George Bush is OUR president. Anything is possible.

[...] sure to disappoint his Obama-supporting daughter, Caroline Giuliani, the former NYC mayor has officially predicted that Hillary will win the Democratic nomination. Giuliani told the Daily Telegraph, a London [...]

So tired of Dem's calling this their dream ticket and the GOP hoping Hillary is nominated because she has those high disapproval ratings and tired of the media hyping them like there is no one else in the race. The media controls us like mice in a maze. so ridiculous.

Who cares what Rudy thinks? Who is he?

These guys running for office are puppets.

Unless CNN's so called "lower tier candiates" start getting some play, the US will go right along with what it's doing now -> Ignoring the people and putting you into economic slavery.

Bob "McCool":

All she wants is power.

And what does Giulani want, exactly?

[Obama]’s another John Kerry, and no one wants that now.

But people want another Bush now? A less friendly-looking, sleazier Bush, nonetheless.

Why is Giulani saying he's the only one who can beat Clinton? The only GOP candidate right now that can best Clinton in every field, including the war, is Ron Paul. Giulani has the same chances of beating Clinton as Romney or someone like Huckabee.

What a joke, Giuliani intermeddled for Dems business, even he couldn't handle his own family affairs. Giuliani said he is the best person to beat Hillary, hahaha, what about NY Senator race? Was he afraid of Hillary or busy with love affairs? Rudy is a braggart.
Obama needs the time to learn more about political systems, even not qualified for VP right now. He has to grow up at Capitol Hill for another decade and then he will be better. I would like to see Obama and Rice in 1016. People are interested in Hillary's runningmate, me too, but I am sure Hillary will select the best one who can row the boat with her smoothly.

This man is a joke. All he cares about is himself. Do you think he cares about the American people? If he cant support his household, he cant really support his White House ( if he ever is elected). I am surprised that the American people are quite gullible, seeing that they have been duped from 2000-2004.

Rudy Gulliani is so hot on morals and values and can't even make it to his sons highschool graduation. Some values!!!

I don't think the Clintons have a history of making nice with those that try to defeat them.

The chances of Guiliani winning New York is zilch, as well as California.
California Dreamin' on such a winter's day.
Guiliani's even worse than Reagan record of non-family values would make even a religious extremist blush in shame.

As a diehard Democrat, I am hoping that there is NO Hillary-Obama ticket.

Al Gore tried to be a pioneer by picking Joe Lieberman, a Jew, as his VP. The result was that Gore lost every single state in the South, including his home state of Tennessee and Clinton's home state of Arkansas. I am convinced that crude anti-Semitism was a factor here.

Parties should only select 'high risk' candidates when the election is unwinnable. Thus, Walter Mondale's choice of Geraldine Ferraro as VP was smart. Although Mondale lost to Reagan, the Democratic Party made huge inroads in the female vote due to their historic selection of Ferraro.

Gore's selection of Lieberman was disastrous because the election was his to win and choosing a candidate whose religion would draw fire created unncessary risk. Lieberman also was a terrible candiate, essentially chumming it up with the villainous Dick Cheney in the VP debates. Cheney, a man whose entire existence is owed to govt. service mumbled that the govt. "had absolutely nothing" to do with his massive financial gains at Halliburton…and Lieberman chuckled.

I respect Barack Obama and violently detest GOP racists Romney and Graham for posing with the Obama-Osama-Chelsea's Momma signs. But to give the always vicious GOP a 'target rich ticket' of a woman and a black man is to commit political suicide.

It will probably be Clinton/Richardson because he can win the Hispanic vote.
Clinton already has the black vote. In any event, Rudy won't win, he pulled out of the New York Senate race, he'll lose the Presidency. Voting for a winner is not as good as voting for your principles.

I don't know about a Clinton-Obama Ticket…two strong characters…I don't think Obama will like being the number two "man" on the presidential ticket…

Two words "Who Cares". How about you tell us what you plan to do that is better then the Democrats and stop spinning the whole Clinton-Obama ticket.

Americans what to see some change for the better in the government, not predictions who will be on the other parties ticket.

Giuliani is going to have a very tough time raising the necessary money to stay in contention for the GOP presidential primary. I really doubt if the evangelicals are going to contribute to his campaign; he is pro-abortion and he has been married three times. The Catholics are not too happy with him as well. Hillary would destroy him.

