Women Still Secretaries

Badum Bum. Hillary Clinton? While Bill Richardson would probably be a better choice, Hillary Clinton has earned a spot in the White House, and still represents a fairly brilliant politician. So... Neat.

Considering this is not necessarily real news, here is a photograph of Snoop Dogg back in High School.

Hillary Clinton's Speech

No matter what you may think of Hillary Clinton as a candidate, she made a great speech today. It is exceedingly difficult for anyone that has to drop out of the race after all this time to come off as though she completely supports her opponent, and she succeeded in a way that I didn't think possible.

So now it is time to help elect Barack Obama. For Hillary supporters, it's time to start relaxing and rally behind the Democratic candidate. The race may have been heated at times, but Barack Obama is a good candidate, and we need to get him elected. The alternative is far too dangerous.

Eniwon ButBoosh

The title is in reference to this post I did almost a year ago.

Clinton had a huge victory today - One that has caused her to reconsider dropping out before Tuesday. The Victory? Puerto Rico. Wow.

You should just drop out. I'm not saying that with any spite, but a victory in Puerto Rico is not a sign you could come back. At this point you're just wasting money that could be used to help Barack Obama piss off voters in West Virginia.

-----

I got a spam email today that told me I need to "update my penis." What does that even mean?

Barack Obama for President in 2008

This entire election, I've refrained from choosing between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama (as well as John Edwards and Bill Richardson when they were in the race) for the Democratic Nominee. This was because I have tremendous respect for both. Barack Obama is an amazing speaker, a proud liberal and a good politician. Hillary Clinton is a brilliant political mind who, although she may not be as liberal, would clearly be able to accomplish a lot and make fewer mistakes than possibly any president in history. By coming out on one side or another, I felt like I would have been demonstrating some type of dislike for the other candidate, which would have been erroneous. I liked all of them, and whoever was chosen I would have both accepted and been satisfied with.

But now the primaries are coming to a close, and I have decided that, although the election is not yet over, I am going to support Barack Obama outwardly from this point out. The man is a fantastic candidate. He can win. He's the one.

I would still support Hillary Clinton if she got the nomination, and I wouldn't whine or groan. She's still an amazing candidate and she is still a political genius - possibly better than her husband. But I did not think she would be the type of politician that would purposely help ruin her party just to get the nomination. She should be dropping out. I expected her to drop out. She has not dropped out. It is difficult for me to respect someone that puts the presidency over the Democracy.

So here's to Barack Obama. You have my support and blessing. Time to get out there and beat the fucking shit out of John McCain. Make him cry.

Dem Running Mates

While the race for the Democrat’s presidential candidate has been narrowed down to two candidates, it is the candidate’s running mate whose job it is to represent the weaknesses the Republican strategists will try to exploit once the countdown to the November elections begin. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have very different platforms, and as such they will each need different running mates to combat Republican attacks.

SENATOR EVAN BAYH

Evan Bayh is the current Senator and former Governor of Indiana. Loyal to the Clinton family, Bayh has already been talked about as a possible running mate for Hillary Clinton should she win the Democratic nomination. He is a popular leader in Indiana, which is also considered a swing state and support for him could help Clinton win the state in the national elections. Bayh is considered a “moderate” Democrat, but his views on gay rights and abortion should keep most left leaning Democrats satisfied.

GOVERNOR TOM VILSACK

Vilsack may have been the first to drop out of the race for the white house in early 2007, but he left a positive impression on those who were introduced to him. As a Governor, his record is automatically more difficult to attack, and Iowa, the state he ran, is a swing state – something that gives him bonus points as he is considered for a running mate. Vilsack would best compliment Barack Obama, as he is a Caucasian male in his late 50’s. And he will be young enough to run for president again in 8 years, something that the Democratic party is looking for. He has, however, already endorsed Hillary Clinton, which could affect his chances of Obama selecting him.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD FORD

Fresh off a close attempt to become Governor of Tennessee in 2006, Harold Ford gained celebrity status as he was vying to be the first African-American governor of a largely Republican state. He is a social conservative, which could hurt his support among the Democratic party, but he represents a diverse alternative should Barack Obama lose and Hillary Clinton take the Democratic nomination. Still, critics are skeptical of his chances, because the decision to choose him as Clinton’s running mate could seem like a poorly veiled ploy by the Clinton campaign to try to take back some of Obama’s supporters.

