To the contrary, she's acceptable to the electorate, just not her party activists, like McCain.

Not one whit to the contrary. She is both anathema to the Dem activists and otherwise unelectable.

Over half of us say we could vote for her, she's electable by definition. She'll lose badly to a McCain but could beat a non-entity like George Allen.

Someone remind me, what were the statistics for Bush I and II's early political careers? And also was this Hillary's first election?

OJ - Didn't the recent survey say that 50% would definity not vote for Hillary? Therefore she would have to get 100% of the remaining voters to win.

If the country is indeed leaning right (as you keep pointing out) and Hillary doesn't move to the center she will lost to any non-scandal ridden GOPer.

The far left could try to find their own Henry Wallace if Hillary gets the nomination, but that's unlikely, and any candidate taking up that banner would likely get press almost as bad as the Republican nominee, since the big media types would understand that a split vote on the left would boost the GOP''s candidate.

Hillary will do what she and her advisors think they have to do to get through the first primary races, which is tack slightly to the left to keep from losing too much support there (hence her statement on Lieberman), but at the same time never going far enough to put her name on record for some outlandish statement/proposal on the left that would kill her with moderates in the general election.

If she gets the nomination nailed down, the pro-Hillary spin from the media will equal or surpass the huzzahs her husband got after the '92 DNC convention, and most on the left will come around because they can't bear to see a Republican elected, which would affirm GWB's eight years in office in the same way his father's election affirmed Reagan's eight-year term. Given all that, it's up to the Republicans to nominate someone both charsimatic enough to counter the Hillary media tsunami and with enough of a positive message to win the swing voters who want more than a simple "Mrs. Clinton is evil" justification for voting GOP.

Tacking slightly to the left is not going to win the base over to her. They are downright eager to destroy anyone not totally against Iraq. If she bails on her position there, her triangulation is done and she's just another democrat loser.

Rasmussen's robo-pollers say that 37% of Americans would definitely not vote for her. That's all Americans, not registered voters ... much less likely voters. I'd wager that the percentage of likely voters in the "nay" column is at least 50%.

Wasn't triangulation Dick Morris' post-94 strategy to show that the president was still relevant? By that point, Clinton already had credibility with the base from trying to push gays in the military and Hillarycare and the base had no other options.

In the run-up to 92, he did two things to move himself rightward in the public's eye. He criticized "Sister Souljah" and didn't back down when Jesse Jackson criticized him; and he didn't stop the execution of Rickey Ray Rector in '92. I suppose inaction is easier to sneak past the base than action.

Sure, but it was also how he ran in '92--remember Sista Souljah--and how W ran in '00--his first big campaign speech ripped the class of '94. It's why McCain will win.

Tacking slightly left in a one-on-one campaign might not help her, but there won't be a one-on-one race in Iowa or New Hampshire. The idea is to just go left enough to pick up a few votes in a multi-candidate field to assure early primary victories. With her financial advantage over just about every other hopeful, once the nomination is hers, the missus can then trot out her own Sister Souljah moment if needed to reassure the moderates she'll need for the general election (which would tick off the left, but by then their own option would be the Henry Wallace third party gambit, and only the furthest left in the party and in the media would spurn a chance at a 2008 win by standing on principle and backing a candidate who would actually run on his/her real political beliefs).

"Sister Souljah" said "let's kill whites instead of killing each other". Clinton demurred. And you call that a move to the right?!!!

In making comparisons of the way the Republican right and the Democrat left will react to McCain and Clinton, respectively, we should look at things like judgement, maturity, conformity to the principes of American government, and, of course, general mental health.

On the one side, we have ourselves, who have figured out, the hard way, I might add, the mechanisms of Madisonian democracy. We have formed a coalition of voters, respectful of one another's issues of interest. Right to life, RKBA, free enterprise and strong defense all fit in the same tent.

The other side doesn't get how the game works, because their heads are off in a Marxist fever-swamp of united fronts and a European model of coalition government. To make it worse for then, each of their Madisonian factions, whether it be homosexuals, schoolteachers, minorities, atheists or peace-creeps, sees itself as the true vanguard of the revolution, destined to sieze control of the whole thing.

In practical terms, McCain will do just fine for all of us. A little fine-tuning here and there, as he dispels the false impressions heretofore generated by years of being presented by the MSM as the not-Bush is all he will need.

Clinton, on the other hand, would have to overcome tremendous negative associations, as noted above, and would have to reconcile irrepressible conflicts within her own party.

Foreign policy is the deal-breaker for them, the only deal-breaker for us would be wetbacks, which we can finesse with tough-sounding policies which don't realy change anything.

McCain will do just fine on guns and live babies, the same thing cannot be said of Clinton with respect to Israel, Iraq and the GWOT.

The democratic base is lining up to blow this election over Iraq and foreign policy. Hillary is the perfect occasion for their self-immolation. They can't resist the chance to burn someone for W's sins.

I blindly believe that Hillary can and will become the firs female President or Vice President on a ticket of Clinton/Kerry or Kerry/Clinton. It will be up to them to figure out who will be up front for president. By combinning the popularity of both of them, it will be a cold day in the inferno before any republican ticket can take control in the Whitehouse in 2008. The republicans are very fearful of a magical win ticket by the Democrats with Kerry/Clinton or Clinton/Kerry, which is the main reason they steer completly away from having to answer to that possibility to anyone from the media sources.Women outnumber men at the rate of seven to one in America, five out of every ten women are regiustered voters and there will be many more in the 2008 elections for president. women are much more reliable than men when it comes to making the right decision. The femenist movement in America supports Hillary. She has a huge following of men and women from the majority of registered voters from all ethnic backgrounds. The hispanic population in america of which over 80% support her are women voters. She is very popular among Afro-Americans as well. And considerd the best bet by the Asian American, Native American, and the Middle Eastern ethnias. Hillary Clinton can and will be the first woman president or vice president in the United States regardless of who has tantrums. She is a winner and the only choice along with Kerry for America. Thats my view. I also want to point out I am not a femenist but I welcome and congratulate them for giving Hillary their support.