UPDATE: She won overwhelmingly, and probably, folks, now don't have a stroke, is our next President. Bush's "surge" almost guarantees a Democratic victory, as we will still will have troops dying in Iraq beyond 2008. It is almost an iron clad rule of American politics that the people reject the party that costs lives in a war that is not necessary for our national interest. This is what Viet Nam and Korea should have taught the pols. I can't believe that they lose the ability to read and study history after a short period of power! If you are a member of the GOP, you'd better hunker down! ORIGINAL COMMENT: Well, she has a toxic personality and is very polarizing. If she scores big in her senate re-election in 2006, however, the Democrats would be crazy not to nominate her. If she just squeaks by on her re-election, then the Donkey better look elsewhere. Watch the 2006 New York Senate Election to determine your future, folks!

Hilary will win support of the democrats and we will once again have a Clinton in the White House!! Hopefully She can lower food prices. I went to the store to get a Payday candy bar...65 cents.

Any woman that can stay by her man when he cheats on her is a strong lady...and we need a strong leader and she's smart...something our current president lacks.

The only good thing about Hilary winning the nomination would be ensuring the Republicans win in 08'.

Her record on the Iraq War is going to hurt her severely.

You can't be serious. She is a power hungry, flip-floppy be-atch.

SHE SHOULD BE PRESIDENT! I MEAN IT

Smart, disciplined, and seems to be unflappable.

I think it is time we have a woman president, just not Hillary. Everytime Bush makes another bonehead move, it's another vote for Clinton.

I do not think that she can win the general election

I understand that a lot of Democrats like her politics, but if you want the Democrats to win the presidency, we have to pick someone winnable. The U.S. electorate is NOT ready for a Democratic woman for president. Those who think different need to get acquainted with the culture and ethos of middle and southern America.

Too much baggage, too many negatives.

She is smart, resourceful, and its about time we had a woman for a president.

I want Hillary to run because she can win. I hear alot of people who "believe" she can't. That's nuts. It's time for serious change in this country. I'm voting for Hillary. Period.

I think that she is what this country needs

Hillary is a intelligent, independant woman and a force to recon with. She is good at staying on message and conistent with her opinions. She may be hardt o elect. But I believe she will do her research before deciding to run. Hillary will be a force to reckon with in 2008 and I personally cannot wait.

That homo-liberal Hilary can suck it

She is the only lady who can lead America forward. No man comes even close

Probably has similar political gifts to her hubby. But her worst move was moving to New York. Now she has been branded as a NE liberal, which means she will never get elected.

The Clintons have never lost an election. They don't run unless they're pretty sure they can win. She will do her homework. If she runs, it probably means she has the numbers. All of her negatives - old news. They bring it up again and all she has to do is roll her eyes and invoke "Clinton scandal fatigue." Problem for me is that she's too conservative, particularly with regard to the war.

Lord, I don't even like her in my STATE - why on Earth would I want her in the big house?

Numbah 16... writes: "...If she gets elected by some freak occurance, I'm building my doomsday hideout!" You should build it now. Considering the fact Bush is doing nothing about Terrorism in the United States--maybe it will come in handy when we are hit again. Then while you are in it praying to God to survive, you can reflect on your vote for Bush. At least Bill Clinton put an executive order to have Bin Laden killed...what did Bush do? He hired Afghanis to go find him. Can we say "DUH?" I guess that is what DUh in DUBBYHA means...makes sense now. : ) Hello People. 1. I'm not going to comment on what the polls say. They are all based on different criteria, numbers of people, and it's too early, as the experts say, to pay them any mind. Anything can happen between now and 2008 Spring. So that's that. Onward! 2. To me, the notion of Dems needing a southerner to win no longer holds water. President Bush has left enough in his wake negatively to make people take a long, hard look at their conservative values (for those in the south that vote party no matter what, for Republicans). It's pretty hard to hold animosity to gays when your house has floated away isn't it? It's pretty tough to worry about gun control when you have no place to store the gun you lost in a hurricane. It's also pretty hard to believe and preach God when your own President, supposedly a faithful man, waited three days to pick up the red phone and say "hello" to southern states and relief help. The south shall rise again, only this time, they most likely will rise to their senses and stop assuming "those liberals" are so wrong all the time. Next... 3. I have no problem with Hillary Clinton except for her position on Iraq. History shows us that voters don't like it when their democratic leader moves across the political spectrum. Today alone I hear there are protesters in NY awaiting Hillary's visit to some place or another. That's not good. She has spent several years now making points against Bush--and I am not saying she was wrong or right in doing it... What I am saying is she made points against the war, and is now somewhat supporting it. She also did this on a Chris Matthews interview from a college town visit in 2000/2002.. I have it archived on DVD. Her interview left me "wondering" where she stood. That is my fault with her. 4. Americans. They could not vote a decorated war hero with 20 years of experience in the Senate and full-on plans for getting us out of Iraq... Do you really believe these same Americans can vote for a woman? I am an American, I live in the midwest. I have no problem with a woman as President. A persons' disposition, be it race, gender, religion, ethnic background, sexual preference doesn't matter to me. What matters to me is the meat and bones of how they think, what their issue beliefs are. I would discriminate on age a bit, because I think the role of President requires "life experience." Hopefully people agree. But the nation voted for Bush over Kerry. Do you really believe they can look past Hillary being a woman? I don't think that America can move past that at this point in time. I may be wrong, as a matter of fact, I hope I am. After all, Rosa Parks was a woman--look what she did. --Mathew.

