This week I won a $100 bet that Kerry would not run for POTUS. (Hanging out with trash-talking guys is becoming a real source of income for me.)

I have another $100 riding on a bet that Gore will not run, and $100 that the Dems will put up Hillary and Obama against the Republican nominee.

Easy money. Difficult to collect.

And as progressive and powerful as a Hillary-Obama ticket may sound, it may not be such a good thing. More Republicans will come out to vote against Hillary than Democrats who will vote for Hillary. Even with Obama as a running mate, do we really think otherwise? (I'd love to be wrong about this.) I'm not just talking out of my ass. I'm basing this on readers' comments to Judith Warner's "Trying to Imagine a Woman in the White House." Most took the time to say, "Yes, but not Hillary." It's a small sample, and probably not statistically significant, but very telling nonetheless. One would think that the average commenter on a NYT blog is not a raging Republican. And in fact, many of the commenters describe themselves as die-hard Democrats. And they write that they would not vote for Hillary. Are these fringe Democrats? The ones who voted for Nader? 5%?

This has me a little concerned in that I just want a Democrat in the White House. And any one of the leading Democratic candidates would be phenomenal in comparison to another Republican. Even Hillary. And you all know it. But if we are going to be choosy, let's choose the candidate who can beat the Republican nominee. It's early days, and I couldn't for certain tell you who that is, but isn't that really our goal?