So, if not Hillary, who?

Don't throw food but I'm crossing over and voting for Ron Paul in the primary. (We can do that in my state.) If he wins the GOP nomination, I'm betting the majority of conservatives (give or take the strict pro-war minority) will buck up and rally around him, plus he'll win the anti-war, fringe, and not-Hillary vote.

From my perspective, bothering to show up and vote for any of these top-tier candidates from either party is the worst demonstration of adult naivete'...like it makes a difference which of them you vote for, whether it's Tweedle Dum or Tweedle Dee... At this point, reinforcing the status-quo is a masochistic impulse to see how much worse things will get before they get better.

If you're not stirred by the ethical implications of continuing a policy of preemptive warfare, at least recognize it's well past time to address the debt or lose the dollar. [ Reference Einstein on the symptoms of insanity... ]

Forget the Democratic primary...the GOP primary will decide this race if it's not rigged.

Need I repeat the obvious? We junkies are not like actual voters. Actual voters focus on candidates only in the weeks before an election. Some make up their minds as they enter the voting booth (I will never quite understand that approach). Until the election is relatively imminent, polls are relatively meaningless. They are reflections of general underlying sentiments, often defined as much by name-recognition as anything else.

It is only when the voters actually engage that certain themes emerge from the ocean of potential themes, and the ones that get traction are the ones that determine the outcome.

Hillary has always been a very mixed bag of potential themes. She has some solid positives, and whole lot of negatives, including for Dems. Very few Dems are trully excited about her candidacy, though most find her acceptable.

To the extent that the inevitablity theme actually persists in voter's minds, and she is seen as the solid, if uninspiring choice, then yes, she may march unimpeded to the nomination.

But if the inevitablity meme shows cracks, and the voters, when they actually sit down to decide, start to frame the question as "who do I really want to be president", then she may be in trouble.

I sense that if that is the question asked, then Obama especially, and Edwards to a lesser extent, may well find sufficient traction. These are the candidates that get Dems excited, and at some point the voters may well decide that they have a right to vote for the person that really inspires them - CW notwithstanding.

Its not like any student of American politics doesnt have a wealth of surpise-outcomes to fall back on, to familiarize themselves with the notion that long-term polling means little.

Look at the Republicans this year too. Rudy was certainly getting an air of inevitablity about him. As was Mitt in Iowa. And Huckabee was universally seen as a complete fringe candidate. Until a small set of Iowa fair-goers actually started to think about who they wanted, and suddenly Huck gained attention. As of today, he is within a few points of winning Iowa, and seems to have quite a bit of mo.

Obama is now within a few points of Hillary in Iowa, and beginning to close in NH. What do you think would be the consequence if, after over a year of Hillary-the-inevitable, she would actually lose the first two states?

No way is this over.

But without reports that there was a possibility to that effect the news media would have nothing to report. So they'll construct a horserace out of whole cloth if necessary.

I am not so sold on the idea that a person has to have "foreign policy experience" but I do think executive experience matters. And while Bush hadn't been a governor for very long, he did come out of the business world and had executive experience there.

I think Obama comes across as very green, and it is easy to be right, when you don't have to take any real risks if your position is wrong. Doing the right thing from the white house isn't always easy, and what seems "right" as a candidate doesn't always seem so right once you have the reigns of power-things look a little different once you get there.

Doesn't mean Obama can't do it, it just means I am not so confident he is the best candidate. Honestly if I was going to pick a favorite among the democrats I would probably lean most towards Richardson-partly because he seems to have a variety of experience, but he just seems more seasoned and capable.

Obama has at least some experience at the national level, and what's more important, he's been right on all the important issues (Iraq, for instance). I'm pissed at the stupidity regarding the anti-gay reverend, but other than that he's demonstrated more intelligence and judgement than the other candidates put together.

Bill Clinton, 1992. Southern governor with no national or foreign policy experience.

True enough. Still, twelve years as governor is major executive experience unmatched by almost anyone running on either side this go-round. McCain (long Navy career), maybe Giuliani (mayor, U.S. Attorney, DOJ) and Richardson (governor, UN Amb, Cabinet) are truly experienced in executive leadership roles.

Obama is smart and charismatic but incredibly inexperienced on the national scene. Are Democrats really ready to turn the keys over to him?

Bill Clinton, 1992. Southern governor with no national or foreign policy experience. I say that's not an impediment to Obama getting the nod. His recent speeches in Iowa certainly shows he's no foreign policy shrinking violet.

Not to say this will happen to Hillary, but I think declaring any candidate a "done deal" or close enough to one before any votes are actually cast in the primaries isn't the wisest move.

Hillary certainly comes with some baggage, but I think she also has more media smarts than Dean had, so who knows.

I figure Obama will rise if Hillary's start falls, but I am not convinced Obama can survive the primary season as a viable candidate-much less the general-he just comes across as very green. Although maybe the greeness will appeal to voters who are tired of savvy.

While I remain firmly in the camp that it’s almost inconceivable that Hillary Clinton won’t win the Democratic nomination

but not inevitable.

And then he asks the very relevant question

So, if not Hillary, who?

All this boils down to the fact that while the democrats are doing a good job pandering to their base, they aren't putting forward a candidate to pull in the center.

I think Hillary is going to win. And I think even I will become sick of seeing commercials of her flip floping on the illegal aliens driver license question.

Wake me on this one once someone who is a bit more analytical starts talking about her lack of inevitability...

(And trust me, it would thrill me if someone else would win the Democratic nomination).

(Sexual Personae was a fun book, kind of like Harold Bloom on drugs, but politics is outside her competence.)