That is your argument DoubleJ?

Really, unless I've gotten brain damage lately, I seem to remember Howard Dean leading all the party polls...until the Iowa primary, of then that is when voters always put down the signs and hearts, and hopefully vote with their brains.

While Kerry did lose in 2004, imagine if Dean had been the nominee instead of Kerry. Dean would have lost to Bush by a landslide, which I'm sure of.

Besides DJ, you already forgotten about one key factor: Hillary is a polarizing figure, of which people either like or hate. Even I don't care for her.

Fact is, Hillary is far from a slam dunk for the party's nomination, despite what DJ is so certain to believe. I mean who knows...it could be Mark Warner in 2008, with Hillary as a powerless VP candidate.

Now Iceman or DonSmitty, one of the two did say somewhere that the American people would be "dumb" enough to vote Hillary into the Oval Office. Why? Hell, why she would get elected makes less certain sense than people that think Hillary is a shoe-in for the Dems in 2008.

Besides, I'm sure that if you paired a McCain or Guilliani against Hillary, she would totally lose.

BTW, my fellow Republicans, quit the Obama paranoia. He's not doing squat in 2008. Besides, if he did run, what does he have against guys like Clark, Edwards, Clinton, Richardson, etc.?