Hillary Clinton Prepares for a 2008 Run (from Time Magazine)

Time magazine's new issue tomorrow is featuring an article about Senator Hillary Clinton and her quiet preparations for a Presidental run in 2008.  

I confess that I had a strong reaction: disappointment.  But I'll explain why.

From Time:

Should Hillary run? Could Hillary win? Is this a dynasty in the making? Is a Clinton candidacy good for the republic? Normally, those would be questions that only political consultants would be asking at this stage, but given the outsize status of both Clintons, ordinary voters are already wondering the same thing. Hillary would step into the race as the instant front runner, but the risks would be enormous. It is hard to imagine a greater vindication than seeing the second President ever impeached hold the Bible as his wife takes the oath of office.

But if Hillary ran and lost, both Clintons would come out tarnished--no small consideration when a promising Senate career and a presidential legacy are in the balance. So sensitive is the question of Hillary's future that both Clintons refused to let Time interview them about it, and they discouraged those around them from talking, which explains why nearly all the people who did talk did so on the condition that their name not be used.

Fellow Kossacks, I am tired of politicans who continue to shroud secrecy and discourage others from speaking the truth.  This was not the first time the Clintons have been so closed mouthed.  I know Hillary Clinton would like to go ahead and wrap up her 2006 election this year, and can as she has weak opponents for the upcoming primary next month and for general election.  But like Joe Lieberman, I think she should step aside on a presidental bid, and do what is best for the good of the country and her party.  Otherwise, as the Time article points out, her asset, her husband, is also a liability, especially with swing voters.  

More than half of those surveyed--53% --said they had a favorable impression of her; she registered higher than the other most familiar names in the potential Democratic field, Al Gore (49% ), John Edwards (46% ) and John Kerry (45% ). Her negative ratings (44% ) were lower than either Kerry's or Gore's. Edwards generated fewer negative reviews (31% ), but 23% of those polled said they didn't know enough about him to have an opinion one way or the other.

I don't know who Time polled in terms of these numbers, but I do know that the Netroots favored John Edwards the most (76%), and an early June poll showed John Edwards leading over Hillary Clinton, 31% to her 26% in Iowa.

If she is planning a run, I think I would be looking at two different things: 1) 2008 Primary Season, which favors Edwards since he is well thought of in Iowa, Nevada, and SC; and 2) the neighboring race in Connecticut.  If Ned pulls off a win, which many of us hope he does, it will mean that for the first time, the Netroots are taking hold.  Thus, she would be entering our world rather late, when Warner, Clark, and Edwards clearly have more engaging sites; I hear Kerry's is being redesigned as I type.

The man I think has the best chance to win is John Edwards.  I think the American voter is tired of the lies that this administration has told us, tired of the mistruths that many politicians have told us (hence, Lieberman cannot understand why the Dems ousted him), and we want someone to be real, authentic, and a man who embodies goodness via his family. I saw mbair's vlog last Friday of Edwards stumping for Lamont, and I thought to myself, Ned is a lot like Edwards.  They care about people more than their egos; they want to help our country.  For more about Edwards' positions, here's a link.

Lastly, I know I would prefer Elizabeth Edwards as our First Lady over Bill Clinton as First Gentleman.  I met Elizabeth for the time last month, and she is warm and genuine.  She also blogged on my own personal blog to make a comment.   I also met John Edwards in June and had a nice 10 minute conversation with him, and he wears the white "Make Poverty History" band that I gave him at most events, I've noticed, since I saw him.

We need those kinds of leaders--ones who aren't afraid to touch us, show care, compassion, fight with their intellects and hearts...and who can help heal our country, as well as perhaps begin the healing in the Middle East--by getting our guys of there, which Edwards has said we need to do.