SENATOR JOHN EDWARDS

Following his second unsuccessful bid for the presidency, it is unlikely that former senator John Edwards will accept the role as running mate to the winner of the Democratic primaries. But his die hard supporters would love to see him back in the political area, and although he may have lost the Democratic nomination, he is still well liked across the country. His southern credentials may help counterbalance Barack Obama’s presence in Illinois, and his charisma would certainly be a benefit on the campaign trail.

GOVERNOR MARK WARNER

Mark Warner, former governor of Virginia, gained notoriety for being a two term liberal Democratic governor in a largely Republican state. He was also involved in several public efforts to improve health care and education, making him likeable even outside of Virginia. Warner would be a good running mate for either Obama or Clinton, but he is the prime candidate for the Virginia senate seat and the Democratic party may want to him to focus his efforts on taking the seat away from the Republican party, as John Warner, the incumbent, is resigning after this year.

SENATOR CHRIS DODD

Chris Dodd, known for his excellent oratory abilities, charming personality, and years of experience in the senate was one of the top candidates to become Barack Obama’s running mate, should Obama win the Democratic nomination. He has been an immensely popular senator for years, winning each election handily over the past 28 years. After endorsing Barack Obama’s bid for president, Dodd stated that he had no desire to become anyone’ s vice president in the upcoming elections. Still, it is impossible to rule him out as a candidate as he is still an experienced congressman that could help offset some of Barack Obama’s attack points.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK

A four-star general and a Rhodes scholar, General Wesley Clark is the leading candidate to be the running mate for both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Born in Chicago in 1944, Clark graduated from West Point as the Valedictorian before serving in Vietnam. After the war, Clark’s reputation as a brilliant military mind quickly rose him through the ranks, eventually landing him as a four-star general and the direct ear of then-President Bill Clinton. General Wesley Clark’s reputation and history make him the perfect complement to both of the Democratic nominees, as he easily reflects the most common Republican attacks. As a four star general, it will be difficult for the Republicans to claim the Democratic candidates are soft on the military. As a Caucasian male, he can help offset any lingering fears about electing the first black or female president. And, because he ran for president in 2004, many Americans already know who he is – which can be a huge benefit to whoever is the candidate.

THE RUNNING MATES

The 2008 election will feature the first black or female Democratic or Republican candidate in the history of the United States. Regardless of who ends up as the Democratic running mate, the election stands to be a major step forward in US history. Still, the goal of the Democratic party is not to feature the first female or black candidate – the goal of the Democratic party is to have the first female or black president. As such, choosing the right running mate will be vital to make up for any qualities the presidential candidate is lacking, as well as represent a positive voice during the campaign and ultimately the election.

Delay.

There has been a delay in posts recently. But I quit my job last week and I'll be freelancing from home for a while so hopefully the number of posts will pick up.

Until then, pay attention to what Howard Dean does about the Super Delegates fiasco. One thing is clear - if Barack Obama wins the popular vote, but Hillary Clinton wins the nomination because of the Super Delegates, that's going to be a huge issue that will take all of the steam out of the Democratic prowess that they are currently running with. If nothing is fixed, let's hope that Hillary Clinton wins the nomination legitimately.

Poll: 100% of Americans Hate Polls.

Take this for what it's worth - but I explained in this post how no one that supports the Democrats should be upset if Clinton or Obama or Edwards ends up with the nomination, no matter how passionately they want one of those three to take it, because all three are amazing candidates that, quite frankly, blow the Republican options out of the water.

Well, a CNN/Opinion research poll has been released that reinforces that point. The poll, which should be ignored after reading it, is showing that all the Democratic candidates poll higher than the Republican candidates in a head to head match up by a statistically significant amount. The only exception of John McCain, who was close to both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in the polls. But popular opinion is that if McCain runs, he is going to be destroyed in a debate against the Democrats. A colleague of mine, who supports Barack Obama, said to me in response to the polling numbers: "No matter what you think of Hillary Clinton, she will demolish John McCain in a debate. I almost want to see that. I would almost vote for Hillary Clinton instead, if it gave me an opportunity to watch her debate McCain."

Also hilarious was the statistic about Mitt Romney's candidacy that said 62% of the country would not vote for him under any circumstances, regardless of the Democratic candidate. Romney in 08!!!!

What should we take away from this? Well, first of all this is great news to all of those who support Hillary Clinton but were worried that she is too disliked to win against the Republicans. Secondly, it shows us that we do not have to let our votes in the primaries be influenced by our worries about who will win. We no longer have to worry that Obama won't win because he's black or Clinton because she's disliked, or Edwards because he was a previously a candidate. Those of you that are taking a stand in the primaries are not free to place your vote for you who you like, rather than let if you think they will win influence your judgment.

