and just for fun....

http://mx.youtube.com/watch?v=FOTAfGuLA-0

I think it will be McCain v. Obama but I have not counted out Hillary.  If she gets the nomination, it will be (or as importantly seem to be) the result of manuvering the super delagates.  I think it could be at the cost of the party and could cause the momentum of the party to slip and cause voter disinterst.  What is awesome about Obama's campaign is the excitement he has generated.  Bill Clinton never did that.  The last president to do that was Reagan.  I think if Clinton wins it will look like the "establishment" wins and many of the passionate Obama supporters will walk away.

As for the GOP -- clearly McCain is the nominee.  I don't think he will consider Powell though.  I think one of the shames of the Bush administration is I think they ruined Colin Powell.  It would be so easy to swiftboat him on his testimony to the UN about Iraq and paint him as either a liar or fool (neither of which I think is true).  I don't think he couldn't be rehabilitated but I think he has too much dignity to subject himself to the political arena again.  Also I don't think Powell would deliver the black vote (even if the opposition were Clinton).

If I were advising McCain I would advise him to consider a hispanic running mate.  Hispanics are an untapped goldmine of votes.  McCain is already on the "right" side of immigration for that constituancy imagine the impact a hispanic running mate could have.  It would also offset (somewhat) the "historic pull" of either an Obama or Clinton campaign.  I also think from a political perspective it could deliver hispanic voters to the GOP for decades, giving the party a much needed infusion of diversity.

Dunno about that.....whether or not people care to admit it, Bush's Administration seemed to have more minorities in top positions than any other (Powell, Rice, Gonzoles, etc), but I don't think it helped.

Vinny appointments do not speak to voters -- candidates do.  If a party wants to reach out to a group they make them part of the electoral process.  Give them faces and names they know to vote for so they feel represented.  Appointments are lobbyed for by interest groups and lobbyists.  Candidates are voted for by the people.

I'm dismayed by the number of Obama supporters who are calling for Clinton to drop out of the race "for the good of the party."  When Obama was behind in the delegate count, was he willing to drop out "for the good of the party?"  As demonstrated in Texas, Ohio and Rhode Island, there are still a lot of people in this country who favor Clinton.  Why should voters in subsequent states be denied their voice?  

I have always voted Republican.  And, as a Republican, it should be obvious why a long drawn out fight between Obama and Clinton can only help us.  As already demonstrated, Hilary has to go negative.  That, and crying, has given her some traction.  Her, "who do you want to be at the call at 3 a.m." commercial played right into Republican hands.  Who do you want at the phone?  McCain!  The more they swipe at each other, the better McCain looks.  And the more money they spend, the less they have for the general election. 

If those voters in subsequent states are Democrats, and they truly want a voice, it would be better if the Democrats resolved this well before the convention, because to do otherwise risks strengthening the Republican candidate.

As for prognostication, I feel Hilary, if nominated, will lose (even with a pissed-off at the Republican country mind set).  Obama fairs better, assuming Hilary doesn't put too many holes in him before the general election.

The more they swipe at each other, the better McCain looks.

***********

No. Not really. I find it funny that the big knock against Kerry was he was a flip flopper on so many issues. McCain has done the same thing but I don't see the supposedly liberal media calling him out on it.