A Hillary candidacy will probably redefine the term "negative voter turnout." If the dems want to fire up the Republican base even more than it was in '04, they'll run her.

Most women I discuss this topic with despise Hillary on several levels, politics being only one of them. In addition, she will be seen for what she isn't which is alot more than what the MSM claims that she is. While Hillary may have won one election (in a code-blue, union state), Rice has substance and experience far beyond anything Clinton will have. IMO, Hillary would not attract even the voters garnered by Kerry.

If Hillary wins the nomination in Nil-8, I will abandon the Democratic Party for good.

Dick, if Hillary wins in 2008, I'll be King of Australia.

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

P.S. Ditto the comments on Rice, who I respect a lot. However, keep an eye out for 2006, and a Cheney early retirement. Bush will be thinking about a political successor, and I wouldn't be surprised if he grooms someone (possibly Rice) for that job. But she'd need domestic experience, and barring a race in another office, the only spot she can get it is in the Veep slot.

Trouble is, that only gives her less than a year before she has to campaign in earnest, and to date, she doesn't seem at all interested in politics.

THAT'S what I'd like Morris to tell me, with his big ol' toe-sucking mouth: who does *Dubya* want to be POTUS in Nil-Eight?

I have been discussing this with friends and family. I think Hilly will run in '08. If things continue as they are now, she will get the nomination too. As matter of fact, I expect there to be some kind of back room deal that will keep Gore, Kerry and Edwards out of the '08 race.

Anyway, if that happens, it will just show how out of touch the Democratic party has become with the Majority of America. The Democrats tried to rally the Hate Bush vote, but it will be a spark compaired to the anti-Hillary conflagration.

Oops, sorry about missing the memo on the TPS cover er Nil-8 thing. It was a mistake, won't happen again... Oops the phone's ringing. (Yeah, I got the memo it was a mistake...)

Four years from now, the Republican candidate will start with more than 200 electoral votes in the bank. If current trends continue, the upper midwest will vote more Republican than they do now.

The influence of the mainstream media, the Democrat Party's most loyal ally, will continue to decline. The alternative media will continue to rise. The Clinton legacy will continue to erode.

Speaking of political experience, just how good is Hillary? She hand-picked a state where she was expected to win, raised a ton of money, hired the Party's top strategists, cashed in her hubby's IOUs, and beat a no-name no-experience opponent. The servile NY media never asked her a single tough question.

Just exactly how magical is the Clinton name? As magical, I suspect, as the Kennedy name. In other words, magic to MSM reporters, political activists, and Hollywood celebs. Nobody else. Mr Magic never even broke 50% of the vote.

Does Morris really expect Hillary to be a better politician than Bill?

Morris ignores the obvious: if Bush's policies come to fruition and we get a good result in Iraq, Afganistan, and Iran, manage to turn on the spigot of Iraqui oil to reduce prices, and reduce terrorism, the resulting peace and prosperity will catapult most any Republican to the top. Big "if" but that's what we elected him to do, so let's all pray he does it all just right.

72, you're making it too hard. Those conditions would guarantee a Republican landslide.

For mere victory, lesser achievements will suffice: continuing GDP growth, continuing low unemployment, and a perception of steady progress in the War on Terror.

The dynamics of the electoral game favor the GOP. It does not require enormous success for Republicans to maintain power; it requires enormous failure for them to lose it.

1) When you want attention, say something silly

Isn't that the point of this whole blog?

2) Getting in late in the game on the whole "name the decade thing, I prefer the "Zips" or the "Zipp-O's" to the "Nils".

Why? Because not only does it give a shout ok to Akron, Ohio (the state which put W over the top) but it also allows for a LUCRATIVE CIGARETTE LIGHTER ENDORSEMENT!

Think of all the crazy blog-money that would bring....

3) As for Hill, before you jump to any conclusions about her relevancy in '08 watch her actions in '06. It will be interesting to see if the Empire State will throw a candidate at her that will force her to actually campaign and take positions that will be hard to disavow later.

My wife can't stand Hillary! Clinton. We were talking politics earlier and I mentioned Hillary! may make a run in 2004.

My wife actually shuttered.

So I guess this means you can put a mark in the "Professional Puerto Rican Woman who won't vote for Hillary! if her life depended on it" column.

Way too early to call '08 for the Hilldebeasty yet. Over the next year the credibility of mainstream media will, most likely, further erode. Without complicit coverage, Hillary will be shown for what she is. A second rate intellect who thinks she knows better than individuals. While I reservedly admire her re-invention of herself, the pyjama brethren won't let it stand, and she will be doomed to the same dustheap of history as her soi-disant husband.