Weighing in: Bill Richardson and Obama V. Clinton

Bill Richardson dropped out today. I liked him, but he didn't stand a chance in a field with 3 people considered Rock Stars by the rest of the country. And, to be fair, one of his strong points was that he was a Governor with a long resume of experience in Washington. This election race has already proven those qualifications unnecessary. His slip when asked if being a homosexual was a choice, and his answer was "I'm not a doctor" placed the final nail in his political coffin. Almost everyone recognized it was a mistake, but to beat Clinton, Obama and Edwards, he could not afford mistakes.

On to the remaining contenders:

Edwards is an interesting case. He's a great candidate, stands for all the right issues. But in at a time when simply not being a Republican is a huge positive, he has one glaring flaw: He's not the first of anything. He's not going to be the first woman, he's not going to be the first president of color.

If Edwards gets the nomination by sweeping on the 5th, I'll write about him a lot more. He's still a great candidate. But for now, he isn't going to get many bytes dedicated to his candidacy on this website. It is not personal - this blog (ie, me) doesn't support any candidate in particular. Each has their pros and cons, all of them are better than the other side's candidates, and I believe, with the exception of probably Huckabee, none of them will lose to a Republican candidate.

So without further ado, here is a brief analysis of Obama v. Clinton:

Neither one is perfect, but neither is as flawed as their die hard supports will lead you to believe. I'll start with Hillary, as she is the most hated of the group.

Hillary Clinton is outstanding politically. Outstanding. I'd say she's even better than her husband with the exception of his Obama-like Charisma. Hillary does not make mistakes. And in a world where making just a few mistakes can be the difference between success and failure, this is an amazing accomplishment. Always remember that politics is just that. Politics. Imagine you have a job that requires a skilled typist, and you find a person who can type 200 words a minute with no errors. She's less likable than the other candidates for the job, but she's still really, really good at it. Even if you like Edwards or Obama more, if she ends up being the candidate, you should still be excited, because you're getting a candidate that does not make mistakes.

For that same reason, however, she's flawed. To get political work done, you're automatically doing two things. First, you're forced to acknowledge and respond to the needs of the other side. For politics to work, you need some sort of balance. Already, Hillary loses points, because she can't be as liberal as we all wish she were. Now, whether she is genuinely liberal or not is not the issue. She can't acknowledge the need for gay marriages, whether she believes in them or not, because she can't justify that belief with Republicans. Civil Unions she can. She can't say she plans on taking all of the troops out of Iraq because she can't justify that belief with the 30% of people that still think it was a good idea. Pulling the majority of the troops out, she can. For her to keep this political advantage (by that I mean, the fact that she's better at it than everyone else) she has to keep the balance between what we want (the Democratic party) and what she can justify to the right. If you're liberal, it's hard to stomach this. If you're a Republican, just because she can justify it doesn't mean you'll care or bite - so she isn't really more liked for this by the right, and liked less by the left. But she still needs to maintain this balance to keep the advantage.

(Video posted for no reason. But give me 5 stars, okay?)

Second, the fact that she doesn't make mistakes is one of the reasons many people dislike her. She appears fake, disingenuous. Obama does not. Edwards does not. This immediately makes her less likable. I don't have much to say on this, other than I want you to remember that George Bush was elected for being likable, and we saw how that turned out. Likability is not the best criteria. Though that is not to say it isn't important. How likable she is will eventually dictate at least a little of what she will be able to get done once in office. Similarly, by not being likable, if she ever does make a mistake her popularity will drop much faster than Obama's would if he made the same mistake, because it's easier to forget negative things about people we like.

Issues about her past should, in my opinion, be taken with a grain of salt. I don't expect anyone on either side, with the exception of Giuliani, to be corrupt upon taking office. I could care less if a candidate had money in oil companies, etc., unless I thought it would affect their job as president, which in this case I don't. Bush was corrupt, Cheney - obviously. These candidates, both Democratic and Republican alike, are not those two.

And for those that actually have a problem with her sticking with her husband after Lewinsky (I'm talking to you, racist commenters that post on AOL blogs), you need to get over it. Funny that the people who have the biggest problem with it seem to be voting for Giuliani. Is it necessary to bring up the kind of crap he's pulled?

