Wondering whether Hillary will pull a Bobby Kennedy come Spring time.

(Someone's got to save the party from itself.)

She'd like nothing better, but what's the percentage for her if the economy is bopoming and Iraqification is proceeding apace? This isn't 1952, when an honorable loss set you up for another run. She'll have been a public figure for sixteen years by 2008 and if she's already lost a shot at the presidency will inevitably be considered yesterday's news.

I wouldn't rule her out. The Clintonistas are building the ramp. Any bad news for Bush this spring and she will launch with Clark, Edwards or Dean as announced V.P. Yes, I said even Dean as a possibility. I would wish that on her. This election will be realpoliticks for the Democraps. Can't wait to see how it plays out. Meanwhile the dwarfs keep singing "off to work we go."

I agree with oj. Moreover, everything I know about the Clintons suggests to me that all this anti-Dean stuff is just fake. A Dean defeat, perceived to have been avoidable had the wise Clintons been listened to, is exactly what Hillary wants to position for 2008.

Still, the cynic sitting on my shoulder whispers in my ear vague allusions about her trip to Afghanistan.

Good for her. But what else, if anything, might it mean.... Except that she's figured out that no Democrat candidate can entertain even the remotest chance of winning unless he or she veers back toward the center.

1992 redux, except that the economy might not be nearly as cooperative for the Democratic candidate. And of course, the war does make a rather huge difference.

All speculation to be sure....

If she waits, she runs a risk. Anything can happen in 4 years. But even she must know that she won't beat Bush next fall without some upheaval in his Administration.

Against her, however, are all the Democrats who want to purge the party of Clintonism (and this number will grow after next November's debacle). To be a saviour, one has to be hosanna-ed by the faithful. By 2008, Harold Ford and others may rudely tell her to go home. And is it for certain that she will beat Rudy in 2006? She may tire the public out, a la Nixon, and have to fade away.

But her nomination in 2008 (or the fait accompli of her leadership) will force the Republicans to really go outside the box. J.C. Watts, Condi Rice, or even Fred Thompson. Who is the leading 'CW' candidate right now? I don't even know if they have one.

The theory has always been that the Clintons don't want Dean to be the nominee because they want to maintain control of the party. Thus, the Clark candidacy.

So, they'll have full control of the steering wheel as the bus goes over the cliff.

Hmmm, actually, that sounds like Bill & Hill in a nutshell---it's always about them and their power...everybody else is just a face to be stepped on.

But seriously, how could anybody with such huge negatives hope to get elected? Not to mention that she has never (officially) held any kind of office other than the current term as NY Senator. How likely is it that voters would elect such an inexperienced person to President?

She was co-President for the 8 most peaceful and prosperous years in human history.

Look how carefully she's handling Iraq. Supportive of the mission, but critical of the details. She's clearly positioning herself to be viable in '08, not '04.