The only reason I can pose as a qualified pundit on this matter is because the situation among the Democratic candidates is so fluid. In this vacuum of certainty, we country bumpkins can pontificate with impunity, acting as if we have a clue.

My own clue is Hillary Clinton’s run has so many problems she probably won’t get the nomination, and if she does, she will be the easiest Democrat for the GOP to beat.

This vague perception of mine recently was voiced much more eloquently by Frank Rich of The New York Times, whose analysis of the subject appears next door.

I simply add another half of the equation as seen from here: What might the GOP do to mess in their nest?

In the general election, Clinton would have the best chance if Republicans match Democrats error for error by nominating one of their right-wing evangelicals. In that case, to avoid another season of theocratic policymaking, many Americans would vote non-Republican. They’d rather risk the Bush-Clinton, Clinton-Bush, Bush-Clinton dynasty Rich describes. Millions would want anybody but a president who is too strongly instructed on matters of public policy by his faith.

Admittedly this would be a hard choice among negatives. Let us pray it does not come to that. If Barack Obama keeps gaining gravitas, to use the favorite word of analysts who noodled over George W. Bush’s first campaign, Obama might keep looking better to worriers on both sides and turn out to be a formidable general election candidate, indeed.

Hillary has a boatload of vulnerability ripe for general election exploitation far beyond anything her fellow Democrats will do in the primary. And, as she is finding, it’s hard to lay a glove on Barack.

We either make ourselves miserable or we make ourselves strong.

The amount of work is the same.

- Carlos Castaneda, writer

Advertisement