So Hillary Clinton is a great candidate. Not perfect, but incredibly skilled with the potential to do great things. Does that mean she will? Not necessarily. To use a baseball analogy, not all prospects pan out as expected, but that's no reason to give up on them before they reach the Bigs.

Now, Barack Obama also has that much potential. Let's start with responding to his strengths:

First, he's likable, charismatic, a great speaker - he gives the impression of being a leader, something many of us noticed when he spoke at the Democratic Convention in 2004. Whatever people say about his abilities because of his short time in office is bunk. Obama knows what he's doing. He's not as polished as Hillary, no, but again, it's hard to be. Still, his likability allows most of us to ignore his mistakes, and so he is at far less risk of unexpectedly dropping in popularity because of a speech blunder.

Similarly, the guy is good. Very good. Politics often takes some degree of manipulation - not for a vindictive reason, but because it's necessary to sway people to your side. Obama doesn't need that manipulation. He's believable. He explains his points clearly and wins over his opponents simply because they can see the truth in his words. And he's liberal, inarguably. So that's a plus.

As for his flaws - they, too, are questionable. Not enough experience? Please. Experience seems to have a fairly low correlation with abilities. If any of you have worked for a boss, chances are you know this to be true. Cheney had a lot of experience. 'Nuff said.

On the flipside, he does make mistakes, and he lacks some of the clout of Clinton. But again, he has the charisma and the knowledge to get better. While there are no guarantees he can make this adjustment, he's shown no reason to believe he doesn't have the ability. Consider where he has come in 2 years. Part of politics is getting public support, and there is no question that Barack Obama can garner more public support than any of the other current presidential candidates.

That makes him an incredible force.

So, in my opinion, the question comes down to one thing: Who can win? And the answer is: Both of them. The Republican candidates suck. They're really, really bad. They're the "Dude Where's My Car" of Presidential politics. The only exception would be Huckabee vs. Clinton. In that one instance, I think Huckabee would be difficult to beat. Otherwise, they're both going to beat any other candidate the Republicans have to offer (especially with Wesley Clark as Vice President, yeah?) . True, Clinton is HATED by Republicans. For a lot of people, they worry that she will lose because there will be a high Republican turn out just to defeat her. I have three responses to this: First, I think she's a strong enough candidate that she'll still win. Second, don't forget that Obama's best demographic is young voters - and I'm not convinced they're going to be running the polls any differently than any other year. Finally, I don't know about you, but I personally like something more when it pisses off Republicans.

Once more, however, if you are a woman, voting for Hillary Clinton because she is also a woman is a bad idea. Similarly, voting for Obama because he is black is equally bad. Remember, NeoConservatives vote for their candidates based on their religion. Let's not be like them.

You can, however, be excited that those two candidates will be the first of something. The first black president OR the first woman. That's exciting. But if you vote for Hillary because she's female, you're basically saying: "I'm not voting for Obama because I'm not black, I'm female." You are WELCOME to like her, and you may even like her because she is female, but that should not be WHY you're voting for her. Same goes for Barack.

So they can both win, and they are both great candidates. So who should you vote for?

Well... Both of them. If you have opinions one way or the other, I encourage you to make your pick at the primaries. There is nothing wrong with a preference for a candidate, and if you have one, I hope you vote for them in the Primary in your state. But be happy you have these candidates to choose from and be excited even if the candidate you'd prefer does not end up as the Democratic pick. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards are phenomenal candidates, and though you may like one over the others, I'd take those three over Mitt Romney, John McCain and Rudy Giuliani any day.

Go Democrats, 2008.

The Hillary Clinton Nut Cracker

Got this in a forward:

It's kinda funny. It looks like you can buy it here.

What's New With the Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton has issued a new statement regarding the Iraq war. She has announced that she is willing to lose the anti-war vote rather than claim she would not have supported the war, "Which I don't agree with."

"If the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast that vote or who has said that vote was a mistake, then there are others to choose from."

Her statement, of course, referring to Barack Obama who is on record for not supporting the war (although not in office at the time of the vote) and John Edwards, who casted his vote for the war but has since denounced it as the result of misinformation.

Her adviser, Richard C. Holbrooke, revealed that “Some of her many advisers think she should’ve uttered the three magic words — ‘I was wrong’ — but she believes it’s self-evident that the Senate Iraq resolution was based on false intelligence and never should’ve come to a vote.”