Giuliani is playing the race card. It is the Mafia's best way to tell Americans that "look here folks, it is a Woman and a Black man" going to lead this country, even though he knows Clinton will never pick Obama for running-mate. He is going to loose to Thomson.

Trevor, you just posted, "The Republicans need to quit predicting & get down to business before our country goes to Socialism in front of our very eyes.
Posted By Trevor Wilson KC-MO

Goes to Socialism? In what sense? Are you talking about socialized medicine?

What about socialized law? Every criminal has a right to an attorney, why shouldn't every family have a right to a doctor?

What about socialized mail? Have you recieved a letter lately Trevor? Pretty damn social, isn't it? Yep, that damn Post Office is down right communist.

Oh, let's not forget The Fire Dept. That is the epitome of Socialized goods and services provided by the goverment.

I think maybe you're right Trevor, let's de-socialize the fire dept.

I just hope you live in Beverly Hills instead of Compton, because Beverly Hills would get all the good fire engines and the rest of the city would burn for lack of funds.

That's basically what's happening to our health care system. I know this first hand that your health all comes down to profits and how much money you have to care for yourself.

The fact that we live in the richest country on the planet and people are constantly losing their life savings because of illness, is a crime against humanity.

I say do what Obama or Edwards suggests, let the private insurance companies compete with a "socialized goverment medical system."

If you want to keep paying an arm and a leg for coverage you can never use for fear of such rates going up or being canceled, go for it. We'll see which system wins out.

Bottom line, you're living in a socialized system, the scary kind, when you can't take a day off or get hurt for fear you'll lose your job and be homeless. That's scary!

And by the way, the national polls and some of the state polls can be misleading. Those polls are based primarily on name recognition, which is why Clinton and Obama are so far ahead. And also, the majority of the voters polled are still trying to decide on their choice. Take New Hampshire, for example. 64% of New Hampshire primary voters are still trying to decide on their choice. But when polls are conducted to see which nominee voters would choose, only 9% mark undecided. That is because the way the polling is done, voters who are undecided are more likely to choose the person they know when asked who they would vote for. So don't believe the hype.

I agree that the Republicans are "predicting" a Clinton-Obama ticket as a strategy of keeping it in the media to achieve this desired outcome because they know that it would be the easiest ticket to beat. Clinton's high unfavoribility ratings would alienate crucial swing voters that would otherwise vote Democratic due to backlash against the Bush administration and the Iraq War. This implies, however, that John Edwards, not Barack Obama, as the ideal candidate for the Democratic Party nomination. I attended a forum with a group of campaign managers from Republican presidential campaigns and other Republican pundits and political professionals. They harped on Clinton and Obama constantly, but when I mentioned the prospect of Edwards gaining the nomination because of his strategy to take Iowa (where he leads in most polls) and to win subsequently in the other early primaries and caucuses, thereby giving him momentum for Super Tuesday, it was like I farted in the room. A large hush fell over the room, and Chip Saltsman, campaign manager for Mike Huckabee and others reluctantly admitted that an Edwards candidacy would be deleterious to their chances for the general election. Not only does Edwards have the more relevant and articulate message with the policy specificity to back it up, most caucus goers deem him as the most electable, and he is running the type of moderate populist campaign that most Democratic insiders predicted would win the nomination (which is why Sen. Evan Bayh opted not to run and is why Hillary Clinton's triangulation strategy will fail). He leads in most polls in Iowa, where if he wins, it will have a domino effect like John Kerry's win in 2004 because the primaries are so close together. And no disrespect to Obama, but he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell. The fact that a huge majority of Democrats and liberals (read – primary and caucus voters) believe a white male will get the nomination, the fact that the percentage of people willing to elect a black man as President has dropped precipitously since January, and the fact that Obama's inexperience is very legitimate as demonstrated by his posturing on issues and his vague policy preferences, call his electability into grave question. Besides, and I know nobody wants to hear this, but there will be people who simply won't vote for him because he is black, further affecting his electability. It's better anyway. He sacrificed his principled reasoning and judgment (at first, he was going to fulfill his full Senate term believing that he needed to focus on the needs of his constituents and the country and that his celebrity was an illusion and that he was not ready to run for higher office) for ambition. He is simply not ready to be President. But John Edwards is, despite what the "unbiased" media and the Republicans say.

