I'd say, and it may just be hope on my part, there's a good chance Hillary won't run. The woman can read polls, too.

from original post:

"Liberal bloggers large and small disagree on many things but one : That Hillary Clinton cannot win in 2008. "

Thats an erroneous comment, plenty of liberal bloggers-- myself included-- think she can win. I think there is an enormous amount of closet sexism coming out as regards her candidacy. Hillary Clinton is the best known, most qualified female candidate the party will ever have had to run for president. The first female candidate the Democrats will ever have had who can win. And what do some want to do? Hound her out of the race. Liberals on the left foaming at the mouth over her vote to authorize Bush to go to war in Iraq are uniting with sexist centerists who don't want a woman president especially one who has no military experience, and center-to-right'ers who think she is way too liberal, as well as Republican bloggers. All four of those groups are coalescing in this push to hound her out of the race.

I saw the recent presidential poll on this site and was astounded at the support for Wes Clark. Why do so many of you think that Clark, who has never served in any elective office, has never served in Congress, has never been in the White House, is somehow more qualified to be President than Hillary Rodham Clinton? Sexism has to be the main reason.

Give the lady a chance. You do the Democratic Party no favors by villifying and hounding potential candidates who are highly qualified. I do not know if I will end up voting for her in the primary but I think she can win if nominated, and she deserves respect and deserves to be heard. Remember, the REPUBLICANS are the enemy folks.

It's like calling me racist. What the fuck is your problem?

All Republicans are not the enemy. There is a growing number of republican voters who are sick of their party. The DNC needs to do us all a favor and poll republicans over not just Hillary but all the coming contenders for the nomination. The truth is going to hurt but if my anecdotal evidence is strong, then Hillary will not have enough Republican votes to win the presidency. Period.

This is not about her compentency as a lawmaker or a politician.

This has NOTHING to do with her sex nor gender.

This has EVERYTHING to do with the fact that you need a substantial amount of Republicans to win the election PLUS independents.

Hillary Clinton does not have either the social or political capital to tap into those votes.

End of story.

Now, give me Hillary in 4 or 8 years time and I'll be talking COMPLETELY DIFFERENT about this voting situation.

This is about setting a winning strategy that gets a progressive Democrat into the White House and Capitol Hill. If she thinks disunity is good for Democrats, she's just drank of the same kool aid as Liberman and we need to get her out of the way and pronto.

Primaries are a bitch and they exhaust a lot of time and energy in the trenches. I mean, look at the D-11 race and tell me if it's a good thing to have all these Democrats biting at each other in order to start fundraising, once again, for the general election. It's insane.

If Hillary is fundraising to fund other people, then more power to her. But the fundraising for primaries is really the most horrendous thing that can happen to a candidate and that's why I say that she may be the best funded but she is nnot the bneest candidate at the moment. But big business knows that the best way to vanquish the opposition is by outspending them and bankrupting them, not by putting out a good product.

And just as it happened in 2004, it's going to happen AGAIN in 2008.

And a republican will carry on into the White House.

What are you saying exactly? That so many republicans and independents vote in the general election that the Democrats must nominate a candidate that appeals to them. Must the Democrats nominate the most "republican-looking" democrat they can find? Is Wesley Clark's biggest strength that he looks and sounds more republican than Hillary?

Don't forget that Hillary Clinton has already faced the american voters. Twice. Bill Clinton's presidency was a partnership with her, and his election and re-election was a referendum on her as much as it was on him. So she's already faced the general electorate, and we already know that plenty of independents and even some republicans voted for the Clintons in 1992 and 1996. Hillary will have Bill Clinton, as brilliant a political strategist as the party has ever had, running her campaign. Both of them have the instincts to know what to say and when to say it. It is absurd to say they can't win. They HAVE won.

That said I'm hoping other liberal candidates run in the primaries to frame the debate towards the left. I'd love to see Russ Feingold run for instance. But face it, if Hillary runs, the nomination will be hers to lose, and she will be a very strong general election candidate and the GOP knows it.

One other thing, your calculations that Hillary Clinton can't win the general election in 2008 seen to be assuming a two-person race. I do not think that will be the case. Media stories of late are starting to strongly indicate that Michael Bloomberg is going to run an independent candidacy in 2008. He has already said he can easily afford to spend a half a billion dollars on the race, easily outspending both the democratic and republican nominee. The only way Bloomberg doesn't run, as I see it, is if McCain, his friend, gets the GOP nomination. But if the GOP nominates George Allen or Bill Frist, either of the two "Nascar" conservative candidates, I see Bloomberg entering. Because Bloomberg wants a centerist option, and if he thinks the GOP is too far to the right and the Democrats too far to the left, he'll spend what he has to to represent, in his mind, the center.

So you could have say George Allen(GOP) vs. Mike Bloomberg (Independent) vs. Hillary Clinton (Democrats) The prospect of a Bloomberg candidacy might discourage the Democrats from nominating a centerist candidate and might get them to take the chance on Hillary, if purely on how well known she is. If Bloomberg pulls Independent voters away from the GOP, and Hillary pulls together the Democrat base, she could win. Just as Bill Clinton won twice, in years when it was again a three person race.

One other thing, your calculations that Hillary Clinton can't win the general election in 2008 seen to be assuming a two-person race. I do not think that will be the case. Media stories of late are starting to strongly indicate that Michael Bloomberg is going to run an independent candidacy in 2008. He has already said he can easily afford to spend a half a billion dollars on the race, easily outspending both the democratic and republican nominee. The only way Bloomberg doesn't run, as I see it, is if McCain, his friend, gets the GOP nomination. But if the GOP nominates George Allen or Bill Frist, either of the two "Nascar" conservative candidates, I see Bloomberg entering. Because Bloomberg wants a centerist option, and if he thinks the GOP is too far to the right and the Democrats too far to the left, he'll spend what he has to to represent, in his mind, the center.

So you could have say George Allen(GOP) vs. Mike Bloomberg (Independent) vs. Hillary Clinton (Democrats) The prospect of a Bloomberg candidacy might discourage the Democrats from nominating a centerist candidate and might get them to take the chance on Hillary, if purely on how well known she is. If Bloomberg pulls Independent voters away from the GOP, and Hillary pulls together the Democrat base, she could win. Just as Bill Clinton won twice, in years when it was again a three person race.