If she is nominated, I might consider crossing party lines, particularly if John McCain were nominated. UPDATE:If she actually had a chance of winning, sure.

WTF! She was already running the country while Bill got BJs, and look how that turned out! Everybody got the idea that they could f*** with us, and they will do it again if we let this freak anywhere near the White House ever again. I would take Satan or even IJR over Hillary! If she gets elected by some freak occurance, I'm building my doomsday hideout!

Flippy what polls have you been reading??? The only poll that's come out (and they're mostly useless at such an early point, when there's really only name recognition to go on) shows Hillary losing badly to either Giuliani or McCain, and this is with both of them way out of the public spotlight! I'm a longtime Democrat and I mostly like Hillary but she would be an absolute disaster for the Dems as a Presidential candidate. A liberal Senator? From the Northeast??? Just the fact that she has the last name of "Clinton" would unify the Republicans so much, they'd get up and walk out of their beds in a hospital ICU just to vote against her. She's been misstepping a bit lately too. Maybe she's trying to appear moderate by supporting the war against Iraq, boosting troop levels and calling for permanent bases there, but these stands are really angering the liberals in the party who are turning away from her potential candidancy. Look, all of us Dems know the truth and we all need to be up-front and honest about it-- we won't win in 2008 unless we nominate a popular Southerner or Midwesterner, especially a governor, that's the only way we've won in the past 40 years!!! We can't win with someone like Kerry or Hillary in 2008, way too polarizing. Our best bets? 3 names-- Evan Bayh, Wes Clark or Mark Warner. Warner may be our #1 prospect-- a very popular governor in the South who got an award as the best governor, an excellent fiscal manager, a liberal on social issues and the environment but a guy who knows how to run a budget and get bipartisan backing for it. If we want to win in 3 years, Warner is our strongest horse. He would be fantastic on many fronts, as well as a strong campaigner and a draw for Independents and even some Republicans. He's tough.

I hope the demos nominate her I think it would be great. The Republics could get Bob Dole to run and he would beat her by the largest margin of all time with one arm tied behind his back, ouch that was bad!

Absolutely Not, The Democrats do not need her. She's a very good woman and her heart is in the right place, but the republicans would have an orgasm if she became the Nominee. Please for the love of all that is good and holy do not support her in 2008!

I think that nominating Mrs. Clinton would be a bad idea for the Democrats.I don't think most Americans are ready for a woman President. I am a registered Democrat and I wouldn't vote for her.

Hillary would be a good choice, believe it or not. First off, we won't have to worry about ads. What could the Republicans attack her with that they haven't attacked her with already? They'll just say the same old thing and it'll get boring. Next, polls say 53% of America would either be likely or very likely to vote for her. And this is just 2005! And she'll have Bill the extrodinary campaigner with her. People will look over the Clinton years and realize what good Bill did. Finally, if you don't think Hillary will get much women votes, you must be living on Mars! She's done lots of work for the safety of children and families, women's rights and homeland security. She could swipe more women votes, especially the soccer moms & security moms that Bush scared the heck out of in 2000 and 2004. And this is just her alone! More good could happen when she picks her VP, especially if it's one from a swing state or red state. In most cases, I can see Bill and Hillary back at the White House in 2008.

I like her a lot, but darn it the Republicans will tear her a new one and she'll be the embarassment of the Dems. Hang it up, Hillary! Maybe you'll make Cabinet.

As a Republican she is my absolute #1 choice to run on the Democratic ticket. No chance of winning. If you think Kerry and Gore frightened off middle-America (or as Nixon referred to it The Silent Majority), wait until Bill's better half has her judgment day in a national election. She and Howard Dean are at the top of my wish list because they would be dead men walking.

