I was reading an article by Shelby Steele where he takes Senator Hillary Clinton to task for her "plantation" remarks. We've already had that discussion so there's no need to rehash it.

Steele ups the ante by stating Clinton's biggest fear is being upstaged by the one woman in American politics that could derail her desire to become the first woman President of the United States.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/fe...ml?id=110007854

However, let's just allow the possibility that maybe---JUST MAYBE---the Democratic and Republican Party would dare to pit two of the most powerful women in America against each other in the 2008 Presidential race.

The worst kept secret in Washington is Senator Clinton wants to be president. On the other hand, Secretary of State Rice has repeatedly said she has no interest in replacing her boss as Chief Executive.

Still, many times when a politician says "No" they really mean, "Maybe" if the circumstances change and when they say "Maybe" they really mean "Yes." Even though she's never run for any office, Rice is a consummate politician and knows her way around power. While she protests no interest in the presidency, what if George W. Bush went to her and said, "Condi, you're the only one who can keep Hillary out of the Oval Office."

Do you really think she would say, "Sorry, but the answer is still "no?"

There's no question there will no shortage of male candidates squaring off in the wide-open race to replace Bush. It's almost a stone cold lock that Hillary is going to crash the boys club for the Democrats. Will Condoleeza do the same for the GOP?

The question for debate:

Would you want to see a Hillary Clinton versus Condoleeza Rice match-up in 2008 for the presidency? Why or why not?

Anybody that works side by side with GW Bush and knows the inner workings of this regime has no business running the country and better belongs as an exile or prisoner.

Anybody that is married to Bill Clinton and knows the innerworkings of that regime has no business running the country and certainly not holding any public office.

NT- for the love of God- no "Aitch EE double hockey sticks" No button?

Would you want to see a Hillary Clinton versus Condoleeza Rice match-up in 2008 for the presidency? Why or why not?

First of all, I have great respect for the abilities and competence of both women, and have no doubts that they're both qualified to be President.

I don't want to see Hillary as the Democratic nominee. I'd prefer someone I'd actually consider voting for, so I'd have more options in the general election. But I'm realistic enough to accept that the current Democratic base wouldn't nominate any such person, and that Hillary is the most likely nominee. That's not guaranteed, since there's some rumblings in the ranks about her support for the Iraq war, from Molly Ivins and the other hardcore lefties, but still it's likely.

If so, Hillary will be a formidable one. Who do the Republicans have who could beat her? At this point I can think of only three names, and two of the three would have a hard time getting past the Republican base. That'd be Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and Condi Rice. Of the three, only Rice is solid with the base, and I like her a lot myself.

So, if Hillary is their nominee, Condi should be ours. If so, the ticket should be balanced with an eye to shoring up her weaknesses: a lack of domestic policy experience, and a possible reluctance on the part of Southern white males to vote for a black woman. So, her Veep should be a Southern white male who's a domestic policy expert. Sounds like Newt Gingrich to me.

Condi/Newt in 2008!

Would you want to see a Hillary Clinton versus Condoleeza Rice match-up in 2008 for the presidency? Why or why not?

It would be a very interesting race, but I realistically I don't see it happening.

Hillary is trying her best to position herself for a run as evidenced by the plantation remarks followed by her criticism of the Bush administration's soft stance on Iran. With Bill's networking/fundraising skills, Hillary will certainly be able to get the money to run.
I'm sure she will form an exploratory committee the day after she's relected to the Senate next Fall. However, the question will be whether 6 years has been enough time for the scandals and problems of the Clinton adminsitration to pass. If Hillary was able to pull one over on the Democratic base and get the nomination, she would bring out every single registered republican to vote against her.

As for Condi, she will be dogged by accusations of her failure for 9/11 and, as was mentioned, a lack of domestic policy experience. I really have a hard time seeing Rice getting the nomination unless Bush names her as his chosen successor and ihas enough credibility with the republican base to do so in 2007-08 .

Again, It would be a hell of a race to watch, but a longshot at best.

Yeah I wish their was a "neither" option. I don't want to see either of them as the first woman president. I would have voted for Elizabeth Dole before either one of these clowns.

I can relate to this statement. I voted for Hillary, but at this point I want a Democratic candidate who has the best chance to win.

My preference for the first female president would have been Houston Congresswoman, the late Barbara Jordan.

