Jonathan Chait makes a strong case that Hillary Clinton is less “inevitable” than current polling and the conventional wisdom make her appear. But I think his comparison with Joe Lieberman overstates things a bit.
It is true that Lieberman led in the early polling for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination, largely based on name recognition. He maintained this lead into the summer of 2003. But Lieberman never enjoyed anything like the lead Hillary now holds. Lieberman’s numbers were rarely higher than the low 20s while Hillary holds a 20-point lead over her nearest rival in most polls. Lieberman usually held a single-digit lead and had Gephardt, Kerry, and Dean all polling close behind him. Moreover, his lead was tentative, as Democrats waited for better candidates — first Al Gore and then Hillary herself — to get into the race.
Hillary may yet implode, but she remains in a far stronger position against the more antiwar elements of her party than Joe Lieberman held during the 2004 cycle.
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?