I've commented before that one of Hillary's big problems in the general election is that voters want change. For 20 years, the president has been either a Clinton or a Bush. Are the voters really going to want 4 (or 8) more years of a Clinton?
John Zogby makes an interesting point:
Hillary Rodham Clinton: She is clearly the frontrunner and I have learned over the years to never bet against a Clinton. Based on solid historical data, I didn't think she could win in New York in 2000 and I have since learned that there are two political playbooks in the U.S. today: One marked "The Clintons" and the other, "We Mortals." On the pro side, Clinton has experience, the flexibility to sense where the firestorm of criticism may be coming from and to adjust her message and demeanor, her husband as both the sharpest political mind in the nation today and as a personality to rally the Democratic base, and considerable charm that wears well with her obvious intelligence. She has also neutralized to a great degree the doggedness and arrogance that led to the defeat of her health-care plan in 1994. As for cons, she is the lightning rod and can energize the other side to come out to vote against her. Questions abound among Democrats as to whether she can win. And perhaps most significantly, a 2008 voter will have to be at least 46 years of age to have cast a ballot in a presidential election where a Bush or a Clinton wasn't an option. So a campaign that argues for a fresh face and a different kind of experience might hurt her. (Likely scenario: She runs and wins two terms as president, then serves one term as chairman of the Federal Reserve, then converts to Catholicism and rides out her final years as Pope).'A campaign that argues for a fresh face and a different kind of experience...' I bet any of the leading Republican contenders would wage just that sort of campaign against her. In the general election, she can definitely be beaten.