Is the Republicans attempt to predict who the Democrat ticket is going to be some sort of shocker?! No, it is pretty obvious Hillary is 1 & Obama is 1a. The Republicans need to quit predicting & get down to business before our country goes to Socialism in front of our very eyes.

Hillary Clinton would be the absolute worst choice for the Dems to run as president. Not sure about Obama yet. I'm hoping that we can get some new blood to run who can bring this country back to what it once was and to honor what we stand for. I'm sick to death of the war in Iraq, the Social Security mess, the health care crisis, immigration, education and the lack (still) of rebuilding efforts in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. These are all issues that need to be addressed and WHO is talking about them. I'll be listening!!

If Giuliani were wise, he'd keep such opinions to himself. By opening his mouth he further demonstates that he has no class. Americans are tired of that. Clinton and Obama are formidable and knowledgeable candidates, superior to anyone on the Republican side and capable of leading this country back in the right direction, but in my opinion, the best of the group is John Edwards.

Rudy has about the same odds of winning California in the general election as he does winning the lottery.

It ain't going to happen.

To Simon, just above this post…

Have you not been paying attention to the debates and the various books of the various candidates you can get at the local library? (Yes, Republicans have failed to ban libraries, yet.)

Read Audacity of Hope, read Clinton's book. Listen to the two of them speak. You'll start to notice key differences.

Hillary is trying very hard not to upset the existing system. She believes in taking money from lobbyists and she agrees with several tenets of the "war on terror."

Obama shuns lobbyists because as a newcomer to the Senate he's seen what tremendous money being thrown at politicians is doing to control the issues discussed. He has repeatedly, for years, since before any other candidate DARED to talk about it, said that the "war on terror" is a fear mongering tool to control the masses. He has said, quite correctly, that 9/11 was a heinous CRIMINAL ACT, not an Act of War, as Hilary has said.

That right there is the fundamental difference between the two. Obama realizes that you cannot go to war in the conventional sense with terrorists, who have no loyalties to borders and no infastructure.

On the flip side, Clinton is still exibiting a 90's sense of cold war mentality, the same US versus THEM mentality that Bush has crowed from every building top for six years.

It is the difference between YESTERDAY and TOMORROW. A huge difference in cultural thinking and a world mentality versus an isolationist mentality.

You cannot simply treat terrorists like we're at war, because the danger of being perpetually at war is the elimination of our rights, for good… not to mention the stress caused heart attacks of thinking that THE ENEMY is going to jump up from any rock.

Clinton would be either intentionally or niavely drawn into the use terror to control the population and her agenda, Obama would use common sense to change the stereotypes and get people thinking rationally and constitutionally again, that's the main difference in my mind.

Ahh, the Republicans worst nightmare:-) I hope Rudy's right and then watch as Hillary and Barack leave the Republican sacrifical lamb in the dust. I hope the pro-war, pro-Bush neo-cons have a long, long, long eight years just as we who believe in honesty, truth and faith in our government have had.

HEATHER: Right on Ron Paul he is the MAN.
And who is Giuliani to predict anything? And why not Obama-Clinton. And where do they get these polls. I have never been polled on any political issue. And I think it is funny CNN always put Clinton ahead no matter what.

The media wants Clinton to be the de facto candidate, Obama the movement candidate, and for them to get together in a big ol' celebrity candidate fluff-fest without ever discussing what either of them actually stand for.

Why did EVERY Republican candidate for President, including Guliani bash Barrack Obama at their latest "debate" Sunday?

Because they know he's got the most inevitable shot at being the next President. They want him out of the way.

However, their response to Obama's comments shot themselves in the foot the same way Clinton did when she responded to him. They said that his comments about going into Pakistan to get Bin Laden whether Pakistan agreed to or not were "naive". They made themselves look like a bunch of whimps on their own favorite subject, the bogus "war on terror." I guess they all, including Clinton, were saying that they WOULD NOT go into Pakistan to get Bin Laden, THE DUDE THAT ATTACKED US, without the permission of Pakistan.

They look weak, Obama looks stong, actually, he looks like the only candidate with his head correctly screwed on.

