What can change all this is the Clinton attack machine and how effective it is. Right now it seems to be fully focused on Obama, but at some point they are going to have start going after Guiliani. Face it, that's the only chance they have, dig up dirt, true or otherwise, then work their media contacts to get the smear.

You have to give the Clintons some credit. Their ability to execute the most vile and repugnant of cheap-shots and dirty tricks, and then pin it on a never-ending stream apparently-willing scapegoats, is a brilliant as it is nauseating. It took them about a month to get out some racist hits on Obama, and of course, Hillary dodged the fallout.

Kim: I recently had to caution Lorie about a new federal law that requires the use of at least one exclamation mark after Hillary's name. Uncertain if using more than one will get you off-the-hook for previous lapses.

I really hope she gets the nomination.

I worked for Richard Nixon as a young guy, trying hard to overlook the long running consensus that he was dishonest. This eventually brought him down. Voters can probably save themselves a lot of problems by choosing someone other than Hillary. On the other hand, the adultery and girlfriend scandal of Giuliani while mayor of NYC didn't speak very well for his character either. Rev. Robert Schuller once explained that any man who who cheat on his own wife, would also cheat in business or politics as well. I think that sounds about right.

I'd strongly prefer to see two candidates I can respect running against each other in 2008, and neither Clinton or Giuliani.

If we forget history so soon we will repeat it.

Trivia Question: What percent did Bill Clinton get in his first and second run for President?

Answer: Hillary doesn't need 50% to win, she only needs to get McCain to run if Guiliani wins or Guiliani to run if Romney wins, etc, etc and thus split the vote.

Be ready because this is what they will attempt to accomplish. They won't try and get 50% plus votes, they will simply hold tight to 43% and make sure all of their opponents get less than that.

Hillary, Shmillary.

Bring on Obamarama!

Guiliani faces difficulties in securing a conservative base and political experience limited to being a major. No state or national governmental experience is an obstacle and gaining the nomination will be a real challenge.

His greatest difficulty however lies in the obstacles any republican candidate will face. The legacy of the war in Iraq and eight years of a republican administration. People are ready for a change. The liberal media have seen to that.

God help us all.

An elderly gentleman walks up to the White House entrance and asks admittance by stating, "I would like to go inside and meet with President Hillary Clinton."

The Marine guard at the gate explains to the man, "Sir, Mrs Clinton is not the President."

The man walks away but comes back the next day and again approaches the gate and asks the same Marine guard, "I would like to go inside and meet with President Hillary Clinton."

Again, the marine respectfully explains to the man, "Sir, Mrs Clinton is not the President."

Again the man walks away and again the next day approaches the gate and once again asks the marine guard, "I would like to go inside and meet with President Hillary Clinton."

The marine guard is somewhat annoyed and calmly says, "Sir, this is the third day in a row you have asked to meet with President Hillary Clinton. Please believe me. She is not the President!"

The elderly gentleman smiles and says, "Young man, I know that. I just like hearing you say it."

The Marine comes to attention, snaps a salute to the gentleman, and says, "See you tomorrow, sir!"

they will simply hold tight to 43% and make sure all of their opponents get less than that.

Oh, is that all?! If it's that easy, why didn't you say so in 2000 and 2004?!

I think Rudy would be a good nominee for the Democrat party, but he has no chance of being the Republican nominee with so many leftist positions.

Partial birth abortion
Gun Grabber
Open Borders/Amnesty
Pro gay marriage
etc...

I think a poll this early is meaningless because Republicans haven't figured out yet that Rudy is basically a full on leftist.

There are several games afoot right now: 1) The polls which you cite 2) The money (we'll know at the end of march) 3) And then, the endorsements. Winner? Romney, hands down:

http://www.mymanmitt.com/mitt-romney/2007/02/2008-endorsements-top-gop-candidates.asp

This is by no means scientific but it's a pretty good reflection of where things stand:

Romney: 245
McCain: 118
Rudy: 22

"By no means scientific" is right. Come on Justin, campaign shills are supposed to identify themselves.

Baggi, your assessment assumes that either McCain or Giuliani (but not Romney?) are disloyal enough to the party to run as independent candidates? You think Lieberman started some sort of trend or something?

That will never happen.

I can't imagine anything that could happen that would cause such a change that the American voters would suddenly see Hillary as the only person capable of solving our problems.

I can. The first debate. When the American realize that Guiliani is in favor of keeping our troops indefinitely bogged down in the quagmire of Iraq Hillary is going to start looking a lot better to people.

Whoever the Republican candidate is, he is going to have to run carrying Bush's baggage on Iraq. If you think people were pissed off about Iraq in 2006, just imagine how angry they will be by 2008 when nothing has changed and another 3,000 of our heroes have been sacrificed. There will be an electoral tsunami that is going to wipe Republicans out from the White House down to city councils across America.

At the end of the day Rudy will be the Republican nominee...
Republicans will be pragmatic because they don't want
Billary or Osama or the Breck girl to win. It is really
as simple as that.

Larkin your an idiot.

Ditto on larkin.

here's a video I can guarantee you Rudy would prefer you didn't see. Not exactly presidential:
http://minor-ripper.blogspot.com/2007/02/video-rudy-giuliani-does-not-want-you.html

minoripper - oh big deal. Give me an break and why don't you
take a little time to grow up. My god you are such a twerp.