What are the specific reasons women give for hating Hillary?

While I suspect the coming of a HC08 run, it will, I agree, be a disaster for the Dems.

On the unhappy side, Condi has made statements to the effect that she has no interest in the White House. Oddly, these are much the same comments as Colin Powell's. And he would be a great choice to stand for President in 08, if only he would.

lyle: perhaps I overstated it, but W must now produce something on those issues we elected him to, if he does, 'the White House is the GOPs for the taking. If not, GOP luck will be proportional to his lack of success. My point is that much is riding on W's success and we need to support him.

Morris fails to factor in the white male vote. If Democrats want white males to start voting for Republicans in percentages like black women vote for Dems, please go ahead and nominate Hillary. OK, so I'm exaggerating, but the point remains.

Regarding the Republican prospectives:

Rice: No. Probably squishy on social issues. Plus, nominating a black woman with no political experience is too risky. Won't happen.

Powell: No chance. More likely to win as a Democrat than a Republican, but no chance either way. Too internationalist, no political experience, squishy on social issues.

Giuliani - Most likely of the big names. Needs to prove his bona fides on social issues.

McCain - Another possibility, though almost universally despised on the Hill. I think he's unlikely. All this flirting with Democrats does not go well with the party faithful.

I'd put my money on one of the guys flying under the radar right now like Frist, Romney, Owens, or Jeb (despite him saying he won't run). It will be very important to continue to satisfy the cultural conservatives in order to avoid a 3rd-party challenge on the right, which absolutely could happen if a pro-choicer like Powell were nominated.

The real key is to watch and see if Ventura puts together a campaign. Hillary knows just as well as anyone that Perot cost Bush Sr his 2nd term. A Ventura run would bleed away the Reagan Democrats (same as Perot did in '92). The question is, does Hillary have any hooks to force a Ventura run for her benefit?

A lot of women dislike Hillary for putting up with her lying cheating husband AND being too far in denial to see what was going on, time after time after time. How can you trust as president someone who has been fooled...how many times?

Much as I admire Rice, a presidential candidate she is not. She is not seen as tough or as one to make up her mind and stick to her guns in the face of opposition. Even Hillary beats her there. I hope that Rice can turn that around in the next few years, but I'm not betting on it.

Hillary only wins if there's a third-party candidate. I don't know if Ventura is that candidate. I think it's more likely we get a third-party religious right candidate if the GOP decides to go "moderate" in '08.

CL,

Assuming the WoT is still the #1 issue in 2008 (and I see no reason why it wouldn't be) I think McCain beats any living Democrat in the general with one hand tied behind his back. If the Republican base nominates some other, professionally boring loser of a senator because he's more ideologically pure, it will forever stand as a textbook example of arrogant overreach, and (IMO) the consequences for the country will be tragic.

Condi is not a serious candidate at this point. The only other serious option is Jeb: the "Fuck you" option. If Jeb gets the nomination (I don't think he will) and wins (maybe he could), the Democratic party should disband and start over.

Re: Hillary! in '08. I agree that many are taking for granted that she'll be re-elected in '06. Should Rudy make another run at her (doubtful but possible), methinks she might be a one-termer. Hillary! may energize the left, but she will absolutely galvanize the right.

Re: McCain in '08. Personally, I think he's sick. The lump on his left jawline that he had removed a couple of years ago appears (to me) to be back. He's also 68 today, which, in '08, would make him an awfully old former-POW to begin to make a run. Also, the GOP today is much more conservative than the moderates of the 2000 primaries had hoped McCain would have success with. I think he's just free to be who he wants to be now.

Re: Condi in '08. She's a wonderful policy wonk and will do well as SecState. I think the "Black Vote", if it is as monolythic as many suggest, already believes she (and Colin Powell) are practically white, so her race won't help in a run for Pres. in '08. IMO, her biggest drawback is her family status. Finding time for a marriage and children rounds out a person. The lack of these elements are a disqualifier.

Dunno who will run, but I don't think it will be any of these three.

Oh yeah. I forgot to add, Morris is (still) an idiot.

Ace is right - Dr. Rice has never been elected to anything. Lots of dream candidates perish that way. Remember President Wes Clark? He announced and immediately went to the top of the Democrat class. Steve Forbes? Ross Perot?