Rudy Giuliani (and Newt Gingrich, the other week) aren't paying attention. Obama said on David Letterman's show that he isn't interested in running for vice-president. Hillary Clinton may be winning by a large margin in national polls, but Obama is winning in South Carolina, barely in Iowa, and he is tied with Hillary in New Hampshire. These are the states that matter most. When Obama finally wins these three states, we will see a domino effect on all the states that follow. I'm confident Obama will win the nomination, and I hope he picks Russ Feingold or Tom Daschle as a running mate.

I predict a Cheney / DeLay ticket.

I've lived in New York under "America's Mayor" for 8 years. Be sure, he's the ONLY candidate (of either party) who could potentially be worse than Bush. America can't afford another single-issue (terrorism) demagogue right now. His own family doesn't support him. He looks and sounds great on TV, but the truth is he's a poor decision-maker and if elected, will continue to push this great country even further in the wrong direction. Enough already.

Why must Hilary Clinton be the defacto candidate? If you ask me, Guiliani is scared of Barrack Obama, a force much more capable of bringing out a massive voter turn out than Clinton. Clinton would promote voter apathy and keep politics in the shadows instead of the mainstream, which is where the Republicans always strive.

Hillary will not win the nomination.

And Obama will not choose her and his VP.

You are a republican candidate. You want to win your party's nomination and ultimately the election to the presidency. Strategically, it would make sense for you to support the candidate that you think you would most likely defeat. In this case, Giuliani's prediction is a tacit acknowledgment that he believes his most formidable competition would be Obama. It would not make sense to make any predictions about a rival party's ticket unless you were trying to influence the outcome of their primaries to your advantage. For every prediction by a Republican (candidate or otherwise) of a Clinton-Obama ticket, it is a tacit admission that an Obama-Clinton ticket would be the least desirable primary outcome. Therefore, the collective consensus reality is indicating that an Obama-Clinton ticket is most likely to occur and the strongest outcome for the Democratic primary that would ensure election to the presidency.

Giuliani is a sleaze ball, and will be lucky to even get the GOP nod with his background. I don't see how any GOP candidate can make it back into the White House in 2008 without having the election fixed after the putrid taste that dubya is leaving in everyone's mouths. We all know that can never, ever happen here in the U.S. of A.

if former Guiliani is predicting Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama….who is he predicting for himself? DUH!!!!

dream on, giuliani, we oregonians are WAY too smart to believe all that America's Mayor!

I think a Clinton-Obama ticket would be a very formidable one- one that blunts Clinton's presumed unfavorability rating and Obama's presumed inexperience. And how about making history: first woman/minority candidate?

Even Ronald Reagan would have a hard time beating this ticket. Who is 911 Rudy Toody Fruddy again? He'll be lucky to get the Republican nomination. Stats show that 57% of republicans are unaware of his stance on abortion, gun control and gay rights. Once these fundamentals realize, Rudy will share the same fate as Howard Dean. Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhh!

I guess Rudy Guiliani listens to The Savage Nation because Michael Savage made that claim months ago.

Giuliani does have a dysfunctional family because he deserted both wife and his children, and while he was still married, moved his girlfriend into the mayor's mansion. That should make any family dysfunctional to have a husband and father like he is.

In Giuliani's dreams…….
Obama is THE LAST PERSON that Hillary Clinton would want as a running mate.
That would be the best possible ticket that the Republican party could hope for.

Actually, my prediction is a Clinton-Giuliani ticket. Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani's daughter.

On a serious note. Children who dislike their parents so much they plan on voting for the other guy, should tell us all we want to know about Mr. Mayor. His kids are stuck with him as their father. They have no choice. America on the other hand does. Please do not pick this blowhard.

Giuliani has so many skeletons in the closet that Hillary must be PRAYING he gets the Republican nomination. Who else tells his wife he is cheating on her, and going to divorce her, at a press conference? No wonder his kids hate him, Giuliana is SKETCHY.

"We can build it to have a chance of winning in New York and in New England and in California and Oregon – these are states…"

since when is new england a state?

He is exactly right about being the only Republican who has a chance to win the election in 2008.

Don't know if I agree with his prediction about Hillary and Obama though. Given her extremely high negative ratings and the fact that she is one of the most polarizing political figures in recent history, I don't know if I would just call the race hers at this point.

