a great president.  Will he run--I don't know.  He's a smart campaigner who knows how to connect with Wisconsin voters.  (Wisconsin being a very purple state.)  His record is fairly liberal, but also fairly independent.  Could his record survive the soundbite media?  That's the big question.  His vote against the Patriot act certainly didn't prevent him from getting a decent percentage of Republican votes.  The RNC was gunning for him and Russ did so well that the RNC had to pull the plug on funding for his challenger in the weeks leading up to the election.  

As an aside, imagine a Feingold vs. McCain race.  That would be interesting, but I think McCain would win.  The independent/moderate vote is Feingold's biggest potential asset, but a McCain ticket would nulify that advantage.   This scenario is unlikely to happen though--if Bush continues his success at pulling the wool over America's eyes for the next 4 years, the RNC will nominate someone more conservative than a McCain, a Guliani or a Schwartzeneger.  Maybe Jeb Bush?

My gut is that the likely Democratic choice will be a governor-type--not Dean--someone from red America.

Take Dean in 2000 as an example.  He looked as though he was going to cruise to the nomination, but there was a huge "anyone but Dean" segment of the party.  That segment of the party was split-up until a more-clear "non-Dean" emerged in Kerry.  At that point, people flocked.

Whether Hillary gets the nod in 2008 will largely be dependant-upon whether or not there's someone for the anti-Hillary voters to coalesce around.  If the anti-Hillary vote is too divided, she may very well waltz to the nomination.  But if, say, Warner or Clark were the only one left in the race other than her, she may be screwed.

All of that having been said, it's waaaay too early to predict what'll happen if Hillary does indeed get the nod.  I will make one assumption though: the Kerry Blue States are her electoral minimum.  Kerry, as far as I'm concerned, ran a crappy campaign.  He didn't answer attacks on his record forcefully/clearly/quickly, he didn't articulate a clear vision for our country's future, he didn't have a killer instinct where Bush's record is concerned, and he didn't have the same mojo/Elvis-factor as a Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan.  So I assume that Hillary starts with those 252EVs.

The condition of the country will then contribute to how well Hillary does.  If it's worse than now, with Ohio having lost another quarter million jobs to overseas markets, she may eeeke-out a win in Ohio and a few other purple states.  If it's about the same, flip a coin.  (of course, this is assuming an opponent of the approximate "Elvis" level of Bush)

Whom the GOP nominates will also determine how well Hillary does.  If it's Frist, I want to see commercials in primetime every ten minutes; they should have kittens on whitescreen with the sounds of off-camera cats screaming for their lives.  Smear early, smear often!  If Frist is the nominee, I want church parking lots flyered every weekend of how he holds interests in his family's pro-abortion healthcare provider business.

If Rudy is the nominee, I want flyers in those church parking lots showing the man in drag at GLBT events.  I want details of how he cheated, divorced, and moved-in with the gay couple.. the task will be to suppress the Evangelical base of the GOP.

Same for McCain.. his previous statements on how fundamentalists are hijacking the party should be in church parking lots every weekend between the day of his primary victory and Election Day.

When the candidate's name comes to-mind of most voters, they need to associate those candidates negatively:
Frist: kitten-torturing abortionist
Giuliani: drag queen, pro-gay marriage New Yawker
McCain: old anti-Religious Right hothead crazy

In other words, the race will also turn on how well Hillary's campaign would be run.  Kerry refused to resort to the tactics I outline above (translation: lack of gonads).  If she can define her GOP opponent early in very negative terms, she stands a chance.  If she can portray her detractors as "being stuck in the pettiness of the 1990s" while conveying "a focus on the country's pressing future concerns," she stands a chance.  Framing, framing, framing!

Honestly, it might take some pain for Americans to turn to a dem in 2008.  There's a pattern in the past century where the GOP rules for a while and then the Dems arrive to clean-up the mess.  1932: economy.  1976: morals.  1992: economy.  We might want to encourage a foreign boycott of American goods.  We might want to restrain our own spending.  We might want to encourage a pull-out from the markets.  We might want to buy foreign goods.  If we suffer economically for a few years, big whoop.. a few rough Christmases.  But if the GOP gets to dominate the Supreme Court for the next 50 years, BIG WHOOP, INDEED!

============

My own wish is for a Clark/Warner ticket.  Personally, once I establish that a primary candidate is acceptable as far as Supreme Court nominees are concerned, I look purely at the Electoral Map hanging on my office wall.  And a Clark/Warner ticket opens-up waaay more electoral possibilities than a Clinton/??? ticket.

Now, if we are at peace, things are quite different.  I know Hilary is hated by the right, but I am unsure of how moderates think about her.  She could win during peacetime, but she probably isn't the best choice (I would say Richardson, Vilsack, Clark (even during peacetime), and Obama would be better choices).  Kerry wouldn't be the best choice either, but during peacetime he could win.  Edwards probably has no chance-not enough experience, couldn't win his home state, and is a senator.  Obama is only on the list because of his Bill Clinton-like oratory skills (otherwise, first term senator, black, and comes from a deep blue state, are all massive negatives for him).

It also matters who the other side runs.  If it's McCain, we are in deep shit, war or peace, no matter who we run.  The only negative for McCain would be his age (He will be 72 in 2008).  Otherwise, everybody loves him (the religious wingnuts don't, but they'll vote for him).  Moderates and independents love him.  Kerry wanted him for VP.  The rest of the GOP bench are much more beatable, and they probably will nominate a wingnut instead of McCain.

They would never be foolish enough to let something like this be caught on film.

Barring this kind of revelation, we'd be better off running Stevenson a third time (he would be no less stiff than Kerry).

A Googling delivers more than 60,000 hits for "Hillary Clinton scandals."  Her incompetence in the 1993-1994 universal health insurance debacle arguably cost 40 million Americans a chance at health care and derailed half of Clinton's meager agenda (lost in the great "train wreck" that resulted).

I beg of anyone with any power to influence this -- do not play into their hands.  Do not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of Whitewater; do not crucify our party upon a cross of cattle futures.

She's a great senator, and maybe she'd be a great president, but she'll never get the chance.

And historically, senators don't get elected. Governors do.

Which brings me to one thing I've been curious about for a while: why not Bill Richardson for the nomination? All his credentials are excellent (UN Ambassador, Secretary of Energy, elected governor in a landslide, four Nobel Peace Prize nominations, Hispanic). What am I missing that makes him too risky?