Random thought: many people -- and especially Republicans -- are saying that Hillary Clinton is the prohibitive favorite for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008. Ever wonder why? Could it be because the Republicans WANT to run against Hillary, because they think she would go a long way to assure a Republican victory? Consider the situation:

The Democrats are seen as being disorganized, overly radical, soft on foreign policy, terrorism, the military, unfocused, with no clear "plan," and so forth. In other words, the same old hyperbole the Repubs have been spouting since 1972, or even 1968. Why is this the message resonating in the public? Because the Republican spin-meisters are doing a really good job at delivering that message to the public, and the democratic spin-meisters seem to be AWOL [I mean, Bilbo Baggins, uh, I mean Bob Shrum, who has NEVER won a presidential, and who blew a sure thing presidential in 2004, is on Hardball representing the left? come on guys....].

Those same Repub spinners are practically slobbering to run against Hillary. She has incredibly high negatives, and that's a year before her putative campaign would begin. Because she chose to move to New York and run for the Senate there, the Repub spinners will portray her as just another northeastern liberal, regardless of her Senate record on foreign policy, which is actually quite centrist. Truth is irrelevant; perception is what matters. She will be tarred -- unfairly, or course -- by the spectre of Bill's peccadillos while in the White House, and she won't get to take any of the credit for perhaps the best substantive administration since FDR. Finally, the Repubs believe, regardless of what might be said publicly, that the country just is not ready for a woman as president, especially in these terror-ridden times. I hate to agree with Pat Buchanan on anything, but he's right when he says John McCain will destroy Hillary in a presidential campaign.

Why wouldn't the Republicans want to run against Hillary?