(a vote count, as later reported, showed that Bush actually lost Florida in addition
the popular vote)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Wrong.

The Pro-Gore New York Times and Washington Post among others  have Bush winning recounts.

Vinny Valenti wrote: Presumably, but shouldn't be taken as fact. First Lady is not an elected position, so it should not be counted as far as experience goes. Her push for health care during that time is what started the level of resentment against her in the first place.

Aric Shapiro wrote: Other than getting face time with world leaders(or their wives) and collecting a ton of frequent flier miles, I don't see how first lady experiecne counts for much....

Understood completely.  Personally, I see it as, like I said, less a matter of "experience" and more of "familiarity" leading to a shorter period 'til you're really up to speed.  Of course, saying you're "more familiar" than your opponent doesn't sound nearly as impressive as "more experienced."

Me?  I wanna drag Access outta comic book limbo to give us an Amalgam Hilbama, as both have their plusses and minuses for me.

From Erik Larson:
Keeping an eye on the prize-- the next president could very well tip
things in a big way when it comes to the Supreme Court. It already leans
right and that's why they called the 2000 election in Bush's favor (a vote
count, as later reported, showed that Bush actually lost Florida in addition
the popular vote).

Link or something to back this up please.  Everything I read about the Florida situation was that Bush won.  Even if they did the Al Gore requested recounts Bush would have come out ahead. 

And please, let's stop this nonsense about the Supreme Court calling the election for Bush.  What the SC did was to stop the democrat controlled Florida Legislature from illegally changing it's own rules mid stream, not selecting the POTUS.

Keeping an eye on the prize-- the next president could very well tip
things in a big way when it comes to the Supreme Court. 

(snip...no point in resuscitating the '2000 Election in Florida'  stuff  again.)

A Clinton, Obama or McCain victory could lead to some
radical changes in the rules as we've known them.

Emphasis on 'could'.

There's a tendency by some people to worry too much about how a newly-elected President(whom those people didn't vote for) will 'shake up' the Supreme Court. In theory(a flawed theory apparently held by too many), a new President can just appoint whoever he wants (who shares his party/ideological leanings).  This came very close to happening in the '30s, when FDR wanted the rules changed by expanding the number of justics on the court, so that he could force more of his nominees through a Republican Congress which had rejected some of those nominees already.)

 In practice, a President cannot fill a Supreme Court vacancy until it exists. The worry that 'such and such a law will be overturned if  the 'other guy's candidate,Joe Fonebone, is elected instead of OUR guy, Roger Kaputnik,' is unwarranted. And besides, who honestly believes that EVERY nominee is from the same party as whoever's in the Oval Office?

But don't you think she was "regulated" to that role to deflect those criticisms? Can we honestly believe that her or other First Ladies don't have influence over their husbands policies? Hillary was just more blunt about it. Which makes people dislike her. Is there something in our legal system that says only special interest groups can tell politicians what to do and not their wives?