Earlier this week, I posted an article that explains what is now conventional wisdom: Hillary cannot be stopped. This week, in protest to that popular meme, several bloggers argued that it was still way too early in the process. This post by Tom Bevan at RealClearPolitics is typical:

Again, to Jay's point, the polls right now dictate the chatter, but they hardly give any indication about where we're headed. Let's take a quick look back at the trajectory of the '04 race in Iowa. In late October 2003 - still another four weeks from where we are in this year's race - Howard Dean and Dick Gephardt were running neck and neck, with John Kerry a distant third and John Edwards a very distant fourth. The race remained frozen in that position through the beginning of January as shown by an Iowa Poll taken just two weeks before the caucuses. Another Iowa poll taken just days before the vote picks up on the significant movement occurring as people focused on the race. And we all know how the final results looked...

That certainly is true, in 2004 things did shift enormously, at least two times on the Democratic side. We had the collapse and rebirth of John Kerry, we had the collapse of Howard Dean and Dick Gephardt.

But my argument is not based on the idea that Hillary is unassailable because she is so far ahead. Rather she is so far ahead because her challengers are fatally flawed candidates. In other words. She's unstoppable because there is no one running who can stop her.

Both Edwards and Obama have a huge experience gap with the potential Republican nominee. They both have gotten where they are through good messaging and hard work. I don't want to shortchange that, but it can only get you so far. Earlier this year I speculated that Richardson might rally the anti-Hillary vote. But he is just too goofy, to put it nicely. Whatever it is that defines being "presidential" Richardson does not have, not even an ounce. Which is too bad for the Democrats, but that's another story.

With the last three days of the Major League Baseball season upon us, I've thought of how a baseball season is akin to a political race. Being it's a Friday and everything should be lighter on a Friday, let's look at this more closely.

A campaign, like the 162-game major league season is a marathon, not a sprint, a bad day in a campaign can be overcome the next day or week by a good showing and a mistake today could back and haunt a candidate in the crucial final weeks. Some candidates go out to an early lead and cruise winning two out of three games every series while some teams lead for the entire race and all of a sudden find themselves tied with one series left and momentum going against them.

Considering what we've been talking about this is probably the most significant story from the latest Democratic Debate held last night. None of the top three candidates, apparently, will guarantee an Iraq exit should they be elected:

Obama: "I think it's hard to project four years from now."

Clinton: "It is very difficult to know what we're going to be inheriting."

Edwards: "I cannot make that commitment."

Richardson, Dodd, Biden and the others did step up to make a commitment, but I find it the weasel wording here very telling. We're not leaving Iraq, not for a long time. It does not matter who is in the White House. The circumstances in the Middle East will essentially force their hand. An Iraq that devolves into a stateless area like Somalia would be a disaster for everyone in the region, and us as well. So it's not going to happen.

This doesn't mean that the Democrats won't continue to wax rhetorical about how Bush needs to start the withdrawal. Why not take him and the Republicans down a few notches? It's an easy target. But as far as doing the practical things to force a withdrawal? As everyone can see with their own eyes, the Democrats have had the majority for nine months now and it hasn't happened yet. The leading candidates won't commit. Connect the dots.

Marc Cooper writes about a huge miss for the John Edwards camp at the Huffington Post:

The top leadership of the SEIU met all day Monday in Chicago to consider who to back in the Democratic primaries but decided to postpone any formal endorsement. For at least two years Edwards has been laboring to line up union support which his strategists see as crucial to any realistic chance to capture the Democratic nomination. "John had been counting on the unions as a sort of super-charger, an after-burner," said a California operative of the Edwards campaign. "But now we are in danger of a flame-out."

And that this is all a huge bitter blow considering all the work Edwards has done since 2004, when he was the labor nominee:

Since the conclusion of the failed 2004 Democratic campaign, Edwards had been meticulously trying to build a solid, national union base. He walked endless picket lines, attended dozens of labor rallies and built strong personal relationships with top union leaders like Stern. His honed economic populist program was sweet music to union ears and six months ago an SEIU endorsement of Edwards seemed almost a slam dunk.

But that the SEIU is not about to get burned again:

SEIU officials are openly concerned that their once-favored Edwards is running a distant third in most national and state polls (with the exception of Iowa) and may no longer be a viable candidate, no matter how many union resources are poured into his campaign.

If you take some time to poke around the web, the consensus opinion among professional pundits and amateur wannabes like myself is that the Republicans don't really stand a chance in 2008. They talk of veto-proof majorities and Congressional landslides as if they are a given.

I say not so fast and hear me out on this before you break out your crayons and write that I'm wrong.

On the Dem side, Hillary is far and away the frontrunner with no one within a stones throw. Obama made some noise as did Edwards (Elizabeth, not John) but it added up to squat. It was Hillary's race from the beginning and anyone who even dreamed it wasn't was deluding themselves. She has the money, the advisors and Bill, 'nough said.