The Republican Party will not nominate an anti-life candidate, and Giuliani stubbed his toe hard with Keirik. He's got an ugly personal life of his own. Too many strikes.

Of course there is one exception to that rule, and that is Colin Powell. The Presidency could be his if he wanted it. He doesn't want it.

My guess on the Republican side there will be a lot of candidates for the nomination. Most we don't even know by name right now, because Bush won't have an heir apparent. Hagel, probably, McCain, not. But Hagel will get trounced. So will any other Senator. Look to the governors. We've got a deep bench. There won't be a Constitutional amendment, so Arnold is out. My long term money is on Gov Bill Owens of Colorado right now, because no way we'll go for another Bush. (nota bene:: I predicted W for 2k President in 1994. I don't have any proof, but you could ask my wife, she'll back me up.)

On the Democrat side, they've got some governors, too. Sorry Bill Richardson, we won't elect a fat guy, so while you are likely the most dangerous candidate, you won't have a chance. Warner from Virginia might go for it and be a challenger - look to see if his wife starts going by Mrs. Warner in the next couple of years.

But then they've got a parade of blue state Senators that we can beat like a drum. Biden? Bring him on. Hillary? She can no doubt win the nomination, but she can't win the Presidency, even with a 4:1 advantage among single women which is what Morris said, because it will likely be offset by a big change among married women, older women, and men.

That's how I see it.

DTLV:

Agreed that McCain would beat any Democrat in a head-to-head matchup. I think McCain could be the guy, despite all he's done to offend the party faithful. He's pro-life, which pretty much rules out any outflanking by a religious right third-party candidate. WoT credentials, "maverick" image - he could be the guy.

I'm still hoping for the "fuck you" option. :)

"Of course there is one exception to that rule, and that is Colin Powell. The Presidency could be his if he wanted it. He doesn't want it."

I know that's the conventional wisdom, but I don't really buy it. What makes this guy a Republican? Pro-choice, supports affirmative action, big UN/internationalist in foreign policy. Republicans will never nominate this guy.

Current odds on the GOP nomination on TradeSports:

Giuliani - 18%
McCain - 17%
Frist - 13%
Owens - 13%
Jeb Bush - 10%
Romney - 8%
Allen - 7%
Powell - 4%
Condi - 3%
and then a bunch at 1-3%

" ... we have no evidence that Condi Rice has any real political skill at all, ..."

Nor any executive skill (e.g. large budget management, large people management)

Nor "gutter" foreign policy experience (e.g. negotiating with local foreign officials at city level to dig a drain pipe ditch from US military base to nearby stream)

Academic battles, even if they involve the Palo Alto City Council, just do not compare

There's a zero percent chance that John "Keating 5" "what First Amendment?" McCain will be the Republican nominee. None. Zip.

Actually I would say there is a good chance Sen. McCain gets the nomination (though there would be a fight on his hands for it). The problem is that he has getting elected is that he is a complete turn off to a good chunk of the rightwing base.
I could never vote for the guy, he's too liberal (I couldn't even stomach W in '00). Then a good chunk of the religous right will stay home also. He might gain a few centrist democrats, but hardly enough to make up for the "monolithic" Democratic base.
Powell and Forbes (my dream canidate still) also sufffer many of the same problems, as does Guilliani to a lesser extent.

McCain has zero constituency in the GOP. When he ran in 00, his only success came in primaries where anti-Republicans could vote. The past four years have increased doubts among the faithful about his reliability.

We are going to endure four more years of McCain-boosting from MSM, while they deride and denigrate every other GOP hopeful. The Republican-hating media loves him, and that should tell Republicans all they need to know.

Ace, you'd be surprised. Even during the past election, Rice's star was rising. She was up there with McCain, Giuliani, and Powell as a legit contender for the 2008 nomination on Tradesports.

Another thought on McCain '08....

That McCain/Feingold thing sure made things better in the '04 political climate, now didn't it?

This is for Chris Grant and why women don't like Hillary Clinton...

Let's see, WHERE to begin. First of all, she's an idiot. Only a complete, entire moron wholly immersed in the Vat of Stupidity would have gone onto national TV and blamed her husband's troubles on a vast right-wing conspiracy.

Second of all, she's a spineless, gutless weasel. How many times does your husband have to kick you in the teeth with his adulterous foot before you finally stand up for yourself? She's a stomach-turning coward and a flaming hypocrite for allowing the press to portray her as anything other than a skulking enabler for her lecherous husband.

