>>I think the real thing to watch is HRC's negatives. They are extraordinarily high and the question is which way does that move when she gets on the campaign trail nationally. And her nomination will be a great fund-raiser for GOP that might otherwise be less than enthusiastic about non-born-again Rudy.
>>
>The enduring legacy of the Ford presidency is that it ended the personal partisianship of the Nixon era (which was an extension of the feelings towards LBJ). While there was a great deal to disagree with about Ford, Carter, Reagan, and Bush the elder - the disagreements were philisophical rather than personal. Carter was an ineffective do-gooder. I didn't like Reagan's ideas but I could respect him. I didn't particularly like Bush the elder, but by training and experience he was probably the most qualified president in recent memory.
>
>But the election of Bill Clinton brought in an era of personal opposition unmatched in any peacetime era. "Bush the Uniter" has been anything but -- a holdover from the 2000 election problems and his governing style since 9/11.
>
>We (the US) desperately need to get away from the blind animostity of the past 16 years (projecting to when the next president takes office).
>
>So, I don't really care about HRC's qualifications. Even if she were head and shoulders better than anybody else in either party I'm reasonably sure the country would be better off with a competent second best. ANY proposal from her would be vigorously opposed regardless of merit by those who can't get past the source (the same is true for anything coming out of the current administration).
>
>"her nomination will be a great fund-raiser for GOP" and her election will mean four (or eight) more years of a polarized nation that will be unable to move forward on any issue of real substance.


Great points.