[Southack]

"In short, Hillary is likely our next president."

Then you know nothing of American politics.

Senator Clinton can't flip a Red State over to Blue. Hillary can't win in Red States, that's why she is the Senator from New York instead of from Arkansas (where her husband was governor).

Without Red States, the Dems lose. Winning only Blue States gives the Dems the same thing that they earned in 2000 and 2004, losses.

Moreover, since 1964, the Democrats have only won Presidential elections when running Southern Evangelicals (e.g. President Johnson, President Carter, President Clinton), even if evangelical in name only.

The junior Senator from New York doesn't fit that profile.

[strategofr]

"Without Red States, the Dems lose. Winning only Blue States gives the Dems the same thing that they earned in 2000 and 2004, losses."

Have you noticed how the Republican Party of Ohio has kind of blown up from the inside lately? That was the closest state in 2004---135,000 votes. I don't have a good grasp on the entirety of the states, but in 2000, the margin of victory was also very tiny---that time in Florida.

In addition, remember the Vietnam era. The existence of an unpopular war---if Iraq indeed turns into that by 11/2008---causes people to change their voting patterns.

I'm not saying Hillary will definitely win. I think there's something unsettling about her to those "undecided", "swing voters", "middle-of-the-road voters". And of course, there is still a chance that we conservatives will break through somehow and expose part of the reality of Hillary.

But I do think her election is a very real possibility.

Part of it may have to do with how Bush behaves between now and then. He won't run, but his party will. Did you hear the latest? Apparently our government is considering putting a Hong Kong company in charge of checking cargoes in our ports for nuclear material? Am I going crazy or are they?