Why do you all keep saying 8 years? Is there a reason it wouldn't be in 4 years, when we do this all over again?

Sorry, I'm sure it's a stupid question but I've seen a few of you make the same reference and I just don't understand.

He has to assume that if he doesn't get the nomination this time it will be 8 years before he has another shot.

Because, as a Democrat he has to make his decisions on the assumption that the Democrat will win this time (and there is no real reason for that to seem obviously wrong at this time).

That means that he has to assume that in 4 years there will be an incumbent Democrat president and unless she is just a complete failure there would be no realistic chance for anybody else to win the nomination.

Yes, if Clinton gets the nomination this time and McCain wins, then he will certainly try again in four years, but I don't think he can make plans on the assumption that this will be an option available to him.

And that's also why this is probably Clinton's only real chance at it. She has to assume her next opportunity will be 2016. And by then she'll be 69.

Yes, McCain is 71 but we're going to soon start hearing a lot of whispering about how he is too old for the job (I agree, he is) and I think that will be even more difficult for a woman to overcome.

Thank you Alex, now it makes more sense to me. I don't know why my brain couldn't grasp that this morning.

I bet those rumors were started by the Clinton camp.....best way to win an election you're behind in is to act like you're ahead;)

I love it! (I like both of these guys better than anyone who is still currently running.

Now, now....all of those mysterious deaths that seem to surround the Clintons have been explained away don't you know;)

It's not really a rumor, or from her "camp". She said it on the early show. She was asked about the possibility and she said it's in the realm of possibility but first we have to see who would be at the top of the ticket.

Visible mojo, GD.:snap:

More reasons to doubt man made global warming.....

Climate panel on the hot seat

Well, my goodness... what more would anyone need than a commentary by H. Sterling Burnett.

He had me when he compared Gore to Goebbels.

But I was completely convinced when he attacked Krugman in the NYT for criticizing Exxon's CEO compensation, all while failing to mention his "independent" think tank was funded by Exxon.

*yawn*