This sounds suspiciously like a planted story. NO ONE who knows politics could begin to predict the outcome of an election 2 3/4 years away. So much can happen between now and then that would determine the kind of candidate Americans might be interested in having as president in 2008. If we were to be at war with Iran or things with North Korea were looking ugly, people might decide an inexperienced, and female, senator is not what they want in the White House. Or the economy could be doing even better in 08 which would also favor the Republicans.
And a big part of it depends on who the candidate for the GOP is. If we pick some nobody hack like George Allen who is as dull as John Kerry, and as slow-witted as they come not even able to beat Barbara Boxer in a debate on CNN in September when the utter dunce Boxer handed Allen his a**, then it could well be Hillary will cinch it. If however if the GOP will be a little pragmatic and go with a less than perfect in terms of ideological purity superstar like Rudy Guiliani then we have a real shot of beating Hillary. Rudy would definitely be the man to beat in that race. You don't beat a superstar with a dim bulb (Allen.)
Mike: I am interested in all things Hillary, as defeating her is the number #1 priority other than winning the war in Iraq. I agree that the GOP should nominate the candidate who has the best chance of beating her.
I see Allen as the conservative challenger in the primaries, but frankly, don't know that much about him (other than GOP Senator from VA, former Governor, etc.) I haven't heard him speak, and don't know how he is on the stump. Some politicians have the best ideas in the world, but are dull, dull, dull, such as Bob Dole.
What was the nature of Allen's debate with Boxer where you say he lost badly? I didn't see it, but would like to hear more about Allen.
Are you calling Hillary a superstar???
You are kidding, aren't you?? If Condi Rice decides to run against Hillary, it wouldn't even be close!! Condi is the REAL superstar.