She'll bail when she's 100% sure that there's nothing more she can do to widen McCain margin of victory in November, and not one nanosecond earlier.

What b said, but also why would she want to be the VP candidate.

Only two things can happen 1) he wins and she's in an office not worth a bucket of warm spit, 2) he loses and she's a loser with him. When was the last time a losing VP candidate became President. Ever?

Maybe Hillary fancies herself a latter-day FDR? She wouldn't be the first Democratic politician to have that delusion. Although of course FDR was a mere stripling of 38 in 1920...

FDR, for one.

Why would she need money to settle her debts? Her usual course of action in life has been to stiff the people who've helped her.

hilary ran her campaign like she would have run a presidency....deluded, entitled, arrogant, clumsy, divisive, with one problem after another....sounds just like her husband.

But another point.....msm says she had the nomination wrapped up before the election went into full throttle. I never thought she had it wrapped up, I remember the press saying as much as I've said, when the election cycle began. It seems revisionist to say she was the inevitable candidate....I just don't remember Obama being such a longshot. I also remember msm basically saying that if she did win she'd never win the presidency.

I believe that had she had the credentials, talent and ability to take the nomination, which she mis-stepped at each opportunity along the way -- that McCain, as uncharismatic and unexciting as he is, would have trounced her. Obama, on the other hand....he is gonna trounce McCain.

When W2 won both in 2000 and 2004 it was no surprise. He should have won, and did, though by razor thin margins. But the msm made it sound like it was a major upset. And talk to any liberal and they will say the same, they were shocked when W2 won. But I think they got it right this time. They nominated the right guy in an election cycle when they really have some inevitability built up. McCain might get throttled worse than Dole did. (as an aside to my many asides :), I found Dole's comments about McClellan odd, caddy and unstatesmanlike).

Actually, she lost because she wasn't enough like her husband until too late. She ran as the Beltway candidate instead of the Arkansas for too long. Once she began attacking Obama as a liberal elitist she cam back.

so you're saying she ran the wrong multiple personality early on, and had she sounded strangely more reasonable, as she did later on in the campaign, she would have won? Here's the thing....she ran instinctively on what she, if possible, believed at the core, early on. Slightly tough on the war, and a liberal demagogue every other step of the way. But let's takeaway all her negatives and presume she sounded earlier on like the hrc of the last 3 months....bho still would have won because more than half the country, and every single dem, wants out of iraq, and bho presents the best chance. hrc was much closer to mccain then she was barak, perhaps cosmically correct, but not the sentiment of the country.

But, nevertheless, let's add in some facts. No matter how reasonable she sounded later on, and no matter how much she sheared to the left on the war on terror, basically just quite literally going polar opposite on her original campaign message, it didn't matter, because she, and her husband kept making verbal miscues and strategic campaign blunders against the competitor, who was just better in most all respects.

I never understood why everyone believes the clinton mythology of them being incredible campaigners. They have one core strength, for sure, which is the tenacity of a bull in a china shop. How compelling is that as an underlying core strength. It's really the core reason we all can't the clintons. they lack grace, humility, and core principle beliefs.

I'm looking forward to this presidential election. say what you will about obama's politics...but come on....both mccain and obama are as strangely on par as being much less political than most of the saps who run and we elect, into congress.

Bill Clinton won by running against the Democrats. Tony Blair won by running against Labour. Gore, Kerry and Brown reverted. Do the math.

Math is math, so you are right. But in the end HRC was cosmically incapable of understanding that math, early on, when efficiency and logic would have ruled the day....because she is whom she is....a demogogue, and a clumsy over-hyped politician. This election cycle proved that out.

it seems like they say this every election cycle, this is a "movement election", americans want change...blah blah. I remember this to be the case twice, since I've followed. 94 ~ gingrich, and 00 ~ GW2. I believe that the dems have a movement in their favor this time around. And like the dems being surprised in 00 and 04 that bush won, this will be just the opposite. We are on the wrong side of the pendulum this time around, and naturally have a blind spot in recognizing that. Dude, BHO is strong. He's got the je ne sais quoi, no matter how much you deny it. And if I'm wrong and mccain takes the 50-0 files, then I'll become one of your disciples and never question again :)

She was. Her husband wasn't. Why not listen to the best politician your party has produced since FDR?

Yeah, I'm considering bho this time around....I got 6 months to think about it...but bro....it's not my party...far from it...it's just my observations.

Don't you remember -- it was my party...until meeting you!

Read a bit slower, you might get someone else's point(s), that go askew of yours, instead of going for the quick and clever one-liner..

That's what this blog is for, right..or you just want a bunch of "stepford and square" conservatives towing the line..with the "shrill" weirdo liberal being the only opposer..? That's gotta get boring, doesn't it?

bro, obama is a phenomenom, no matter conservative or liberal. Hilary is huge putz, and so we all see now, a horrible politician, at that.

Maybe you the secret liberal, you like her so much?

Length is a function of confusion.

they're not related. Too simple.

But on that note one liners, in the vein you serve them here, just serve to condescend, for giggles, not to mention they don't respond to the points being made. Come on :)

Simplicity is the point.