Smart, Tough, thoughtful, not ideologically driven

I hope to God she doesn't run -- and I've liked her from the get-go. She carries way too much baggage, and there are just too many people who hate her. Of course, Bush demonstrated that you can win an election even if half the country hates your guts, but do we really want another highly divisive, shrill election?

I am not clear why anyone would consider Hillary Clinton to be a viable presidential candidate. What are her qualifications? She did go to law school, she was a lawyer for many years in a small state capitol and was married to a former governor and president. Now she is in her first term as a US senator. Since when are those sufficient qualifications to become president? I notice that the ratings for Barak Obama consistently mention his lack of experience. I would suggest that the same is true for Mrs. Clinton. Almost all of her political experience comes from being First Lady. Does this mean that Republicans should nominate Laura Bush? I don't get it. Being married to a former president is no qualification for being president oneself. And, if we examine her one bit of experience in the White House (the health care initiative), we find that it was a fiasco. Can anyone elighten me as to why she is even considered?

Look, I think it's great that we've reached a point in our history that we can actually discuss the possibility of a female President without being laughed out of the room, but I just don't quite trust this one. She has done little to differentiate herself from the gaggle of hawks that have given this current administration virtually free reign over foreign / domestic policy making. She needs to seperate herself from the pack of Washington 'yes men' and come out swinging. Keyword, Hillary: Opposition!

I wouldn't call myself a huge fan of hers. She doesn't know how to represent my state. But I have to say that I wouldn't put it past her to be the next president, even many republicans I know say they think she has a shot at it. We'll see.

You forgot George McGovern on this list! He's still alive, you know. Harold Stassen could be his V.P. nominee. Wait, I think he finally died - wrong party anyway. Maybe you need to bring back someone who truly represents the spirit of Bill Clinton: Larry Flint!

The talk is that Hillary will be a candidate but I truly doubt it. We like to pretend we're an open, inclusive society, but out of all the Presidents we've elected, we had one Irish Catholic, and he might as well have been a WASP. Forget about anyone ethnic, forget minorities, and for sure forget about women. Once you leave the East or West Coast, your American citizens are not going to vote for anyone with a vowel on the end of their name, or a noticeably different skin hue, or a different sex. Just won't happen, and I think the Democrats are astute enough to realize that. Sad, but that's the society we live in.

First let me state that I am a Republican, and I have no intention of voting for her. But with that said she would be a phenomanal candidate. She has the ability to win with independents, and even some republicans. There are only four people who i see who can beat her in a general election, McCain, Condi, Rudy Guiliani, and an unknown congressman from Indiana Mike Pence( you will hear this guy make some noise down the road). But Condi said she won't run, and people don't even know who Mike Pence is. So that leaves McCain and Rudy who probably will lose the nomination to someone like Bill Frist, or George Allen. If this happens Hillary will be the 44th President of the U.S. However her nomination to the Deomcratic ticket is not a certainty, Evan Bayh and Bill Richardson are very strong candidates. But I still believe that she will win the nomination and most likely win the Presidency. (A word of advice to the Democrats: choose Barack Obama as VP, with him on the ticket your party has the strong possibility of 16 years of having a Democrat in the white house)

so overrated, the party just might be stupid enough to nominate her. i'm a liberal-type and i would vote for a moderate republican over her.

Following is a list of states won by Kerry in '04 that would go Republican if Hillary is the nominee: Wisconsin, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Pennsylvannia, Michigan, New Jersey, perhaps Oregon and Hawaii. No state would switch from Republican to Democrat. The result: A Republican electoral landslide even if the popular vote is close. Vote in the Electoral College: 378 Republican to 160 Democrat ---- Let us PLEASE not forget the HillaryCare fiasco. This is a woman who wanted to arrest people who tried to choose their own doctor! ---- Besides, senators don't win the White House, governors do!

Why not Hillary

I would love to see her succeed. She is a sovereign leader, sharp as tacks and has moral integrity (already I have added at least 4 'unhelpfuls'to my tally with that comment).....However, she is a very polarizing figure. There is so much deeply ingrained hatred towards her, that is kept fresh in the conservative talk shows, and no amount of campaigning is likely to change that too much. Strategically, she may not be the best choice for the Dems in 2008. It would take a real sea change in the mindset of the US voting public to get her elected.

This is the best possible situation in my opinion. I completely respect, admire, and support Hillary. There is no doubt in my mind that it's time for a woman in the office of President and Hillary is totally capable.

Bill Clinton is a true politician. Hillary is the smart, optimized-appearance corporate bitch we all have to work with everyday at our jobs. She does not have the same political sensibility as Bill, and would create a hornet's nest three times the size of the one that developed to fight Kerry if she ever ran. Perhaps the most polarizing figure in politics today.