I don't know if anyone has ever mentioned this on the board, but I'm certainly not the first person to suggest that Jordan might have made a fine president.

http://www.elf.net/bjordan/

That's the problem it seems, the good ones always die.

This race sounds so nightmarish that it could almost happen. In the absence of a "neither" option, I went with Hillary. Were these the actual choices, it would simply be a matter of an ABC (Anyone But Condi) vote.


Would you want to see a Hillary Clinton versus Condoleeza Rice match-up in 2008 for the presidency? Why or why not?

Would I want to see the second-worst possible Democratic candidate running against the second-worst possible Republican candidate? To be honest, AAAAAAAAGGGGHHHHH!!! The only thing that could conceivably be more horrific would be a Lieberman-Cheney race. Well, actually, a declaration of martial law and the installation of a Bush autocracy in perpetuity would be marginally worse, but I'm hoping that even a couple of Republicans might balk at that. Then again, we've been seeing an ever-increasing lack of respect for the Constitution and the rule of law from that party over the past few months (accompanied by the now-traditional simpering lack of backbone from the Democrats), so who knows?

But the despotic Condoleezza Rice would be just about as bad - and every bit as threatening to our freedom. On the other hand, I'd support just about any Democrat who wasn't Joe Lieberman or Hillary Clinton. (The lamentably insane Zell Miller doesn't count.)

Thanks, nighttimer. I shall not sleep tonight.

Thanks for your opinion, but it surely seems to be based simply in rhetoric. Anyone but Condi?? hahahaha... ok. Fine.

I think that at least Ms. Rice hasn't been involved in Whitewater and Rosegate, didn't use her spouse to spring board her career, and doesn't place the race card as Mrs. Clinton does (i.e. the MLK day speech).

Condi has been in public service since 1986, and is completely a self-made woman....coming from a family where her parents were a minister and music director of a church. I guess people don't like her because she's so respectable? Maybe because she's black and happens to work in the Bush administration... who knows.

Mrs. Clinton, however, was...umm... a first lady who used her husband's name to springboard her into politics. She also was great in the Whitewater deal, earning money (speculatively illegally) in cattle futures, and taking advantage of local affirmative action laws in order to make money on a cell phone franchise. Don't forget Rosegate or her series of literal lies....
How on earth could she ever be electable?....

My liberal anti-respectability bias aside, I think there are real problems people have with Condoleezza Rice. I assosciate Condoleezza Rice with the failed foreign policy of the Bush Administration and their persistent cavalier attitude towards the truth. Personally I think she mishandled her job as National Security Advisor by not placing nearly enough emphasis on terrorism and she helped to completely botch the War in Iraq. And if that isn't enough she initially refused to testify before the 9/11 commission and even after it was completely clear that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 she insisted on drawing disingenuous parallels.

Would you want to see a Hillary Clinton versus Condoleeza Rice match-up in 2008 for the presidency? Why or why not? No way. I dislike both of them, and if a prediction by Dick Morris proves true, the fabric of space-time will disintegrate. Hillary is exactly the opposite of what the country needs politically. Much like Bush, Hillary is a divider, not a uniter. And anyway, the democrats should nominate Barrack Obama or Mark Warner, or both.

I agree that Hillary is not what the country needs. From what I hear around DC, she is well respected for her hard work on behalf of New York, but still has a lot of enemies. I would never support her for president.

Here is the link to some interesting polling information on the '08 race including numbers for Hillary and Condi. Seems as of now, McCain would crush either of them.

http://www.pollingreport.com/WH08dem.htm

In addition, although I am a conservative, I wouldn't mind seeing Mark Warner run, I could think of a lot of worse democrats. I live in the Washington, DC area and am from VA. He is a moderate democrat with a good business background. He appears to have very strong organizational and management skills and worked across the aisle in VA to pass a huge tax increase and fix the state's troubled finances. He also did an exceptional job during the governors race of courting business and the gun groups. Obviously, name recognition is a huge problem, but there's plenty of time until the primaries.

Would you want to see a Hillary Clinton versus Condoleeza Rice match-up in 2008 for the presidency? Why or why not?

I would love to see a woman vs woman presidential election, but it simply won't happen. Also, even if it did happen I would not want it to be a race between these two women because I don't think Condoleeza could beat Hillary and I am TERRIFIED of Hillary as President. Hillary will say and do anything for power and that is exactly the reason why I don't think that she should be given any more power than that which she already has. In the Senate she can be kept in check and, surprisingly, she has done well for the state of New York. However, i shudder to think of Hillary with free reign.