Iraq = electoral disaster for the Republicans in 2008. Go ahead and explain to me how this will not be the case, barring the unlikely possibility that there's no civil war, Al Qaeda in Iraq is defeated, and our troops are mostly home (in which case, the election will be about the economy).

Evans-Novak Political Report, 1/17/07:

The gloom pervading the Republican Party cannot be exaggerated. The long-range GOP outlook for 2008 is grim. The consensus is that U.S. troops must be off the ground of Iraq by next year to prevent an electoral catastrophe in the next election.

You see Larkin the difference between you and me is that 1) I am not a idiot like yourself and 2) I don't have a crystal ball.
November '08 is a long, long time away. Mucho can happen.
I don't listen to pundits or "stragetists". They know squat. They get paid to spew whatever is in their head at that moment.
Iraq...who knows? But one thing I do know and that comes from common sense(something that you do not have)that is if the Dims put up either Billary, Osama or the Breck girl...they will lose.
51% of Americans arw not inclined to be led by idiots.
Fortunently the Dimo's have driven away the two Dim's who could have been elected...Warner and Bayh.

What exactly have Obama or HillBillary done to deserve the presidency? What are their major accomplishments? Have either of them ever been CEO of ANYTHING? Have they ever had to sign the FRONT of a payroll check?

Schemes and scams plus media endorsement and bias has been a mainstay of Dim strategy, and it works. Hillary will try to draw attention to everything and anything but the security of the country.

yo jhow-
how excited are you about it being saturday? on your knees in the men's room tonight?

slingshot - that was a really intelligent response....oh wait... your a DimoRat...now it makes sense.

Rudy will have some problems with the GOP nod for sure with some of his moderate/liberal positions on the issues mentioned, but this will make him much more acceptable to the national electorate. I suspect if he gets the GOP nod he would do significantly better than either Senators Clinton or Obama, but perhaps would have problems if Senator Bayh/Biden or perhaps Governor Richardson.

I confess I support Rudy big time.
Jeff

Jeff is correct. Rudy's centrist position makes him much more electable -- look at Schwarzenegger out in California. Arnold proves that RINOs are more electable than conservatives in a liberal-leaning environment.

Michael says "2) I don't have a crystal ball."

Then, Michael says (in the same post, incredibly): "But one thing I do know and that comes from common sense(something that you do not have)that is if the Dims put up either Billary, Osama or the Breck girl...they will lose."

One sure sign of an idiot is someone who says two things that are completely contradictory in the same post. Congratulations Michael.

It doesn't take a crystal ball to figure that if the 2008 election is a rerun of 2006 that it's bad news for Republicans up and down the ticket. If the issues are the same, the result will be the same. People aren't going to feel better about Iraq when another 3000 of our finest have been killed there.

Rudy will have some problems with the GOP nod for sure with some of his moderate/liberal positions on the issues mentioned

Don't forget Jeff that the right-wing attack machine hasn't taken out the long knives on Guiliani yet. When they do it's going to be ugly and is sure to drive Guiliani's negatives up.

Hillary's negatives on the other hand have nowhere to go but down because everything about her is already out of the closet.

We will see Larkin we will see.

I'm not worried...but you seem to be.

Might not want to get to far ahead there Larkin because Dick Morris's book on Shillary has not come out yet. Like the old saying goes,"you ain't seen nuthing yet".

"slingshit" it won't do me any good as they all say they are waiting on you. gotchu

Larkin, are you suggesting that Giuliani has something about him still in the closet?

The sorts for whom Giuliani's pro-choice stance or his gay-pride parade participation or his infidelities mean they will *never* vote for him, already know about those things. People who vote strictly on those issues pay attention and they already know about them. Someone who's response is "Giuliani who?" isn't likely to be in that group.

And most certainly isn't going to respond to finding out "Giuliani who?" with "Oh, well, guess I'll vote for Hillary."

Larkin,

Too early it is indeed to schedule a victory celebration for Rudy, even though it is clear he would win if elections were held today.

But not too early to predict: "an electoral tsunami that is going to wipe Republicans out from the White House down to city councils across America."

Too early or not? That is the question.

Talk about contradictions!

Negatives, you should know, don't go down much ever, and Hill has been sporting 40%+ for some time (well earned too).

The reasons she gets killed (64% to 27%) with independents against Giuliani are the flip-flops on the war and no advantage on choice.

In 1983 Giuliani indicted an arms racketeer named Marc Rich who fled the country and didn't return until Clinton pardoned him in the last 30 seconds of his presidency. Giuliani will hang this around Hillary's neck like an anchor.

I love how you keep talking about 3,000 of america's finest. They are the finest no doubt but this time during the Vietman war we had lost in the hundreds of thousands of men. Keep sucking up the negative spin from the media and you'll be ok. In less than three years we toppled a regime and saw it's former dictator hung. That's a success in my book.

Oh yeah and one more thing, about your 2004 election comparison...it's a wash because Nader's gonna run again and so might Gore (per oscar night)... so the vote splitting is mute.

Winner? Guliani by a long shot. The ONLY one with real leadership experience.