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 !

I said it before and I'll say it again... why would anyone vote for Hillary Rotten Clinton?!

If she is nominated it proves that the Dem's didn't learn anything. If the Bush was elected on morale issues; voters will not forget the Clintons problems in the WH. Nor should they consider another Senator. Senators come with too much bagage. Over a period of years any senator can be made to look like a flip flopper. Just to many votes one way or the other.

I really hope that she gets nominated, and there is a very good chance that she will. If she does get nominated, it will do nothing but prove that Democrats have learned no lessons from this years disasterous Kerry campaign. Northeastern ultra liberals do not get elected, no matter who their husband is or what her last name is. Stands no chance at becoming President.

Try to remember the nomination process. Generally, the only people who vote in it are the extreme liberal fringe (known in both parties, affectionately, as the lunatic fringe) who engage long before the thoughtful, strategic-thinking faithful become interested. Fund-raising is an enormously important skill to secure the nomination early, ask George W. Bush. Ask Howard Dean. Hillary mobilizes those forces that cost John Kerry the election in 2004, the abortion nazis, the shrill, sometimes violent environmentalist whackos, the militant, in-your-face gay lobby, the sometimes violent anti-war, anti-globalism crowd (who found surprisingly numerous allies in the 2004 campaign) and the union crowd, particularly the teacher unions, who have gained much financial clout in the past 20 years and hold much sway over the platform and the early inner workings of the Democrat Party. Hillary is THE #1 fund-raiser in the Democratic Party. Now, tell me again all the thoughtful reasons for Hillary to do the right thing for her party and step aside, and remind me of the last thoughtful mob you witnessed. Or the last time Hillary did anything for the good of the party or anyone else, to her own political or financial detriment. Lookin' like a 5.

Northeastern senator. Very very liberal and polarizing. She doesn't have the national appeal. If the Dems couldn't win with a northeastern liberal like John Kerry why would they want to run Senator Clinton in 2008. She would ostracize many in her won party, especially moderate democrats and many independents. If she runs, my republicans will win again.