On the GOP side, you have a wide-open race. I say Giuliani is currently the frontrunner but Fred Thompson is giving him agita and McCain and Romney could surprise once the primaries begin. In other words, the Republicans have no clear cut leader.

Hillary will be anointed in February leaving her wide open to attacks from all corners. I suspect that Obama and Edwards will still be in the race but will be extremely desperate and have no choice but to hit Hillary hard from the left while at the same time the GOP will open up from the right. It will be non-stop Hillary bashing for months. Her actions at that time are critical and I wouldn't be surprised if the Hsu story continues to break hitting its crescendo right around early spring making her a huge target. The Dems are hip to this and some leaked info spells it out in detail:

The private memo, leaked to The Washington Post, painted what researchers described as a "sobering picture" for Democrats who believe that President George W Bush's disastrous favourability numbers almost guarantee they will capture the White House next year.

All party preference polls show that Democrats are much more popular than Republicans. But when the names of individual candidates are used, the gap narrows considerably.

...The leaked poll found that Mr Giuliani, a centrist Republican with liberal stances on issues such as abortion and gay rights, leads Mrs Clinton by 49 per cent to 39 per cent in the swing districts.

By the time the GOP race is decided, she will be battered and the GOP candidate will have survived a bruising race leaving him experienced and hungry. Factor in that Hillary has the highest negatives of any candidate in history and Bush-Clinton fatigue and you have the makings of a GOP upset. Not only in the presidential race either, Hillary's polarizing nature will bring a slew of conservatives and Republicans out just to vote against Hillary and they'll vote Republican straight down the line. Will the GOP regain the House? No, but the Senate may well be a possibility if the RNC can pound home the fact that this has been the single-most inactive Senate in three decades.

I'm not going to go out on a limb and predict that a Republican wins, yet the scenario I've spelled out is plausible. We still have five months before the first primary ballot is cast (unless some state moves it up to November 2007) so a lot of things can happen between now and then.

Elizabeth Edwards is showing twice or three times the fight of her husband, as Hotline recaps:

-- She emerged from WH '04 w/legions of admirers, and drew respect and warm condolences from every corner 3/22 when she announced her cancer had returned. But since then she has evolved into her husband's chief attacker, launching salvos at HRC and Obama that others (esp. would-be first ladies) wouldn't dare.
-- In today's NY Daily News, she continues to hit Clinton: "She's wrong on how it is we get univ. health care, and her own experience should have taught her that." The Clintons "lost the fight" in '93, she said, because they used their "pol. capital" on NAFTA. Their "stick-to-it-iveness ... wasn't there."
-- Quite notably, the NYDN says, Camp Clinton "declined to respond to Edwards' broadsides."

She is the campaign's biggest asset, and I believe may even be the major force driving her husband to continue what has to be, at this point, a hopeless exercise. Lightning will not strike twice and Edwards will not be picked this time for a VP slot. It's hard to tell with John, but for Elizabeth the motive is transparent. She's a true believer in the liberal cause. She doesn't just say this stuff to get a few percentage points or because it will get more campaign cash. She's been lurking on Democratic sites since forever (what other candidate or candidates wife does that?). She wants to win.

Mark my words, at some point she will run in her own right. Senator from North Carolina, maybe a move to a friendlier state? Maybe we'll call it Hillary II.

It took awhile but the Dems are realizing that they have to grow up and face hard facts on Iraq. They appear to have passed puberty and they're now more like in the gawky teenage boy stage but the Democrats have had their little fling with the nutroots floozy and have decided they may like the more strait laced, mature type:

In the first place, the netroots candidates are losing. In the various polls on the Daily Kos Web site, John Edwards, Barack Obama and even Al Gore crush Hillary Clinton, who limps in with 2 percent to 10 percent of the vote.

...Clinton has established this lead by repudiating the netroots theory of politics. As the journalist Matt Bai makes clear in his superb book, "The Argument," the netroots emerged in part in rebellion against Clintonian politics. They wanted bold colors and slashing attacks. They didn't want their politicians catering to what Markos Moulitsas Zúniga of the Daily Kos calls "the mythical middle."

But Clinton has relied on Mark Penn, the epitome of the sort of consultant the netroots reject, and Penn's approach has been entirely vindicated by the results so far.

This is on the heels of President Bush conveying info to Hillary about how the war will continue and what will happen if she were to suddenly retreat. Listen, I may not like Hillary but the woman is pragmatic, she knows the consequences of presidential action and inaction and one suspects she learned alot while dealing with the routine "bimbo eruptions," bombings of aspirin plants and other difficulties of Bubba's two-terms. By Bush reaching out, he's showing that the good of the country outweighs the good of the party and that's refreshing.