On the other hand, I haven't seen Condoleeza in action enough to be sure that she wouldn't be walked on as a President. I could be wrong, yet it seems that Condi thrives behind the scenes. In times of trouble I don't know if she could rally the country.

Also, the Republican party funders (aka MEN) would never give the nod to a woman...not yet, at least.

I think it’s high time a woman is President of the US. I decided to take a look at their qualifications and the pros and cons of a Clinton versus Rice ticket.

I don’t believe anyone here would debate either woman’s qualifications. Both are extremely well educated and experienced in government.

I was happy to see this, 81 percent of voters surveyed said they would vote for a woman for president. . It’s about time!

I found the data below in a FOX News poll from back in June 2005.



Not so long ago, the thought of a woman be elected to President seemed far fetched. Not so anymore. The most interesting aspect of this scenario is that a black woman is being raised up as a potential contender for President. That my friends is a beautiful thing.

Stanley Crouch wrote an interesting op-ed last week. In it he states the following:



This after Laura Bush and the President stated they would like to see Condi run for President.

In fact, even though his op-ed asserts a muted racism in the Republican Party, he is very clear to note that is it black America who have the problem with Condi. They consider her a traitor.

Duane Smith, who blogs at Abnormal Interest says something I have always believed:



What would be interesting is the political issues themselves as debated by these two women.

Doug Hagin writes:



Unfortunately, I cannot find any quotes or articles that reveal Rice’s stance on issues other than foreign policy. She has worked for Republican administrations for years, but that is no indication as to her political leanings.

Clinton is a Democrat but tries her best to be right of Bush on some issues – which isn’t a bad strategy. I wonder why she has earned the label of liberal? I personally don’t see it. Here’s why. In just looking at Clinton’s record I was amazed at how closely my views are aligned with hers on many issues. For instance, she would allow for late term abortion only if life or health are at risk. I agree completely. She believes we should reach out to teens to reduce teen sex problems. I believe we need to prevent pregnancy so abortions aren’t necessary and sex-ed in schools is a great way to see that goal achieved. She supports parental notice & family planning. So do I.

She supports expanding embryonic stem cell research. I do too. She supports domestic partnership benefits and thinks gays should not have to be silent to join the military. Ditto. And I consider myself a slightly conservative democrat. Others here at AD consider me a neo-con or a right-winger.

Of course, there are many issues of which I don’t agree with her, but I am more than willing to give her an opportunity to make me vote for a Democrat again.

This is a match-up I would LOVE to see. As Stanley Crouch said in his op-ed, “If she and Hillary Clinton were to square off in 2008, that campaign would be one of the most exciting in our time.”

I love some of the rhetoric here. Like we need to know the reasons why the liberals wouldn’t like a Condi or why conservatives don’t like Hillary. I think we can sum up the reasons between missing FBI files and Iraq to satisfy both sides. I’d say both women are qualified, Condi a little more so than Hillary. I’m not sure either one of these women can get the nomination. I don’t think there’s any way Hillary can be elected in a normal election. Something amazing that changes the political landscape would have to happen.

Unless there is a groundswell of popular support for Condi I can’t see how she’ll run. I also don’t think Bush will go on much longer without someone lined up as a successor. This could mean Cheney stepping down in the next year or so and someone becoming the new VP. This could be Condi’s most realistic shot. Condi as a sitting VP would be more difficult to defeat than as a Secretary of State. Would Democrat Senators vote against her nomination to VP? It would be politically damaging to vote against her. Then if she received too much support from Democrats it would put them in dangerous position for 2008.

Or maybe Bush won’t line up a successor.

Using the bolded criteria you must have voted for Gore then Kerry. Just considering Dubya is neither self made and used his daddy’s connections to get where he’s at today.

I want to see the best candidates run and win. Although both have impressive resumes I’m not sure if either of the two ladies would qualify as the best from their respective parties.

However I certainly believe either could make good presidents.

Hillary is a poor speaker and carries some baggage but knows the inner workings of congress. Condi probably has a diplomatic advantage, has been well received when ever she travels abroad and knows how to work with other key agencies.

I agree with you in terms of what she says, but without getting too specific as to issues, it's what she does in terms of votes.