And in this case I agree. Needing the Democratic Senator to claim she is sorry for her vote is like believing that Michael Richards's or Mel Gibson's apologies have any value. They don't. Since then she has announced the war to be a disaster, announced that they were given faulty intelligence and been a vocal critic, even calling for a withdrawal to begin within 3 months. She's not Joe Lieberman, who still supports the disaster, so an apology would be a meaningless set of words used only as a strategic veil to help get her elected. She's not the most liberal candidate, and you can dislike her over Barack Obama if you like, but at least worry about the issues rather than a war that she will likely be responsible for in 2 years.

I'm not happy with some of her stances on the issues, but I'm thinking in the general terms of "who can win" and "who do I like." I like Obama, Clinton AND Edwards. So I'm going to worry about who can win. However, if you're still debating "who do I like?" You should probably not worry about a hollow apology and start worrying about the issues that will affect our country in the future.

Answers to Hillary Clinton Questions - Just the FAQs

The basics: Answers to questions about Hillary Clinton's chance at presidency.

Question - Is America ready for a female president?
Answer - Yes. When it comes to public office, most people have become blind to gender. Provided she appears as a strong, hard hitting candidate, it will not affect her chances and may actually be a bonus with moderate female voters. Besides, most of the remaining blatant sexists vote Republican. And if there is a hegemony remaining in the more liberal/moderate population, a male vice president should put those societal subconscious worries at ease.

Question - Is Hillary's greatest strength her husband's fame?
Answer - No. While Former President Bill Clinton may be the reason Hillary was thrown immediately into the spotlight, Hillary has created her own place in Congress, taken on lead roles, including those in the Armed Services Committee, the Environment and Public Works Committee, and the Special Committee on Aging, among others.

Question - Will her Husband's problems in 1998 affect her bid for presidency?
Answer - No. Because even talking about them is a waste of breath, since they have nothing to do with anything.

Question - Is Hillary too liberal to win over moderate Republicans?
Answer - No. In fact, she is not even close to the most liberal member of the Democratic Senate. While the far right will try to paint her as "liberal" thanks to their own disdain (and insecurities) about her husband, the fact according to Almanac of American Politics, which rates senators on a scale from 1 (100% Conservative) and 100 (100% Liberal), Hillary ranks a 68, well enough near the center to appeal to moderate independents.

Question - Is America going to elect a Senator to the presidency?
Answer - Yes/No. This is the most valid concern about her chances at the white house. It is difficult for a Senator to run for president because it is easy to skew voting records and spin them to paint the candidate in an ugly light. Governors, on the other hand, have little to no voting record, so that even the most incompetent dolt can be elected president despite sub par qualifications and intelligence. However, Hillary Clinton of all senators has been outspoken, unafraid to challenge responses to her voting record, and willing to explain her tough decisions. Equally in her favor, is that most of the potential opponents from the Republican Party are Senators, with Senator McCain being the front-runner, which will make previous public office an equal playing field.

Question - What demographic will be the biggest hurdle for Senator Clinton to win over?
Answer - Ironically, it will likely be apolitical moderates. Those that are easily swayed by attack ads, which Republicans are sure the fire off in full force. But America is also ready for a change, and so with enough positive advertising about where Clinton will take the country, these voters should realize the right choice.

Question - If Senator Clinton wins the Democratic nomination, who will be her running mate?
Answer - Who knows? Maybe Clinton/Obama? Clinton/Clark? Clinton/Edwards? Maybe even Clinton/Gore?

Question - Can she win?
Answer - Yes.

These next two years are going to be exciting.

HILLARY CLINTON: "I'm in. And I'm in to Win."

Senator Hillary Clinton has announced her candidacy for the presidency of the United States. See the video on her website. In an email message sent to her supporters early Saturday, Senator Clinton wrote: "I'm in. And I'm in to win." On Monday, January 22nd, for three nights in a row, she will be participating in discussions on her website, allowing anyone to ask her questions and understand her as a candidate. She issued the following statement on her website:

Today I am announcing that I will form an exploratory committee to run for president.

And I want you to join me not just for the campaign but for a conversation about the future of our country -- about the bold but practical changes we need to overcome six years of Bush administration failures.

I am going to take this conversation directly to the people of America, and I'm starting by inviting all of you to join me in a series of Web chats over the next few days.

The stakes will be high when America chooses a new president in 2008.

As a senator, I will spend two years doing everything in my power to limit the damage George W. Bush can do. But only a new president will be able to undo Bush's mistakes and restore our hope and optimism.

Only a new president can renew the promise of America -- the idea that if you work hard you can count on the health care, education and retirement security that you need to raise your family. These are the basic values of America that are under attack from this administration every day.

