Two good diaries from January 19 discuss whether Hillary Clinton should try to become the Democrat 2008 presidential nominee.
http://www.dailykos.com/...
http://www.dailykos.com/...
She should. She'd contribute much to the primary discussion. But please, please, let's not nominate her.
A reality check:
In the entire history of the United States of America, only two sitting Senators have been elected President, although many Senators have been nominees. The most likely way for a Senator to become President is to first become Vice-President, and to accede to the highest office when the President dies or leaves office.
The first successful Senatorial aspirant was Warren G. Harding, of whom it has been said that our country was so sick of WWI and the policies of Woodrow Wilson that we (they?) probably would have voted for any Republican in 1920.
The second and only other successful Senator was John F. Kennedy in 1960.
This isn't 1960 and Hillary isn't JFK. And, although the reasoning escapes me entirely, our country won't be ready to elect just any Democrat.
I thought Howard Dean's best recommendation in 2004 was that he had been an excellent governor. I think some possibility exists that John Kerry's biggest problem was that he was a sitting Senator - he was running against history: the election really wasn't about him, his wife, his war record, his Iraq vote, or anything like that. That interpretation is extremely simplistic, I know, but the history is sobering.
I definitely would love to see Republicans nominate Frist, but we should avoid nominating Clinton, Biden, Lieberman, or any other Senator. I still love Dean. Other credible candidates are Mark Warner, Bill Richardson, maybe the brave, scrappy Gregoire. Perhaps - forgive me, Montanans - Brian Schweitzer. I'm even intrigued by what might be possible if Mike Bloomberg changed his registration back to Democrat.