Reg,

I'll admit it reads better than I remember it sounding/looking.  Of course my argument would be more compelling if I remembered a few more details, but what is clear to me is how much he appeared to lack conviction.  I'm also remembering subsequent discussions, including some of the more recent Democratic debates, where I just flat out disagreed with his take/position on a number of issues. 

I do get the sense that he's serious about wanting to help, but I'm not at all sure I like his prescription.  Obama has already showed his naivete on any number of international relations questions, so I think the Democrats are in fact left with Hillary in the absence of Gore. 

I think you were the one who called her the "Republican" candidate on the basis of how they would be able to control her by ramping up the anti-Clinton machine if she were to win.  I share that concern as that the kind of right wing religious-nut crap that was flung at Bill by the likes of Pat Robertson was nauseating to me.  I'd like to think that dissatisfaction with the Bush administration would insulate her from those types of attacks.  And if she were more like and old school, cautious-on-spending Republican (at least more so than Edwards) than that would be a good thing, in my opinion.  You may disagree.

I don't see any Republican challenging her with the possible exception of Giuliani.  And while I respect his abilities as an executive, I like many others question whether his style is appropriate for the White House as opposed to a mayorship.  Romney has taken too many positions that I flat out disagree with.  McCain has no shot, and Thompson, while seeming to be a decent man, hasn't really shown anything that might make us think he's presidential material. 

If the election were this Tuesday, I'd suggest about a 90% probability of a Clinton victory.  It will be kind of fun to see what this year brings, I think.