Third, she has no sense of ethics or morals. The way she ousted the White House travel office people was just plain ol' fashioned disgusting behavior. And that is just the tip of the iceberg where her lack of conscience is concerned.

Fourth, she's a crook. How strange it was that some subpoenaed Rose Law firm documents were stuffed in one of her private drawers with her fingerprints all over them? If you say "innocent until proven guilty" on THAT sort of circumstance, you're just too dumb to consume oxygen. And the aformentioned iceberg comes into play here as well.

Fifth, she's a socialist who thinks it's perfectly okay to "take things away from you for the common good." Thanks, Hill, but if I want that sort of elitist condescension I'll go to Fidel; at least he has good cigars to bum.

Sixth, the majority of her votes reflect her political which I don't agree with. No explanation needed here, I hope.

Seventh, she's a bitter, dried-up, crusty old harpy who's touted by the mainstream media as a representative of MY gender worthy of news time...when she's just barely, BARELY worthy of the time it took for me to write this response.

And, since you asked about what WOMEN don't like about her, permit me to say this...

Excuse me, but I don't think with my vagina. Except for the annoyance I get from having a corrupt dorcas "representing" my gender, I couldn't care less what sex she was. I vote for the person who's the best for the job regardless of gender, and if more women would do that then more women would be Republicans...and NONE of them would be voting for Hillary.

I could list more, like how vile it is to watch an alleged feminist ride her hubby's coattails like they were a comfy witch's broom (strangely appropriate metaphor there), but I think that's enough.

Later,
bbeck

bbeck: LOL

Well, as most of you have figured, Hillary and I have already cut a deal for the Democratic nomination but, I've told her a dozen times, I can't help her beyond that.

Why hasn't anyone thought of Morris' motivation for making such an about face remark (in view of his dislike of Bill Clinton?)! Any thoughts?

Incidently, I'm not terribly opposed to Hillary. She's got a great stance on immigration. I'm not pro choice but I'd vote for her if she were running against McCain or Giuliani, who's a complete farce. If you question her values just take a look at his divorce.

CL, thanks. I don't take Hillary Clinton seriously and I find it positively inconceivable that anyone else would...but I quite obviously give people too much credit in the Thinking Dept.

And Fromthehip has a point. McCain and Guiliani are not good NATIONAL candidates (and neither is Arnold). The Pubs need to learn from this last election where the main Democrat mistake was concerned; Kerry can be a Mass. Senator but he couldn't get elected nationally because his politics don't translate to a national agenda.

Similarly, Guiliani would make a good NY senator but his social politics -- in addition to his messed up private life -- would play against him in too many conservative (read: Red) states. And I wouldn't vote for McCain because he's a politician cut from the same disingenuous cloth as Bill Clinton. That type of individual is bad enough coming from the Democratic party (and we pretty much expect that smarminess from THEM) but it's really bothersome coming from a party with a rep for being much better than that.

Admittedly, I would vote for anyone but Hillary, but I HOPE the Pubs have learned from this last election that a campaign based upon Anybody But ____ is a LOSING campaign. That just doesn't motivate enough people to go to the polls. You have to LIKE the person you're voting for enough to get off the couch on Election Day.

So, IMO, Guiliani should run against Hillary in '06, McCain should fall off the face of the earth, and Condi Rice should be the next VP candidate for some man -- preferably a governor from a Blue State -- with enough charisma (in other words, someone REAL good-looking) to take the Dumb Women's Vote away from Hillary...like Mass. governor and Super Fox Mitt Romney, who's a social liberal but a fiscal conservative with a good record thus far.

BUT, it's just too dang early to pick a candidate! Right now, my only recommendation to Republicans is: pick a HUNK. Let me repeat, in case you missed the implication; if you want to take the Dumb Women's Vote away from Hillary, all you have to do is run a good-looking guy against her. A really sexy man's attention trumps Sisterhood any day of the week with these losers.

Later,
bbeck

Let me put it this way; treasures and historical artifacts which belong to the People, and which previously resided in the White House, ended up in a moving van headed to Chappaqua.

Tacky tacky, like a 3rd world looter. And then when she got caught, she never apologized. And don't get me started on all the 'donated' campaign money, which coincided nicely with some pardons from Billy Zipper.

And that's just the last few months of her tenure as first lady! All eight years of Clinton dirt will resurface as soon as she runs.

And have you ever seen her talking in public when she is under attack and getting hot under the collar? Her voice could make little babies cry.

Oh please Hill, run girl! I sincerely hope she wins the nomination.