.... I think she will bring more people to the polls to vote against her (not for the other guy) than she will to get out voters to vote for her.

Even with that relentless RNC talking point, "Hillary is polarizing" she has done very well in this new poll. She is not to be underestimated. Interesting that the Dems (I assume xmlman is a dem) have picked up the wingers talking points regarding Hilary verbatim.

The one thing that has changed is the majority in both houses of congress. Of course the ever horrible Lieberman can shift that status, but currently those majorities actually make it easier for the swing voters to in a republican POTUS now that they are freed from worrying about one-party rule. And now for why not Hillary:

Morally, I'm having great difficulty considering any candidate who ignored the voices of sanity advising NO war, but that is another issue. 

Policy: Both the policy of "preventive war" (this war was not preemptive) and opening up a battlefield in the Gulf sure to increase terrorism is dumb policy, and thus, those who voted for it have no business in the oval office. But that is another issue.

Politically. Let's look at the politics of running with a candidate who voted for war (note: I do not buy, and the American people will not buy, the positioning of politicians who claim they were duped.) 

The names currently being mentioned as Democratic candidates, with the exception of Wes Clark, do not have necessary credentials to speak on foreign policy. Either they were A) wrong about the war or, B) have not served and have no significant experience outside of a few years on some related committee with its attendant photo-ops. Sorry, if this applies to some nice people, but it just does. 

Any politician who voted for the war, or who does not have the authority to question the republicans regarding the war, will most likely down-play any mention of Iraq. This is not 1992, and our country needs leadership. Politically, the Iraq War and foreign policy, no matter what is going on in the Gulf, is the republicans weakness, and it will remain a weakness during the next presidential election in 2008. The republicans having a weakness does not translate into a Democratic strength if we nominate a candidate who can't explore that weakness. Advocating for a different foreign policy, one that is multilateral, means that the candidate must be perceived at strong on national defense. Anything less, hands the republicans a pass, a get out of election-sore-loser free card.

Furthermore, the money for social programs is rapidly being spent on this war. The political capital, the leverage that we so desperately need in the world arena, is being squandered to place Iran in a position of power in Iraq. We need a voice of opposition to this madness, not a grumble of discontented sighs about being mislead. Democratic programs need both the bully-pulpit and the money. How do we get there without knocking on the Pentagon door for a contribution?

Ultimately, we must run as an agent for change, in governing, in policy, in national tone, and in direction. The current push in the media and party to run a Democrat with the same name as the old Democrat, will fail because once again, we will be giving our advantage to the republicans. We will look like the retro-party and permit them to run on change. 

I'm not very optimistic at this point that Democrats will think smart anytime soon. The wheels within wheels are very ominous.

To wit, Hillary is BENEFITTING from an improved Dem brand and weakened GOP brand but her style was not part of that success. To adopt it, or Obama's, is to reject success.

her proposed, oppressive universal healthcare

I agree with Jeralyn that her nomination would be a step back from, and a blunting of, the populist, progressive surge that was nascent in the last election.

However. The Bush/Gore election taught me that it's really dumb to express your distaste for your preferred candidate by remaining aloof and critical.  Taking cheap shots from the cheap seats.  We have Mickey Kaus for that.

guy, like the war in iraq, it isn't that you're spending "billions & billions", but how you're spending them. ok, in the case of iraq, it is that you're spending "billions & billions", but i digress.

since most kids who do poorly in school come from the lower economic/social strata, and these kids also start out 3 years behind their peers, giving them more books they can't read isn't going to help. hence, the waste of "billions & billions".

xmlman, i fall into that 40-50 catagory, i'd vote for hillary in a heartbeat: smart, politically astute, experienced, articulate. that, and she tends to dress better than laura. you need to get out more, really.

i don't agree with every position she has, but that's unrealistic. the ones i don't, i can live with. what we see is what has pretty much always been with her. those areas where she's changed her stance are based on changed circumstances or additional facts. something that can't be said of mr. bush.

I think a Clinton/Obama ticket would be unstoppable for many of the same reasons...

...and would be so akin to a popularity contest - like electing a prom king and queen - that it would give me major heebeejeebees.

Hillary is polarizing

Funny that the wingnuts get all twisted up about Hillary.

they get all twisted up because she isn't their perverse version of what a woman should be: a housefrau. that, and she's capable of rather neatly shredding them, when the occasion calls for it. damn those smart women!

really now, demonizing her just makes the phyllis schlafly's of the world look more idiotic than they already are. although, i always found it interesting that an educated person like ms. schlafly (a lawyer), should have such anachronistic views on the "proper" place for women in this country.

in essence, the extreme right-wing would be very at home in saudi arabia, where they still treat women as chattel.

I really don't want Obama because I think he would lose based on his age and this country still is resistant to a Black president probably more so than a woman president.  

I have always liked John Edwards and he has been traveling the world and the country adding to his knowledge of both foreign and domestic affairs.  I think he's also charismatic.    

Wes Clark obviously has a brilliant mind and knowledge in foreign affairs so I'd like him as VP candidate with Edwards as president.  I can't see Clark as the presidential candidate simply because he somehow doesn't seem presidential at least the way he campaigned last time.  Smarts and all, but not enough charisma.