There will be many a news cycle devoted to this historically unprecedented primary season (no incumbents of either party running; a race starting about 400 days before the nominee will be sewn up), so predictions might seem premature, but:

a) Giuliani isn't too liberal: it'll be him or McCain, depending on who lines up more Pub rainmakers.
b) Clinton will win the Democratic nomination.
c) Bloomberg, or any other third party candidate, won't run/have a credible showing.

[extended gloss follows]

a) People will say (and are saying) that Giuliani is too liberal for Republican primary voters. This is untrue.

Republican primary voters are politically conservative, but they are not ideologically conservative. Money talks, and establishment candidates win. When was the last social conservative who won the Republican primaries? Right. The people who brought you Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush, Dole, and Bush will bring you either McCain or Giuliani. Brownback, Huckabee, Tancredo, sorry. The bigger issue is McCain's age and Iraq as a potential liability: K-LO, sorry, but this man could be president, drag and divorces aside. And Romney is sadly doomed (not by his Mormonism, again, his dad was the Republican front-runner back in '68), and not even by his positions, but the dissonance between his current positions, his past positions, and his present base of support. There are a lot of voters who would vote for a pro-choice Republican; they just aren't Romney's.

b) Hillary Clinton is the deserved front-runner. This is true. It's her race to lose, and I think Hillary will win.

Basically, Clinton is Kerry in '04, except more moderate, more hated by Republicans (fairly irrationally, given her moderate stance and authentic religiosity), and with better political instincts and handlers. Who really threatens her in this field? Biden, Kerry, Dodd: they are each senators from the north-east, Clinton-lite, and battle tested in a bad way. Richardson and Vilsack are small state governors, which would have more play if either of them had Carter or Clinton's charisma and a weary weary electorate ready to take a chance (Iraq aside, the economy is too good fro that). (Richardson might, and I personally like him a lot, but I think he has a few too many liabilities. He'd be a great Clinton veep pick, if only he didn't seem so much like a second-rate Bill). Clark? His money was all Clinton money (same Arkansas/Rhodes train), and he won't have enough to be competitive. That leaves Edwards, Obama, and the real wild-card, Gore. Edwards was a one-term senator. Obama has even less experience. As good for America as an Obama presidency would be, and as perfect storm as this moment is for him, it comes just slightly too soon. He's sexy, and he'll pull dough in presuming he shows well in Iowa. But as long as this pre-primary season is, the primary season itself has incredible velocity, even faster than in '04. That speed gives enormous edge to the candidate with money. And Edwards and Obama play into Clinton's hands by each representing sunny populism and ABC (anyone but Clinton) voting: that means they'll take money from each other. This may look a lot like '04, in fact, with Edwards hanging on in a string of seconds. If you've read Transmetropolitan, this next one's for you. Edwards is the Smiler. He's Satan on a wind-up doll string. He might have a shot, but I think it would be very very bad for America if he became president. I hope Hillary's team takes him out at the legs. Gore could change things and change the money equation, but I think he's done in politics. (He would also make a great veep pick, but Hillary would only do that if hell froze over). Clinton gets the nod. There aren't going to be any new scandals.

c) Bloomberg won't run. His constituency is John Anderson's not Reagan's, and a Clinton/Giuliani race in which Bloomberg ran would look like a hysterical mayoral contest, New York Mag rooting aside.