On a recent trip with the First Ladies of Peru and Mexico at her side, Laura Bush said that she thinks the US is ready for a woman president. Interesting, but of course she's right. With rumors of a Hillary run in '08 it's an issue that is impossible for the First Lady to ignore. But did I forget to mention that the three First Ladies were visiting an archeological exhibit which highlights strong female figures from the Americas' pre-history? The excessive noise republicans have been making about Hillary in '08, and how 'afraid' they are of her never quite sat right with me. How could they be scared of an opponent who is so reviled by their social-conservative base that they wouldn't need to waste any resources to 'get out the vote'? There is nothing random about Mrs. Bush's trip or the story coming out of it; I can picture Brer Rove and the rest of the republican strategy machine howling in unison "Please don't throw us in that Briar Patch!!"

The GOP's hate for HIllary could be a God-send. If Republican voters are obsessed by the opposition they will not be obsessed by their nominee. In other words, you lose if you hate, you win if you love. It sounds stupid, but look at '04. Democrats were not in love with Kerry, they were in hate with Bush. That was the driving emotion for Democrats in '04, hate. Same for the GOP in '96. Republicans did not love Dole, they simply hated Clinton. It's no different than getting caught up in a circle of criticism. At some point solutions need to be adopted.

So, if Hillary, who is beloved by rank-and-file Democrats, is the nominee, I feel that will send the rank-and-file GOP into an hysteria of hate. And that hate will get in the way of them truly embracing their nominee. The nominee, like Kerry, will be defined only by their perceived ability to defeat Hillary. Again, even this becomes about Hillary.

Molly Ivins is a Democrat of Intelligence. And she does

not, and will not, support Hillary. She wrote an article about

why in the newest issue of Progressive Magazine. She also wrote

a recent column on the subject. And all without any vitriol

whatever.

So I think I am in good company when I too decline to accept

Hillary, or Bayh, or Lieberman, or Biden, or any other pro-

Bushwar Democratic Senator for Presidential nominee. If the

Democrats nominate Hillary LieberBayhDen, then let Haley Barbour

become President.

And I wouold hope that considering what we've seen over the past six years, we could all put aside our divisiveness and vote her in too -- if she runs.

Frankly, I don't think she will. She has been playing her cards close to her chest and doing what it takes to politically survive among the nest of snakes up there in Washington. It was not easy, considering how many people distanced themselves from the Clintons in the wake of the Monica debacle,(until they realized how much better when it was only the President was getting screwed versus a whole nation).

It took guts for her to run as a Senator when they wanted her to tuck her head under her armpits and retire as former first lady.

Regardless of unhappy we've been with the Democrats' recent performance, we should come out in force and vote FOR the next Democratic candidate -- whatever our personal opinions happen to be.

I think, considering the vitriol I'm seeing on these posts, that some Repugs are posing as Democrats bashing Hillary. It's difficult for me to imagine any Democrat of intelligence who has the merest inkling of how politics at the Washington level works, can fail to realize why she has made certain choices.

The ol' Hillster has long since cancelled her rent-a-spine contract and joined the Joe-mentum Lieberthing wing of the Vanilla Party. Clark, Edwards, Dean, Obama, Warner, in any mix and match combo will beat Frist the Kat Killer or George "Wallace" Allen. McCain would be tougher, even though he's a hun on foreign policy and has been Bushit's Bitch for five years. Go away, Hillary, and play in your NY sandbox.

No one can beat Wesley Clark on national security. He was the equivalent of a Head of State when he was Supreme Allied Commander on NATO. Put a governor or a senator as his running mate, and you're got a winning combination.

Besides, the right is TERRIFIED of him.

The backbone of the GOP's anti-Kerry campaign was, basically, "Fuck Massachusetts." Anyone from Massachusetts, up to and including Paul Revere, is a tax-loving left-wing moonbat who loves terrorism and hates apple pie. The GOP faithful has been eating up that bullshit for years. So, how exactly are they going to run someone from the state they love to hate?

I'm sorry to burst the bubble, but I would hope after Kerry's Disaster, the Dems would smarten up and run someone fluent in domestic policy. Run a governer, stupid.

Mark Warner of Virginia. Please.

Bill Frist is an evil little man, famous for obtaining cats from shelters and then killing them in order to experiment on their dead kitty flesh. Anti-abortion and pro-abstinence (yeah, right), he did a Karl Rove on Trent Lott in order to become Senate Majority Leader. Also known for being Dubya's Tax Cut Henchman, as well as for his famous mis-diagnosis (via video tape no less!) of Terri Schiavo. This guy will likely stop at nothing to get a toe-hold in the Whitehouse, and he didn't even vote himself until he was 36.

Mitt Romney, while having a very strong financial track record, is an abortion "flip-flopper" -- juggling his previous 'pro-safety vs. unsafe-illegal' opinion on abortion with his perceived perception of the nation's opinion. Now he's a confirmed Pro-Lifer. He is, however, a strong advocate for minority education, and he did introduce the $100 laptop to Massachusetts schools. This is a guy who is a tried-and-true Conservative, but I fear he still puts business interests over those of actual people.

Since the 1970s I have observed the tactics Republicans have used to influence which Democrat they would run against. Many times they have used ridicule to influence a Democrat to drop out of the race. Biden plagerized, Hart womanized, another candidate had been treated for depression... This often left Democrats with a weaker candidate.

Republicans tried this tactic on Bill Clinton, but it did not work. Now they are using the reverse tactic.

Immediately after the 2004 election they began saying at every public opportunity that Hillary would be a "formidable opponent" and that they did not perceive that Democrats really had anyone else. The media gleefully joined the chorus.

It appears that this is one "right wing conspiracy" for which Hillary has fallen. And by 2008 many other Democrats will have also. When Karl Rove said last week that Hillary absolutely will be the Democratic nominee, he meant it. And nothing would make him happier.

Dee Montgomery

Phoenix