Yes indeed, four years is a very long time. The midterm elections, the Iraq debacle, any number of other shenanigans ol' dubya might be up to given his evermore rubberstampish cabinet and congress; not to mention the various and sundry vagaries of fickle fate. But the buzz is out there. And the buzz like Glenn Close will not be ignored. Hardly had the last teardrop dried on those long faces at the Kerry concession speech when the roar began. Low and slow at first, then louder.. hiiiiiiiiiiiillary, HIIIIIIIIIIIIILLARY! God have mercy on our poor souls.

Now let me say before I proceed here that I respect and admire Hillary Clinton. By any credible standard, she's proven herself an immensely capable, talented and intelligent politician. She would quite likely be a fine president (she's already been a fine co-president!). But I ask you, if politics was merely about experience and competence, would we now be saddled with the likes of dubya?!? In the choice words of an old friend of mine, "not bloody likely". Had the 2000 election been based on experience and competence alone, Gore'd done landslided. And heaven knows John Kerry would have prevailed. But Politics is not, so therefore Hillary almost surely would not; prevail that is. She would not because what politics is largely about is marketing. And selling Hillary in the red zone will be like trying to sell tofu in Crawford. It may well be good for em, but they just won't swallow it. It's simply basic branding folks. And in the end Hill's like that other picante sauce; you know, the one from "NEW YORK CITY!?!". In any case they'd be too busy burning her in effigy to take time to actually read her campaign literature. I'm afraid Hillary = another senator from the NE easily branded as a liberal by the GOP = another red zone lock out = probable additional Dem congressional losses = 4 more years wandering in the wilderness. Hey buddy, can ya spare a compass?

And please, enough already with the "vision thing" oh ye talking heads of punditry. Message delivered in the hands of an inauthentic messenger is futile. Bill Clinton's folksy centrist stump speech mouthed by, say, Michael Dukakis would've only served to widen that the loss margin in '88. You can't just talk it, ya gotta be it. At the very least you gotta SELL IT to a sufficient percentage of swing voters in those fly-over states. Hillary may have lived in AK, but Hillary ain't from AK. End of story.

If not Hill' then who? Well, we already know the winning formula. Bill Clinton's picture is in the dictionary under white house key. Look it up. Then read my lips: red state Governor (or at least former Gov) with a centrist message; stir in some home grown authenticity and then pray real hard for at least a little dash of charisma.

Now hear me out my loyal readers (all 2 1/2 of you). Lest this rant might seem to be just a thinly disguised ode to Bill, let me state clearly that I'm as PO'd at ol' slick as any supporter (not the least, Hillary herself) for single-handedly torpedoing the promise of a New Dem dynasty via the willful act of not keeping his torpedo properly tubed. Shame on him. This was no less than monumental irresponsibility of tragic proportion. And no amount of post presidential mia culpas will change that heart breaking fact (while I'm on the subject, what about this penchant among charismatic centrist politicos for groping women? What's up with that?!?). Be that as it may, his was and almost certainly remains a winning recipe for Dem resurgence.

Bill Clinton brought America together at the table. Hillary is a polarizing figure and will serve only to divide us yet again; this not unlike the manner that Bush divides us now. At least on the short-term such divisive politics play well for the GOP, given our electoral system, culture and regional character. For precisely the same reasons it will not work for the Dems anytime soon. To para-phrase Barry G (no not Gibb), divisiveness in the pursuit of governance is indeed a vice.

Consensus builders will be our salvation. Can I hear an AMEN!

Peace