If Democrats came up with a Hillary/Obama ticket, it would take an act of God to beat them.

Luckily, that act of God has a name – Ron Paul!

And the irony is that the Republicans have no chance of having a diverse ticket – the Presidential candidate is assured of being a white, middle-aged at least, male. Maybe they will "throw a crumb" to diversity, but the GOP seems highly unlikely to make such a choice.

That pretty much assures the Republicans will lose the Presidential race in '08.

Yeah….only if the Dems. really want to loose. Clinton will have a hard enough time without Obama. Add him to the mix and no matter who wins the GOP nod, will win.

Republican pols love to tell the Democrats how to run campaigns, who to nominate and what the party should stand for.

Then they turn around and demonize that which they hope they've created in the minds of the voters.

I really think Rudy better watch out, a horse named Petraeus is closing on the outside. I predict a Petraeus/Webb ticket. That's right – Webb. Two military types, one from each party. It's sooooo red, white and blue, sooooo Yankee Doodlish. It'd be like having a Bud car and a Miller car come in first and second at Talladega.

Clinton/Barack. Can you say Master Slave? Never happen.

Michael Savage predicted this months ago!

Riiiiiiight. Thanks for the prediction, Rudy…Can we also count on you for winning lottery numbers?

Give me a break…And while you're predicting, MAYOR, don't you dare misunderestimate John Edwards.

i'm glad independant voter brought up a good point – guiliani practically handed hillary her senate seat on a silver platter. this entire race has been set up from the beginning – as long as a CFR candidate gets the nom, they don't care who wins!

Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate capable of defeating the CFR globalists (Democratic AND Republican!).

The Revolution is only just beginning.

It makes you wonder a little… we haven't even had the first primary and already several candidates/pundits have called out Clinton~Obama. Why? Why would republicans Guiliani and Gingrich want to reinforce this ticket? Are these two just trying to get headlines or is there something else?? IS Clinton-Obama the strongest ticket?

If a Republican tells me to vote for a certain Democratic candidate, it's probably a good idea NOT to heed the advice.

That's why I will be voting for Barack Obama.

Objectively (I don't know who I like yet) Giuliani has the strongest showing in Texas, and can likely pull New York. That's two out of the three most populous states. Plus the Clinton/Obama ticket will also be weak in the South. Don't be surprised if he beats Clinton in the general election. Some polls have suggested however Obama as the presidential candidate could beat Giuliani.

Giuliani is so much better that Hillary or Obama. No one I know likes Hillary. I would imagine that not even Hillary likes Hillary. All she wants is power. She just intimates that she's gonna do this, gonna do that, but never mentions how or why. Now as far as Obama is concerned, he spends way too much time attacking Hillary. Plus, he went from Jane Fonda to Dr. Strangelove in a week. He's another John Kerry, and no one wants that now.
GO RUDY GO.

FYI – polls here in NY show that Hillary would beat Rudy and she'ld get all of NY's electoral points. Don't diss on our Senator! We know better about Guiliani than anyone else in this country – don't be fulled by his post 9-11 photo op politics. He's nothing of substance, and only made of smoke and mirrors!

I think a Clinton/Obama ticket is a far-fetched non-starter. Obama should have played the Kerry/Edwards respect for the others campaign in order to build trust and confidence. Obama's desperation ruffled enough of Clinton's feathers and she will stop the itch by dissing Obama.

So now he’s psychic? ……good to know

Not a Giuliani supporter, but I seem to recall when he was in the NY Senate race against Hillary, he was leading at the time he withdrew. He can certainly argue that he could beat her in the presidential election based partly on the fact that he was beating her in NY in 2000 and also the fact that she has such high unfavorable ratings with much of the electorate.

I would grant him (and anyone else that said the same thing) that this would be a formidable ticket.

Hillary and Obama are on terrible terms with each other. I'm not so sure they'd run together, after all the attacks they've thrown back and forth.

Granted, John Kerry and John Edwards were the same way back in 2003. Who knows?

London ENGLAND? What? Rudy couldn't get an American paper to listen to him?

Aha aha aha, Rada from houston. tx:

That was a cold, low-blow. Guiliani has a dysfunctional family that refuses to support his presidency – his daughter leading the charge.

he can't even get his daughter to support him… how in the word he is the only one that can beat HRC…