Can't help myself.  I hope Hillary is beatable.  Frank Rich did a great column (behind the subscription wall at the NY Times).  In the column Rich, said:

"America is at a grave crossroads.  It craves leadership.  When Webb spoke, he stepped into that vacuum, and for a few minutes anyway, filled it."

Rich then spoke of how Webb was prescient enough to see pre-Iraq (Obama too) that the war was based on scant justification and would lead to the very problems we are seeing.  And that Hillary cannot match their ability to asses a situation and then courageously lead. 

I do not wish to offend Hillary buffs and supporters here.  I'd love to see a women in the White House, but supporting a woman just because she is one, would be a grave mistake.  Hillary is not the person to lead us.  And we've learned the hard way of the ill-advised nature of dynasties.  However warmly we feel about the Clinton years (I actually worked extremely hard to defend Bill Clinton from impeachment BTW), they were what we needed at that point in time.  But this is the 21st Century.  And the Clintons are the 1990s.  It is long past time to move on.  No sympathy vote, no nostalgia.  Unlike Al Gore, the Clintons haven't learned enough from what has gone wrong in their tenure and of late.

It's important to consider the words of Frank Rich.  And I'll make a couple of points of my own.

Said Rich:

"The issue raised by the tragedy of Iraq is not who's on the left or right, but who's in front and who's behind.  Hillary has always been a follower of public opinion on the war, not a leader.  Now events events are outrunning her."

And he adds, using her words, "there are no do-overs."

Indeed.  Hillary lost her chance in 2002.  And neither she, nor her followers, nor the media gets it -- yet.  But they will.  Americans would rightly blame her for her complicit lack of courage and leadership.  An they will.  I hope the relevant supporters and funders come to their senses, and move on.  Only a candidate untarnished by the rubber stamp is worthy of the word leader.  All Hillary can say is that she never tried again with health care.  Had she tried again, perhaps 40 million people might have been spared the complete lack of medical treatment.  Her first term in the Senate has been a disaster.  Iraq.  The Constitution.  Katrina.  9-11.  We nead leadership.  And grandstanding isn't leadership.

in front of the TV in March 2003, with my daughter, I turned to her and said, "The UN weapons Inspectors found nothing. Why were they ordered out? " and as the first missiles struck Bagdagh, "Well I guess the intelligence agencies know more then I do".

And here we are 4 years later learning all the lies and cover ups. The "OIL" truth is starting to get the publisty it deserves.

Sure the Senators and Congress should have known what Jim Webb and Obama knew and were saying. At that time the Washington insiders all thought the public and retired Generals, past Politicans and think tanks out side DC did not have the correct information they had (or should I say the LIES, they had).

How anyone could fault any Senator for voting for this War is beyond me. Why is every one still falling for "Flip, Flop".
Sure they can be faulted for not knowing there Middle East history, but that is a differant story. Faulting them for voting for what I thought was last resort, I cannot fault anyone for their vote.

Heck, I belonged to Labor Unions and we always gave the President of the Union the right to strike. We never thought he would use it except as a last resort. It was a bargaining tool. Nothing else.

BUT when there are hidden agendas, it always turns out as a bad choice. And the votees end up with egg on their face.

Now the question is whom to pick that can best jam that egg down the War Monger's throat. (No Threat intended)
No I can not let bygones be bygones. Too many people have died and been injured over the OIL, to forget.

I remember every "run for political cover" word she spoke about authorizing the use of force in Iraq.  John Edwards as well.  Bush blames inaccurate "intellegence" for the current disaster and now Hillary is using the same excuse for supporting the war.

The Democratic Party can, and will ($$), push Hillary all the way to the primary, but she will not be elected.  Nor will Edwards or Biden should they get that far.  Though I expect they'll be out by NH or shortly there after.  OTOH Hillary is going to be a PITA all the way.