And only a new president can regain America's position as a respected leader in the world.

I believe that change is coming November 4, 2008. And I am forming my exploratory committee because I believe that together we can bring the leadership that this country needs. I'm going to start this campaign with a national conversation about how we can work to get our country back on track.

This is a big election with some very big questions. How do we bring the war in Iraq to the right end? How can we make sure every American has access to adequate health care? How will we ensure our children inherit a clean environment and energy independence? How can we reduce the deficits that threaten Social Security and Medicare?

No matter where you live, no matter what your political views, I want you to be a part of this important conversation right at the start. So to begin, I'm going to spend the next several days answering your questions in a series of live video Web discussions.

Starting Monday, January 22, at 7 p.m. EST for three nights in a row, I'll sit down to answer your questions about how we can work together for a better future. And you can participate live at my Web site. Sign up to join the conversation here.

I grew up in a middle-class family in the middle of America, where I learned that we could overcome every obstacle we face if we work together and stay true to our values.

I have worked on issues critical to our country almost all my life. I've fought for children for more than 30 years. In Arkansas, I pushed for education reform. As first lady, I helped to expand health care coverage to millions of children and to pass legislation that dramatically increased adoptions. I also traveled to China to affirm that women's rights are human rights.

And in the Senate, I have worked across party lines to get billions more for children's health care, to stop the president's plan to privatize Social Security, and to make sure the victims and heroes of 9/11 and our men and women in uniform receive the fair treatment they deserve. In 2006, I led the successful fight to make Plan B contraception available to women without a prescription.

I have spent a lifetime opening opportunities for tens of millions who are working hard to raise a family: new immigrants, families living in poverty, people who have no health care or face an uncertain retirement.

The promise of America is that all of us will have access to opportunity, and I want to run a 2008 campaign that renews that promise, a campaign built on a lifetime record of results.

I have never been afraid to stand up for what I believe in or to face down the Republican machine. After nearly $70 million spent against my campaigns in New York and two landslide wins, I can say I know how Washington Republicans think, how they operate, and how to beat them.

I need you to be a part of this campaign, and I hope you'll start by joining me in this national conversation.

As we campaign to win the White House, we will make history and remake our future. We can only break barriers if we dare to confront them, and if we have the determined and committed support of others.

This campaign is our moment, our chance to stand up for the principles and values that we cherish; to bring new ideas, energy, and leadership to a uniquely challenging time. It's our chance to say 'we can' and 'we will.'

Let's go to work. America's future is calling us.

Senator Clinton's announcement came early and strong. She states that she wants to "start a conversation" and is offering her own blog as a starting point for opening the discussion, telling the media and her followers that she wants to use modern technology to gain strength - just as Howard Dean gained his force and popularity in 2003. Here is what she writes on her blog page, as well as the link to be part of the dialogue:

Soon we'll launch the official blog of HillaryClinton.com, a crucial part of our exciting national conversation about the direction of our country and the place to go to learn more about Hillary.

We know our readers are going to have a lot to say, so we want to give you the first word.

We're looking for your ideas on how we can work together for change. If you'd like to write the very first guest post on the HillaryClinton.com blog, submit your entry in the form below. And if you already have your own blog or other website, please post your entry there and let us know about it. We'll select one entry as the first guest post on our blog.

To sign up, click here.

Mrs. Clinton, if successful, will be the first female nominee of a major US party. However, her announcement comes at the heels of Barack Obama, another major player in the Democratic primaries. Obama is also considered a more likeable candidate, but on without as much experience as Mrs. Clinton, and without the donor power.

Also, Clinton's announcement overshadows that of Senator Sam Brownback, the conservative Republican candidate from Texas. Mr. Brownback is most anti-abortion, homophobic candidate thus far on the Republican side and may garner most of the votes from conservative evangelicals as well as much of the funds. He is also one of the few candidates who can steal funding from John McCain, who has yet to announce but has been campaigning since almost 2002, and the first prominent Republican to officially announce his presidency.

As far as Mrs. Clinton's chances, she is both loved and hated. Most Democrats love her, and she is centrist enough to not alienate the Democrats that lean a little more right. But she is hated by Republicans passionately, and simply by running she could bring them out to vote in large numbers. Also, some of the far left dislike her because she voted for the war in Iraq and is against same sex marriage (although she is for same-sex unions). But with a strong running mate (perhaps Barack Obama?) she is a viable candidate, and the race for the presidency will be exciting.