From Salon.com Politics: "Some Republicans are wondering whether Mr. Ashcroft would be asked to return for a second Bush term if the president is re-elected in November, or whether he would choose not to serve again, perhaps to pursue his own run for the presidency in 2008."
Wow, just think of the possibilities. Two of the most polarizing people on right and left duking it out for the presidency?
I'm always amused by Hilary Clinton's ability to incite foaming of the mouth on the part of conservatives. They truly seem to hate her, and I've never really figured out why she became a lightning rod for so much crap. It's been so much fun watching freepers construct deep dark conspiracy theories about how Hil's planning to hijack this year's convention, about how she's skewering the VP selection to prevent any heir apparent standing in her way in 2008 or 2012. As if she, along with every other liberal in America, isn't doing everything she can to get the nutso idealogues out of the WH this year.
On the other hand, liberals do a bit of foaming themselves when the subject of Ashcroft comes up. I'd like to think it's far more justified, since Ashcroft actually holds a position of power and has materially affected hundreds of thousands of lives with his repressive policies. [Hilary garnered her animus as First Lady, a mostly ceremonial post, mostly it seems because she tried to do something substantive with it. And people forget that the Prez gets to appoint anyone he wants to work on special projects, including ex-felons, unlicensed lawyers, sons, daughters, husbands of political allies, and yes wives.]
For my part, I don't think I could take the level of overt partisanship that would inevitably ensue in a Clinton vs. Ashcroft world. But then again, I may have built up a tolerance for it by then.