I guess Hillary could see the political writing on the wall with regard to the vile MoveOn.org "General Betray Us" ad:

"I think it's important that we end these kinds of attacks on the patriotism of those who serve our country," Clinton said on NBC's "Meet the Press" program. "This is not a debate about an ad. This is a debate about the direction we should pursue in Iraq."

Pretty tepid and very un-Sister Souljah-like but a denunciation just the same. Of course the nutroots took this as a full-out turn by Hillary and a betrayal to the cause as laid out in highly unconvincing fashion here.

What Hamsher (the most solipsistic of the crowd who cares about small victories and has zero grasp of the larger picture) fails to see is that majority of the American public--you know, the ones who will actually vote for candidates--were appalled by the ad as well:

Twenty-three percent (23%) of Americans approve of an ad run in the New York Times "that referred to General Petraeus as General Betray Us." A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 58% disapproved. Those figures include 12% who Strongly Approve and 42% who Strongly Disapprove.

Pretty serious numbers, especially the "Strongly Disapprove". This just reinforces the theory that Americans want to win and do so with honor. Since Petraeus has taken over, things have improved dramatically and that's reflected by the consensus of nearly everyone who has seen events first-hand. Hillary does not want to get too entwined in the defeatist mentality that permeates the nutroot left and not be able to extricate herself when it comes time to woo the centrists in the general election.

This is in answer to the title of Dan Balz's post at The Trail:

The Hillary Clinton who appeared on five Sunday morning shows was a formidable political candidate: poised, polished, knowledgeable. The package she presented was designed to send a message to her Democratic rivals: catch me if you can.

She now sits atop the Democratic field, in a tier by herself. She has achieved that by performing at a consistently high level in debates and on the campaign trail, along with help from a campaign that has been largely free of major mistakes. She showed Sunday she could stand in against some of the best pitching in political journalism.

The question was also answered by David here a couple of days ago. But yes, Hillary is unstoppable, and it is now probably too late to parachute Al Gore in to save the party, even if the Democrats had an inclination that the party needed saving (which they don't). Hillary's got it in the bag, and it isn't even October yet.

It has long been rumored that Hillary doesn't take too kindly to anyone crossing her, and when they do it's usually not a pretty sight. That rumor has come to fruition with this story from the reliable Politico site, in which Hillary forced GQ magazine to spike a story discussing dissension in the Hillary camp:

Early this summer, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign for president learned that the men's magazine GQ was working on a story the campaign was sure to hate: an account of infighting in Hillaryland.

So Clinton's aides pulled a page from the book of Hollywood publicists and offered GQ a stark choice: Kill the piece, or lose access to planned celebrity coverboy Bill Clinton.

There was once a time that a magazine had editors and journalists with backbone who would run the story regardless of what they were threatened with. If the story was sourced well, then there was no fear of any legal retribution. That died when Michael Isikoff's piece on Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky was witheld by Newsweek and Drudge ran with it launching him into the stratosphere. The liberal media became the personal mouthpiece of successful Democrats and it helped give rise to blogs such as the one you are currently reading. People wanted new forms of inforantion and the MSM's reluctance to report the good and bad about people like Clintoncontributed greatly.

Hillary will indeed be the nominee and eventually will have to answer straight-forward questions while trying to lurch back to the middle from the far-left position she has staked in the primaries. It will be interesting to see if any of the leading liberal media outlets have the guts to challenge her or if it will be left to traditionally centrist or conservative outlets. My guess is the latter.

Simply put, she's good at what she does. Everyone seems to know this by now, including President Bush. Witness her handling of the Washington talk-show circuit this Sunday. She made a two-hour blitz, appearing on ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN and FOX, one right after the other. As the Politico reports, it was all no sweat for the soon-to-be Democratic nominee:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton beamed her way through a barrage of questions from five political talk show hosts Sunday morning, appearances that offered some details of her plans on health care and the war in Iraq, but left her basically unscathed politically after the toughest grilling Washington has to offer.

Call her the Timex of American politics. Takes a licking and keeps on ticking. In fact, what the Sunday media barrage demonstrated was just how self-assured and in control Hillary is at this point in the race. Today she also picked up the endorsement of Indiana Senator Evan Bayh, a moderate, red-state Democrat who would make an interesting choice for V.P. And if there was one message from Sunday's walk in the park, it was that Hillary will position herself as a centrist come the general election, whatever Chris Wallace would have you believe. Witness, for instance, the evolution of her health care plan:

The only real piece of news in the interviews came on ABC, where Clinton said for the first time that her health plan will not mandate or include coverage for illegal immigrants, who already receive emergency coverage under federal programs for children and the poor. It was yet another sign that her plan is designed, most of all, for passage, aimed as it is to assuage the concerns of those who opposed her 1993 effort most fiercely: small businesses, and people who are satisfied with their current health care.