Look at the interest group ratings


Her liberal ratings are up there just below Kennedy and Kerry, including a 0% from the NRA and a 100% from NARAL. Just to contrast with a "moderate" Senator Evan Bayh's ratings were in the 50% - 70% range from the liberal groups for the most part, while Lieberman is all over the board, from 55 to 95% from these groups. Another more conservative / moderate democrat, Ben Nelson, is in the 30% - 60% range from these groups.


We're off-topic, but since you're dealing out cheap shots, remember to hit both targets. Perhaps in your example vs. George Bush, you meant Al Gore Sr, a self-made man who served in Congress for 30 years? I'm unaware of any claims by Al Gore Jr. to be "self-made," when in fact he's going to inherit gazillions, partly due to his dad's relationship with Armand Hammer. If young Al Gore didn't use his daddy's connections to get into St. Alban's and then Harvard, or to run for Congress in Tennessee, it's safe to say that it didn't hurt!

At the beginning of Bill Clinton’s first term, Hillary was the prime mover behind her husband’s failed health care proposal. This was probably the beginning of her identification as a “liberal”—long before her positions on gun control or abortion were known. George Bush, the 1st would not let the word liberal pass his lips. It was the “the L word.” Likewise, tax was the “T word” and another bit of George H.W. Bush’s soft peddling—“deep doo-doo,” instead of what Harry Truman might have said in public and what most of us would say in private conversation.

Since Bush 1 any number of conservative politicians and commentators have approached “liberal” as if were the vilest of four letter words.



Both NARAL and the NRA are single issue interest groups. NARAL is a “liberal” organization bucking the conservative tide in the U.S. The NRA is “conservative,” but has the luxury of swimming downhill instead of up. I personally think, in this political climate, the NRA is the more dangerous of the two. After decades of letting the NRA romp and stomp, it’s my opinion that the time has come for politicians with sufficient intestinal fortitude to tell the NRA where to go.

About all we know of Rice at this time is her role in Bush’s foreign policy—a gargantuan failure in some of our minds. Wouldn’t it be a stroke of Rovian genius to run a candidate with a scant paper trail against a Senator with as much as 8 years of votes? If Rice wants to usher in a third Bush term, the answer is “no.” If Hillary has the best shot at winning, then I’m all for her.

If you notice, I was responding to a single targeted first shot over the bow, just trying to poke some fun at aevans (should have included some smiley things). But I was fully aware of Al’s pedigreed/silver spooned upbringing.

Back to topic, I’m not sure Hillary needed her husbands “coat tails” to get where she is today and although I’m not familiar with Condi’s rise to power you could say the same about her. Both appear to be very driven and ambitious with the right amount of bull doggedness to reach what ever goals they set.

Fair enough. Reading my post I realize that my text is not clear, even if my quote is. The "liberal interest group ratings" that I referred to, both in the quote and the text, were the multi-interest-groups "People for the American Way" and "Americans for Democratic Action." The "moderate" politician scores that I cited for comparison were for those groups, not the single-issue NARAL or NRA. I just thought it was interesting that the "moderate" Hillary Clinton scored so liberal with NARAL and NRA, but she's liberal in her voting record no matter how you measure, despite her moderate rhetoric.

Here's something interesting:



The information above is from Newsmax which is incredibly bias.

To be fair, I went digging to find this poll and low and behold here is the poll question and the data about Condi too:

CNN/USA Today/Gallop Poll. Jan. 20-22, 2006. N=928 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 4.



It looks pretty darn even to me and pretty darn negative for both women.

Also, for the record I want to clarify something I posted earlier. I wrote:



I believe Hillary believes in late term abortion only if life and health of the mother are at risk. I support late term abortion if the baby will have no quality of life. Let me explain further. If the child as a defect like anencephaly which means the baby will be born usually blind, deaf, unconscious, and unable to feel pain - in other words no quality of life, I would support ending the pregnancy.

If we are talking about the life or health of the mother, then I would support delivering the baby - not aborting it. I just had to get that off my chest.

Would you want to see a Hillary Clinton versus Condoleeza Rice match-up in 2008 for the presidency? Why or why not?

I really don't want to see it because the Demos have better potential candidates than Hillary and Condi isn't married. Never has been. There will be lots of speculation as to why this happened. Is she also a virgin? Will there be a medical examination? If she isn't, who were her men? What if she's (gasp) GAY???? Has she been celibate all these decades? What, is she frigid? From outer space? A robot? Maybe she was an abused child. Holy cow

Hey, I know how banal this is. I just don't want to see it happen. What I want to see happen is the Republican bunch taken out and sent home, replaced by seriously concerned Democrats with solid, workable agendas.