I'm hoping Wes Clark takes it more seriously this time.

that this country cannot get itself out this ever lingering political marasm by looking at a new generation of political leaders (Mark Warner, Obama or anybody else). Instead, it is coming back to the same old people with their gimmicks and tactical games, and alliances with all kind of special interests.
There is very little new leadership in Ms. Clinton but she is going to use her established money gushing machine and her well tested army of pundits, which include the likes of James Carville and Terry McAuliffe, to avoid the debates on the real issues but demonize her opponents and eventually win the democratic nomination just to lose the elections to the Republican candidate.

It's worth pointing out that all of those flattering comments were coming from GOPers.  Of course it is possible that the commentators such as DeLay are saying what they mean and mean what they say, but aside from money--and Hilary will have mountains of it--I remain skeptical. 

Clinton still has those high negatives in the low 40 range--people have formed opinions about her.  She may even be ahead in recent national polls with numbers in the high 30s among the Democratic field.  But the key will be her numbers in battleground states.  I'd love to see polling data with more granularity at the state level.

I hope Hillary is not unbeatable. I wish we could get the money out of politics. I am very uneasy knowing that Rupert Murdoch and many Bush supporters like Hillary. I also get this weird feeling that someone else somewhere thinks they have made the choice for us.

then push for public financing of campaigns.  In the meantime, why blame Hillary Clinton for a system she didn't set up, but which she knows how to operate in very effectively? 

As far as "many Bush suporters like Hillary," that's news to me!  Any examples, because I can't think of any.

Will Hillary be beaten I doubt it, and I am routing for her 100 percent. I do not give a dam that she is a woman, but I have always said pay back is hell and the Republicans know this. After how they treated her when she was in the White House the first time, I hope she wins just for that reason and kicks ass. Those lying one sided war mongering jerks deserve everything she can muster up. The Republicans fear Hillary for that reason and that reason alone.
There I have said what thousands of Politicans have been afraid to say.
Go Lady, kick some Republican Ass and I believe you can do it.

I had exactly the same reaction as JPTERP -- I smell a (Republican) rat here.  I think that the Repubs planted this story (and many others -- Gingrich, Will, etc. have been peddling the myth of Hillary the Unbeatable for months now) as a way to whip up their supporters: "Look, if you don't fall in line and do everything we say, SATANA will become president!"

I don't like it--but Hillary is unbeatable unless your party self-destructs and goes with say--John Edwards.

This analysis is based upon the academeic papser "Red State, Blue State--Whats the Matter with Connecticut". It is a brilliant analysis of how we could have eight years of Clinton followed by eight years of Dubya.

Essentially, the voters that now elect the presdient are very narrow--poor/lower middle class whites in the Red States. Bill was able to pluck off enough to grab a couple plus Ohio and get the election. He did this with old fashioned Southern Populism--appeal to bread and butter issues--which are primal to this group.

Bush changed the discussion to social conservative issues and national security. The GOP has betrayed this group on social issues and with Iraq--the national security thing is not going great.

Hillary has positoned herself conservative enough to appeal to this group (although I personally feel she is a liberal who pretends to be a moderate when she must). She is also able to conjur up the ghost of Bill and even trot him out in the flesh--bread and butter issues.

This may sound strange--but there is polling which shows that in fact this phenomena exists.

In additon, she is going to bring a big segment of the poplulation into the election --unmarried single women--with the mantra "Its time to have a woman in the White House"--this will not only help a bit in some of the red states--but Ohio, and the upper Mid-west--and probably Florida as well---all this when we calculate in the above mentioned factor.

Dick Morris (whose bias makes him a bit suspect) also subscribes to this theory. He claims the only Republican who can beat her is Condi Rice (split up the black vote in the South--and make the unmarried woman vote a wash). I don't know if she could do that with the Iraq baggage--but it is logical.

Any of your other more left aligned (although I acutally believe Hillary is as far left as any of the candidates in actuallity--if perhaps not a bit more)--are going to galvanize the country along the straight red/blue lines of the past two elections---and you loose.

So when idiots like Michelle Malkin are attacking John Edwards--be glad--they are doing your work--and despite yourself--perhaps you will be able to get into the White House again.

~Becky