No, Hillary is not my first choice in this race, but the fact is she has run an expert campaign. A big upset in Iowa may yet reverse her fortunes, but as of now, Mrs. Clinton looks awfully hard to beat.

Drudge is reporting that President Bush has gone on the record stating that he believes Hillary Clinton will win the Democratic presidential nomination, but she will lose the general election to a Republican challenger. This comes from an excerpt in the forthcoming book The Evangelical President by Bill Sammon, in which Bush states: "She's got a national presence and this is becoming a national primary...And therefore the person with the national presence, who has got the ability to raise enough money to sustain an effort in a multiplicity of sites, has got a good chance to be nominated."

While it seems a certain that Clinton will win the nomination, the certainty that she would lose is, well, not so certain at this stage of the game. The comments by Bush that a Republican will win the White House are not necessarily echoed by those close to the president. Former adviser Karl Rove feels the race will be too close to call and this sentiment is basically repeated on the record by Vice President Dick Cheney in the following comment: "[The election] could go either way."

Hillary Clinton spent some time on Fox News Sunday and told us that she would rather not be talking about MoveOn.org:

WALLACE: Senator, you have refused to criticize the MoveOn.org ad about General Petraeus. And in fact, this week you voted against a Senate resolution denouncing it.

President Bush said that you and other Democrats are more afraid - his word - afraid of irritating the left wing and MoveOn than you are about insulting the American military. Does he have a point?

H. CLINTON: No, he doesn't. But I think it's clear I don't condone attacks on anyone who has served our country with distinction and with honor, and I have been very vocal in my support of and admiration for General Petraeus.

I did vote for a resolution that made it clear I do not condone and do condemn attacks on any American, impugning their patriotism, and that includes people like Senator Max Cleland and Senator John Kerry.

I think we need to call a halt to any kind of attacks, from wherever they come, that would go after anyone based on their service to America.

Pretty standard so far, but at this point she does a perfectly disciplined Jane Hamsher pivot and attack.

But you know, this is not a debate about an ad. This is a debate about how we end the war in Iraq. That's the debate that I want to be participating in, and I think a lot of people on the other side don't want us to have that debate.

Nicely done!

The continuing saga of Norman Hsu is showing more and more the dark underbelly of political fundraising. It keeps getting worse for the Democrats as a whole and Hillary in particular:

A Laguna Beach investment firm filed a lawsuit against Democratic fundraiser Norman Hsu on Friday, claiming he defrauded investors out of at least $23 million and required them to donate to Democratic candidates.

According to the lawsuit filed by Briar Wood Investments, Hsu persuaded the company's operator to do business with him by taking him to star-studded Democratic Party events. There, the 56-year-old Hong Kong native was praised by New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, California Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown and others, the lawsuit said.

As a condition of doing business with the fundraiser, Hsu directed investors to make contributions to certain Democratic candidates, the lawsuit said. The investors turned over tens of thousands of dollars, including $30,000 worth of checks to Clinton's campaign on a single day.

Read that again, Hillary knew who he was and probably invited him to events. He used that access to persuade investors to give him money which he duly defrauded them of and also coerced them to donate to Hillary's campaign. One would think that $30,000 in one day would make the campaign take notice. $23-million will definitely make the country take notice.

This is getting very interesting. There were two more articles today about some questionable fund-raising practices by Democrats, specifically Hillary Clinton. The first is from the Wall Street Journal, Donors Stir 'Bundling' Questions:

BRISTOW, Va. -- When Hillary Rodham Clinton held an intimate fund-raising event at her Washington home in late March, Pamela Layton donated $4,600, the maximum allowed by law, to Mrs. Clinton's presidential campaign. But the 37-year-old Ms. Layton says she and her husband were reimbursed by her husband's boss for the donations. "It wasn't personal money. It was all corporate money," Mrs. Layton said outside her home here. "I don't even like Hillary. I'm a Republican."

Read it all. It gives a good summary of the practice known as "bundling". The second article is from this morning's Washington Post, Past Clouds Candidates' Donor Lists, which starts off with this gem:

A list of the donors who have "bundled" large sums from dozens of individuals to give to Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign includes several figures who were involved in the 1990s Democratic Party fundraising scandal that tarnished her husband's record. Among them is an Oklahoma oilman who testified in the mid-1990s that the firm he worked for, owned by Democratic fundraisers, sought to curry favor with Bill Clinton's administration by providing payments and a golf club membership to a Cabinet secretary's son.

To give the appearance of fairness, the Washington Post does note that one of Mitt Romney's national finance co-chair was indicted. That man, Alan Fabian, immediately resigned and his contributions were returned, which the Post doesn't tell you.

Looks like campaign finance abuses are once again going to be a big story during this election cycle.