The Hillary attacks don't bother me nearly as much as the potential trashing of Condi. I think that she's aware of this, and that's why she never has and never will run for public office. Hillary seems to enjoy the fight, she's married to a cad (so most can relate), a mother (proof positive), but I don't see her as all that good of a choice. Enough with the senators, let's nominate a governor. There'll probably be a wide field of choice after the 2006 elections, and judging by GWB, a poor governor is a lot better choice than an effective senator. Get an effective governor in there, and things might click.

Would you want to see a Hillary Clinton versus Condoleeza Rice match-up in 2008 for the presidency? Why or why not?

No. While I believe that women can be just as competent or incompetent as men are in positions of leadership, I do not want to see the contest for the Chief Executive position to become any more of a sideshow freakfest than it already is.

After all, it's not a cockfight, or a hen-fight in this case.

From a purely political perspective I would not support Hillary Clinton or Condoleeza Rice. Clinton has worked very hard to remake herself as a centrist Democrat. Despite your apprehensions, carlitoswhey, as a member of the Democratic Leadership Council, Clinton has been largely successful in crafting a record as a moderate as a U.S. Senator.

An unhedged supporter of the war in Iraq, Sen. Clinton stands at the hawkish, interventionist extreme of her party on foreign policy. Despite her pandering vote against CAFTA, she's a confirmed free-trader and deficit hawk. On the cultural issues that often undermine Democrats, she seeks common ground, sometimes with flat-earth conservatives like Rick Santorum, and has been nattering about the "tragedy" of abortion. Even Hillary's notorious government takeover of health care was misconstrued as an ultra-lib stance. In opting for a mixed, private-public managed-competition plan, the then-first lady was repudiating the single-payer model long favored by paleo-liberals. Her plan was flawed in many ways, but it wasn't what Ted Kennedy wanted.

http://www.slate.com/id/2123636/

The larger issue as I see it isn't whether Hillary should run for president. It's obvious that she will. The central point is what will it mean if a qualified woman can run---and win---the nation's highest elective office? I agree with Wertz that Hillary isn't my idea of what my liberal standard-bearer would be. However, if she could parlay her political clout all the way to the Oval Office some kind of rubicon would definitely be crossed. Even President Bush recently described Clinton as "formidable" as a potential 2008 presidential candidate.

And she certainly wouldn't appoint any Samuel Alitos to the Supreme Court.

I'm pretty sure Condoleeza Rice would. There is little doubt that she shares more than workouts with George W. Bush. Her political philosophy seems simpatico with that of her patron. I'm certainly not thrilled at the prospect of Condi being the heir apparent of the Bush legacy.

Which hasn't stopped the "draft Condi" movement from gearing up. I visited two websites supporting Dr. Rice in 2008. The sites are long on enthusiasm but short on specifics because after almost six years in the public eye, nobody knows much about where Rice stands on most of the issues of the day besides the war in Iraq.

But her stand on the issues aside, Condi Rice running for and actually winning the presidency would go a long way of shattering not one, but two glass ceilings. The first being that a woman can't win the White House and the second that a Black person couldn't accomplish the same goal.

Don't get me wrong. As a candidate, Rice might be a right-wingnut like Alan Keyes, but I kind of doubt it. The hope would be that she turns out to be a moderate, but there's nothing there to support that hope.

This is why I didn't list a third or a "opt out" option in the poll. The larger principle of what a Hillary Clinton or Condoleeza Rice victory in 2008 would mean, does not transcend what their personal views or positions are. From the view of someone who majored in Political Science, it's the prospect of two so well qualified candidates mixing it up on the world's biggest political stage that is so tantalizing.

After all, there's been enough horrible men who made it all the way to the White House. It's past time to change up the groove and try something a little different.

Would you want to see a Hillary Clinton versus Condoleezza Rice match-up in 2008 for the presidency? Why or why not?

No. I didn't even vote in the poll because you didn't give us an opportunity to say that I would first look at the third parties if the Republicans got their "dream ticket" on the ballot in 2008.

It may be true that "The worst kept secret in Washington is Senator Clinton wants to be president." However, as I don't live in Washington, I have to rely on what the news media reports. Both women have repeatedly said they have no plans or no interest in running for President in 2008. I have heard no Democrats seriously suggest such a match up. I have heard innumerable Republicans argue that Condy could easily beat Hillary. That hardly seems a good reason for the Democrats to vote for Hillary to head their ticket.

