A new Gallup poll shows that for President in 2008, Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) would do better than Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) against either Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) or Repubican and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

But that either Hillary or Kerry would lose by a spread beyond the poll's margin of error to either McCain or Giuliani - who according to the poll, both do well drawing independents into their camps. Sure it's just a poll (a nationwide phone survey of registered voters completed July 28; margin of error 4 percent), and an early one at that. But my gut tells me not only that after '04, a Kerry candidacy would be utterly ludicrous, but that Hillary would be a surefire loser, as well. Too polarizing, too much a Nuevo Yorko carpetbagger, and yet still too Northeast by virtue of her adopted home and tenure in D.C. as whathisname's consigliere.

Whereas Rudy's Northeastness is transcended by his image as a): "America's Mayor" post 9/11; and b): the guy who, pre-9/11, brought order and safety back to the streets of NYC. McCain, of course, is now a favorite whipping boy of the hard-line conservatives for having compromised with Democrats too often. What's fatal to party stalwarts is often attractive to swing voters who can decide elections, however. As another potential Republican contender, conservative Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN) has begun to realize.

That said, McCain still wouldn't fare well, I think. He had his great moment of relevance seeking the GOP nomination in 2000. But if he runs in '08, McCain runs the risk of looking like he's going through the motions, after eight years in a holding pattern.

I'm hoping Rudy gets in, and gets the Republican nomination. Republican NY Gov. George Pataki and Republican MA Gov. Mitt Romney are making noises about running, too. They should think thrice. In national electoral politics, a Northeast affiliation is increasingly a deal-killer, unless you've got some really special saving grace like Giuliani. The Atlantic, however, thinks Romney could be strong.

Another R contender getting talked up is Florida Gov. Jeb Bush. Love your brother Jeb, and maybe even your record as Governor, for the most part. But....don't. We need someone with a different last name in there, bub.

As for the Ds, they're gonna have to do a lot better than Hillary or (again) Kerry, who never really stood for anything but the anti-Bush in '04. How about that Virginia Governor Mark Warner, or Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN)? As it happens, they were among D centrists at a recent policy agenda confab of the Democratic Leadership Council.

By the way, my headline above is in jest. I'd rather see the Ds put up a strong candidate than a surefire loser, even though I'm likely to vote for the R nominee. What match-up would you like to see for President in 2008?

NEW - COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS: The normal comment function is temporarily disabled. Please send your comments to me via e-mail, using the address at "Contact" just below the masthead picture. I will post comments directly at the end of entries, for now.

Spin Daddy: Matt, I share you desire to see the Ds again become competitive in national politics and hope they can clean house to accomplish this. They will not be successful w/ the likes of M. Moore, H. Dean, etc; if not running the party, than at least being portrayed as the face of the party.

It is terribly important for the country that the Rs get some competition especially in the arena of ideas. The Rs, in lacking this competition, have very little incentive or motivation to get anything of significance on their agenda done (e.g. Social Security reform). (Social Security is) even more outdated and obsolete than the Space Shuttle program.

As to my picks for the Rs in '08, I wouldn't mind seeing a Rice/Watts ticket for the Rs in the next contest. I would love to see Condi wipe the floor w/Hillary in the debates. Including a man like J.C. Watts of OK in the VP spot, (who) could be so important in inspiring the country to get back on track spiritually.

Posted by Matt Rosenberg at August 4, 2005 11:23 AM