No way. She may get the party's nomination (which would secure a republican win) but she would be bad for America. Democratic voters you've got to do better than this.

too much controversy, being female is a negative, very intelligent, would make good VP

Hillary Clinton seems at this point to be emerging as the front-runner for the Democratic nomination in 2008. It would take a 'perfect storm' scenario in order for her to win the general election. Although it's rare that the same party holds on to the White House for 3 consecutive terms, it would take very unique circumstances in order for her to win the Presidency. A major scandal involving the GOP or a major recession might allow her to squeeze in. She's definitely not the best choice for the general election, where a candidate who is moderate and has broad-based appeal usually carries the day. In short, Hillary has too much baggage. Despite her recent attempts to burnish her moderate credentials, she still carries the perception that she's an extreme liberal. What is the source of this perception? Her Senate record indicates that she is far more moderate than other liberal luminaries like Ted Kennedy and Barbara Boxer. In this case, initial impressions matter a lot. She was introduced to the country during her husbands run for the Presidency, when she and her husband declared two for the price of one, a Bill and Hillary co-President. Hillary was seen as a feminist with New Left roots going back to the 1960's. During her husband's presidency, she designed a health care plan which nationalized 1/7th of the countries economy; it ended up failing disasterously. Many of the major scandals during the Clinton administration also had her fingerprints all over them, thus tainting her image with the voters. In short, there's a lot of dirt to be had here and an enterprising Republican candidate can easily make an issue out it. The activist wing of the party may want to nominate her, but this is a candidacy, that barring extraordinary circumstances, won't get far once the general election race gets going.

It's beginning to look as though Hillary (along with Bill, the presumed co-president) is beginning to throw out small hints that she's considering a run for president in '08 (no big surprise here). I'll leave it to others to voice opinions about her actual qualifications, or lack thereof depending on your political persuasion, but will speculate on her possible candidacy from another angle. I think that both parties are getting to the point (if they have not already surpassed it) that they don't consider a candidate's ability, experience, or mental acumen to lead and run the country as primary qualifications, but rather try to determine which candidate is most likely to get the most votes based on a number of issues (economic policies, positions on abortion, gun control, separation of church and state, etc.), as well as based on what constituencies they are liable to carry (white males, blacks, women, black women, single women, Christians, Jews, etc., not to mention just plain old liberals and conservatives). Hillary could be a major vote-getter for some of these constituencies, although it's sort of tough to tell on some, depending on who the Republicans might run against her (i.e., Condi Rice). That would be an interesting race - two women - how would the female vote go? Would it be based to some extent on racial lines? Lots of questions, and I don't pretend to have the answers.

Hillary's a moderate, despite the rantings of talk show hosts. Name me one single non-moderate position she holds.

I can think of no one who could do more to energize the Republicans. This woman and her husband are absolutely hated by conservatives. Republican campaign funds would triple that of 2004 and millions more Republicans would volunteer to help. Democrats, just do it! Please!

I think she would make a good president, probably better than her husband. Unfortunatly the narrow minded of this country probably won't elect a female president. Having been married to Bill won't help her either. If she could get on as vice president that would get her foot in the door.

NO WAY are we having a female president.

I think it very likely that she will seek the nomination. If she does so, I would expect an ABC movement to spring up in the Democrats (Anybody But Clinton). If she gets the nomination, the GOP will almost certainly secure the White House.

i personally think she is highly overrated and lacks the oratory and political skills of her husband, but it is obvious many democrats love and respect her and would support her candidacy. unfortunately for the junior senator from new york, she will have to run against either geroge pataki or rudy guiliani in order to be re-elected to the senate which is no easy task. if she loses this race in 2008 she will have to run as a former meddling first lady with as much experience as lightweight vice presidential candidate john edwards.

Negatives too high. Will be front runner then crash hard like Dean. Might not win Senate battle in 2006 if Colin Powell runs.

Landslide LOSER

She might run, but after this past election I am convinced she will never be elected president. She is perceived by the South and Midwest as a far left liberal. She simply has no chance and hopefully will be content as a senator.

She lost every bit of my respect by not leaving her cheating husband.

Im sure the Dems will nominate this harridan - but only if they all have the same political death wish.

I didn't think she could, wasn't she already the president for 8 years.

More realistic than some other people on this list, but there are plenty of people in this country who have a strong dislike towards the Clintons. However, Bush Jr. was elected twice, so maybe another Clinton isn't so far fetched.

You've got to be kidding ? Put Slick Willie back in office , not his wife !