It is my understanding that the first time George W. Bush indicated an interest in being the President was when his friends pointed out to him that not running, he was already ahead in the polls. I am not really impressed though. with his leadership, his pride in being a "war president," ad nauseam.

I have yet to hear a Democratic pundit argue that Hillary is the best that we can offer the voters in '08. I have heard a great number of Republicans argue that this is the default race that we will be seeing in '08. I really don't feel that I have to go to the polls and vote for the Republican choice in the Democratic primary. I intend to vote for someone who says that he or she wants to be President, wants to run the country, and has a vision and a plan to do so.

If the only candidate the Republicans can field to mop up the mess George has made of Washington, the country, and the world is Condoleezza Rice, I will be very surprised. Forty-three white males have held the job, and I suspect the Republican Party has at least a few men that think (privately) that they can do a better job than Dubya...

I decided a couple years back that I'd never vote for any democrat every again -- not for any office, and it doesn't matter who they're running -- So hillary's out.

On the other hand, I'd vote for Condoleeza Rice in a minute. More than that, I think she'd be a better than most of the GOP front-runners, and LOTS AND LOTS better than McCain or Guiliani -- For those two, I just stay home on election day.

Would you want to see a Hillary Clinton versus Condoleeza Rice match-up in 2008 for the presidency? Why or why not?
Not at all. I don't view either one of them favorably. While I respect what they've accomplished as women in a predominantly male world (politics), I don't respect who they are or what they do. Hillary strikes me as someone seeking power for the sake of power, and that person I will always reject outright.

Conde has her own issues, not the least of which is her ability to lie to protect her boss.

I can't say that either one is particularly appealing as a presidential candidate.

Not really. I don't really think that the world abroad is ready for a female president (and, though I have no real love for Clinton, I don't think her talents should be wasted on a world that isn't really prepared). I am more inclined to think that Rice will run in 2,012 and not touch 2,008 with a ten foot pole. I would love to see Clinton and Kerry clash in the Democratic primaries and have that one resolved quickly but I at this time I cannot say that a 2,008 cat fight would help anyone.

The thing is, 2012 is not so much of an option --- sort of like eating a day-old donut. Whoever wins in '08 is not only the likely candidate in in 2012, they are also the likely winner. I think Condoleeza Rice is a blue ribbon candidate, and I'd hate to waste top quality in an impossible to win challenge, if a dem wins in '08.

And of course if the GOP wins in '08, then there's no real chance for any republican for 8 years.

Would you want to see a Hillary Clinton versus Condoleeza Rice match-up in 2008 for the presidency?

Emphatically Not!

Why not?

As Pete Hoekstra, our local man in Congress put it: If Congress wants to do any business this year, it will have to be before the November Election, because after that every politician in Washington will be thinking about the Presidential Election in 2008.

More to the point, this Clinton versus Condoleeza Rice match-up seems to be a way for the talking heads on TV to avoid backing the wrong horse. Everyone has agreed on two "party favorites" that don't seem to have any real backing... I think the Republicans would love to see the Democrats nominate Hillary Clinton, then have their own convention where the train gets derailed. Condie would decline, fall ill, get shot, or simply fall victim to a floor revolt where Jeb Bush or "Heckuva Job Brownie" gets nominated... I suspect most Republicans would feel quite convinced that any male candidate could easily defeat Hillary...

Reality check time for the Republicans may not come until November, but I just printed out two copies of the Local Board of Education. There is an election on Tuesday and people are ready to "Throw the bums out." The Board of Education likely has no responsibility for High Gas Prices, High unemployment, the National Debt, the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, or the War in Planning in Iran... They could have installed hot water when they remodeled the schools. They could have held on to janitors and bus drivers instead of contracting the work out. They could have done many things differently. Their major crime this year is that they are incumbents...

If the local sentiment is any indication, it is a year when many politicians will end the year unemployed. At that point, Republicans and Democrats alike; will likely hand out primary nominating petitions to any candidate who is willing to risk his career and credibility on a run for fame and glory. Until then, the talking heads will try to convince us that a Clinton-Rice run-off is a fait accompli. Unless the economy turns around, the wars end, the price of gas drops below a $1.00/gallon, and businessmen learn that Americans too are willing to work; by December, the proposed all female Presidential race will be a footnote in history.