Keith Devens .com

Hmmmm, not sure if that's a good combo.
I'd package Hillary with someone from a southern state like, John Edwards for example, if I were running them in a clear field election in 08. Hillary would walk the nomination field without challenge and hit the ground campaigning, while a republican would have to slog through primaries and fight off other wannabe party candidates.

Edwards is misfiring as a presidential candidate because he's too wet behind the ears in the senate and has no reputation to build on. A term more and he'd be able to scrap it out with whomsoever the GOP could put up against him in a Vice Presidential debate, he'd also perhaps carry southern moderates who usually vote right of centre because the other guy was born too far away from the Mason-Dixon line for them to feel comfortable.

Thinking about it I may actually want Bush to win a second term because I think he has one more war or US funded uprising in him. I'm not a US citizen and I'm left of centre, but if I thought he'd drop the hammer on North Korea or Iran or some of the junta's in Africa & South America he'd get a thumbs up from me no problem.

Remember, neocons were liberal intellectuals who left the Democratic party because they thought it was too soft on facing down Communism. But if you ever corner a neocon and ask them what they think about abortion, gay marriage, faith based anything or many other conservative republican hot button issues, the smart ones change the subject and dodge the question.

We discussed before about how the Republican party had changed, that's because the party ideology these days is coming from Neocons, not the Reagan Republican's of the 80's.

I'm not sure it's a great combo either, since Wesley Clark is extremely uncharismatic, and Hillary would dominate. Though, that's probably what she'd want. I'm standing by my prediction

And you make an interesting point about neo-cons. I've often been surprised to find myself on the same side of the war on terror as people completely on the opposite side of me politically. Though I hadn't considered that the "neo-con movement", if it can be called that, extended all the way back to the cold war.

Hillary would walk the nomination field without challenge and hit the ground campaigning, while a republican would have to slog through primaries and fight off other wannabe party candidates.

I'm hoping that Rudy will beat Hillary for Senate in 2006, and then be primed to run unchallenged (from his own party) for president in 2008. That's the only way I see your scenario being avoided, and he's the only person I can think of who has a shot at saving us from Hillary.

Thinking about it I may actually want Bush to win a second term because I think he has one more war or US funded uprising in him. I'm not a US citizen and I'm left of centre, but if I thought he'd drop the hammer on North Korea or Iran or some of the junta's in Africa & South America he'd get a thumbs up from me no problem.

Absolutely. Even though I generally dislike Bush domestically, what he's accomplished in the past few years has been nothing short of incredible. I want him to be able to continue his work, and see what he can do in the next few years. I'll vote for him again in a heartbeat, and be proud of it.