She's a politician and one angle is that she doesn't want her supporters to pine for a 2012 run that you see in PUMA sites.  And there's already a stereotype out there that paints her as too ambitious.  This can help deflect that and help people to move on in this and the next election cycle.

"If women want any rights more than they's got, why don't they just take them, and not be talking about it." - Sojourner Truth

"It's a giant changing of the subject," said Jenny Backus, a Democratic strategist. "The problem is the messenger. If you want to start throwing fire bombs, you don't send out the fluffy bunny to do it. I think people don't take Sarah Palin seriously."

I don't consider Romney, Huckabee or Giuliani as rising stars, that's why I specified their names in the context of 2012. They are from the losing party with credible national profiles, so they have another chance. Romney, despite his sixty-one years, looks very fresh and has strong credibility on the economy. If Obama messes up or is washed away by the problems of his first term, Romney would appear a credible alternative. Giuliani is a moderate with strength on national security, so if Obama faces problems over that issue, he could be a player (though I think he's far less likely than Romney or Huckabee).

My money however is on Huckabee. He's only fifty-three, has kept his profile up with a new show on Fox, appeals to social conservatives, and has a brand of economic populism that could be attractive to many if the economy remains a problem for the next few years. He'd play well with conservative Democrats, and therefore in places such as Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Arkansas, and perhaps Wisconsin. Needless to say these are the exact people that rushed to Ronald Reagan when the Carter ship sank.

Palin may not run in four years. She might think she needs more time and experience - and at age forty-eight in 2012, she's in no rush. Or, she might look in the mirror and never run for office again. I doubt that. If she doesn't, or if she blows up in the primaries, I expect it to come down to Mitt vs. Mike. Both are potentially dangerous challengers, especially if Obama is overwhelmed by the difficulties of office. That is why I mention them.

It looks very likely now that Obama will thankfully defeat McCain. But by no means is it certain that he will walk a second term. Republican support is much deeper than Democratic - I believe this country is a fundamentally center-right nation. This is why Democrats have lost so many elections relative to Republicans since the Sixties. Twice Republicans have had landslide reelections - Nixon in '72 and Reagan in '84. Democrats have had no such landslide - Clinton won in '96 convincingly, but there were still plenty of red states on that map. Democratic support is much softer, and all it takes is for a Democratic president to be perceived as weak for many of those tepid supporters to jump ship.

I've always believed Obama a weak candidate. He will do well this election not for any major policy or character quality, but because the financial crisis has turned this election into a Generic Republican vs. Generic Democrat match-up - something that neither candidate actually is. This is a dangerous election to win, because the next four years are going to be very difficult indeed. The perception of Obama (that has receded but still fundamentally exists) is that he is waiflike, unsure of his principles, vague, generic, noncommital. That is a cariacture, but it is nonetheless the cariacture that has entered our cultural consciousness. The same applied to Carter, and that is why people keep mentioning his name. Is that the sort of president an independent would want? Unlikely.

In contrast, Hillary Clinton is perceived as tough, decisive, unemotional - to the point that, before she established herself as 'the Fighter', the champion of the working American, it was almost a negative: she was an Ice Queen, ruthless, Lady Macbeth, indifferent, callous, calculating. But in the campaign, her true self was shown to the country - alas too late - and those snowy cariactures melted away to reveal the mountains underneath that is her true character. Again, that has entered the public consciousness - I think it was Ed Rendell that said she makes Rocky look like a quitter, or something like that. Similarly, the SNL sketch with Hillary and Palin together, where Clinton tells the media to 'grow a pair, or if they like, I can lend them some of mine'. That sort of public persona could weather the difficulties of the next four years, and that is one of the major reasons I supported her. (Incidentally, that's why the 'Obama has the same sort of ideas as her' argument isn't that effective to me. I supported her not just because she was a Democrat, nor just because she was a Clinton, but because she was Hillary; I supported her character as much as her policies).

Worse, I'm pretty tired of the deification of HRC.  I've been a big Clinton fan since they got into national politics; that doesn't mean that I can't acknowledge their foibles and failures.  And they had more than a few failures and have more than a few foibles.  A very strong sense of entitlement is one of them.  Bill's antipathy toward Obama was so visceral...it seemed unworthy of one of my heroes.  Hillary's failure to be a good CEO of her campaign reminded me of how she failed with healthcare during Bill's administration.  That sort of management simply isn't one of her strengths.  

Now, saying that she has strengths and weaknesses, as we all do, and that her fundamental weakness was an inability to effectively manage a large organization isn't sexist.  It means that her experience has been in policy; an executive needs both policy and organizational skills.  It was disappointing, but I'm a professional and I know how professional organizations are run...I get paid to assess them.  

So, we found out that Hillary enjoyed the support of a lot of women, and rightly so, because she has great ideas.  But, she wasn't able to fulfill the second test; she squandered (there's no other word for it) an utterly sure thing by losing Iowa and then by failing to get her folks consistently on message and on budget.  

We can argue that obama was a juggernaut, that the media was in the tank and that the DNC was, too, but, c'mon.  Who seriously predicted the fight we saw?  Nobody (and no revisionist history, anyone, please.).  Everyone I knew expected her to be the nominee, if not the President.  Those national assumptions weren't sexist.  So, why was her loss?  

Have the actions of PUMAs taught you nothing about the loose-cannon nation of folk on the web?

Oy.

Calling any woman THAT name is wrong.