Clinton: Granted, conspiracy speculation and Clinton go together like, well, stains and blue dresses, but here's an interesting speculation posted to The Corner:

Don't you think this . . . may as well have been an announcement: My wife is running for president in 2008?

1. [I]f Bush loses to a Dem because of unpopularity, she's locked out until 2012, therefore Bush must win so she can run for an open seat in 2008[.]

2. [I]n order for him to win, he must remain popular and thrash his Dem opponent in 2004[.]

Essentially, he almost endorsed GWB for re-election.

I speculated on this back in November, when Gore was still toying with a run. In essence, I said, Hillary has to hope (or work) for a Gore defeat in '04:

The CW, though, is Gore in '04, Hill in '08 (which leads one to the very interesting picture of Hillary pulling the lever for W. in '04).

The identity of the Democratic contender does nothing to change the calculus. Hillary's best chance is 2008, after six years as a distinguished senator, then perhaps a truncated term or two years of high profile speechifying. In order to get there without a party schism, she has to hang back and hope for four more years of Democrats in the wilderness.

An interesting speculative question is this: Would Hillary, notwithstanding her promise to serve out a full six-year term, consider accepting the vice-presidency slot? Should she? Should she be offered it? I say no on all three. The Dems are too weak this year. They'll either want a bland VP nominee (perhaps Lieberman again, or someone like him) or they'll try Reagan's stunt of co-opting the rival and try to get Howie Dean on the ticket. (Unless Dean is the ticket, in which case it hardly matter who the VP nominee is.) Bland is my guess here.