COMMENTARY | Jonathon Last over at the Weekly Standard believes that Hillary Clinton’s disastrous book tour means that she is imploding two years before the presidential campaign. Allahpundit at Hot Air believes that it doesn’t matter.
With all due respect to Allahpundit, I think Last has the better argument. History is on the side of Clinton being a far weaker prospect for the presidency than the pundits seem to think she is. She was Ms. Inevitable once before, until an obscure senator with an unlikely name took the Democratic nomination away from her.
That is not to say that Clinton won’t get nominated this time around. If she wants to be, she probably will be. The only question is how much will the far left make her sweat for it.
Now is it impossible that the Republicans will manage to punt the election once again. Romney would have been a good president, but he was certainly flawed as a campaigner. He managed to lose in 2012 when every indication was that a decent Republican should have won.
Even so it is very tough to imagine how Clinton actually wins against a decent Republican candidate. Her husband, as Allahpundit notes, is a master politician. But Bill’s skills have rarely rubbed off on others, not his wife in 2008, not a slew of Democrats who were forcibly retired to he private sector in 1994.
Clinton is likely to play the woman card to try to attract the female vote. This may be both an advantage and a disadvantage. It may benefit her among women voters, but utterly destroy her among male voters. Feminists liked to carp on the so-called “gender gap” during the Reagan era. That was one reason Walter Mondale choose Geraldine Ferraro as his running mate in 1984. Reagan went on to win one of the greatest landslides in history.
The bottom line is that Clinton is imploding. Her only hope is that she may have time to recover yet.