Listen, people who don't like Hillary are still going to vote for her in '08 because the choice between her and whomever the Repubs put up will be stark. In 2012, the decision will be more about who she really is than this guttural, visceral (read: emotional) repulsion that some feel and are being relieved of by Hillary's disciplined campaign.
Yes, SaveElmer is right. I have a lot more faith that Clinton would hold her own and win against Giuliani than Gore would against Giuliani. The fact that Clinton and Giuliani are tied gives me more faith that she would in November of '08 because with Giuliani and Clinton, voters are getting the same candidate: pro-choice, pro-gun control, etc. Clinton has a genuine connection with those issues that are important to her base while Giuliani would be representing his base in word only. Big difference in the end.
I think Denish wants the governor's office. It's so close she can taste it. In fact, she probably fills in for Richardson b/c he's out of state so much. Listen: this one is either Richardson or Udall's for the taking. Otherwise, it's a mad dash scramble for the Democratic pickup with Chavez or the "gaffe-able" AG....
Yeah, I'm from Michigan originally and we should remember that the Dems have beaten the Repubs there in the presidential elections by a few percentage points in 2000 and 2004. Michigan cannot be taken for granted as a "liberal" state. Macomb County basically determines which way the state is going to go, and if the Reagan Dems are feeling dissed in January, they'll carry the memory all the way to November.
I'm a young person, and I think Hillary is the most inspirational candidate running. Every word that comes out of her mouth is inspiring. Every time she answers a tough question, I say to myself, "Wow, I didn't even think you could answer that way!"
I think the Democrats will be on the ascendancy in Washington and beyond through 2010, which basically means that we will hold our seats in the Congress and in the state houses and pickup additional Republican-held seats in so-called blue states and also Republican strongholds such as Idaho, Alaska, Kentucky, North Carolina, Texas, etc.
I think a 60-seat filibuster-proof majority in the Senate is attainable, probably not entirely in this cycle but at least by 2010. What scares me is all that power. I mean, what do you do when you have that kind of power? You basically begin to run roughshod over issues that may be important to the other side but which aren't getting due deference because of the power imbalance. Then a tidal wave/tsunami begins to start the other way.
So my basic point is: do we have a strategy to be responsible with all this power once we get it?
Sebelius would be interesting with Clinton. Two tough ass women. But I think Clinton oughta pick Webb and just get a rough and ready loose cannon up there to attract the right-of-center vote (that which she's not already attracting)....