You're winning the support of rabid right-wingers at the expense of the moderate Democrats and Independents who supported you in 2000 when the rabid right-wingers were viciously maligning you.

Being a POW in Vietnam couldn't break you, but the American political campaigning process could. Wow.

I think I've discovered a new "torture-lite" technique to use against enemy non-combatants.

Conservative pundit Charles Krauthammer offers up another reason for Republicans to hope for Hillary Clinton:

I could never vote for her, but I (and others of my ideological ilk) could live with her — precisely because she is so liberated from principle. Her liberalism, like her husband’s — flexible, disciplined, calculated, triangulated — always leaves open the possibility that she would do the right thing for the blessedly wrong (i.e. self-interested, ambition-serving, politically expedient) reason.

Krauthammer for Hillary: she's got no principles.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MWZmYTBhNWEzYjRjN2M5YjA1MDQ5OTYyZjQ5NjkxYmY=

Every president has a mandate. The mandate is to do something. That's why they were elected. However, there's no mandate for extremism, and possible Hillary Clinton moves like ending the war in Iraq and working for affordable healthcare are hardly extreme--a majority of the country wants these things.

Bush's problem (among many) is that he exercised his mandate as "I'm only accountable to the Republicans who voted for me." It doesn't work that way. You're president of all of the people and are accountable to all of the people.

I don't think Hillary Clinton will have any problem publicly disagreeing with Bill's policies.

In one of the fall debates, Hillary was asked about one politician's equivocations on possible exceptions to torture. She spoke out against it and was only then told that the quotes on torture were from Bill. Hillary's response to Tim Russert:

MR. RUSSERT: So he disagrees with you.

SEN. CLINTON: Well, he’s not standing here right now.

MR. RUSSERT: So there is a disagreement.

SEN. CLINTON: Well, I’ll talk to him later.

Bill Clinton was then asked about this exchange on Meet the Press. Bill responded that he was proud of Hillary and that he now agreed with her.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21065954/

Hillary Clinton can disagree with Bill's policies. She can also say that the policy was right at the time but wrong for today (eg., Don't Ask, Don't Tell). The difference is, Hillary can disagree with a predecessor without bashing him. And it's not like Bill Clinton will be running for office again, so she doesn't need to worry about his political career from that perspective.

And ultimately, I think most people really only remember two things about the Bill Clinton years: sex scandals and prosperity. They probably couldn't name two Clinton-era policies.

However, when people go to the poll, there is no ballot marked "who would you never vote for." There are basically two names (sometimes a semi-viable third). You vote for one of these or no one at all. And that's assuming you even show up.

In the Gallup head-to-head polls thus far, Hillary Clinton beats any likely Republican candidate (Romney, Giuliani).

John Edwards is already running as the angry (but telegenic) populist. Duncan Hunter is already running as Mr. Anti-Immigration. What does Lou Dobbs bring to the table?

Please. Dobbs is trying to boost his ratings and sell his new book Independents Day: Awakening the American Spirit. Says Dobbs, "I believe the person elected a year from now will be an Independent populist." You can't really believe that. You might hope for it, but you'd be a fool for believing it.

It's FOUR "mads." But kudos for the great movie reference.