I don't think that this analysis is right:

Bowers theorizes: "[E]very single candidate has seen their numbers drop from the time when their candidacy was first announced or first rumored. After the announcement, people learn more about candidates and media criticism grows harsher. That might actually explain Clinton's rise better than anything else, since she is so well known and opinions on her are so fixed that she had less to fear from the inevitable drop-off. In other words, that people have fixed opinions on her has actually been an asset, rather than a hindrance, to her campaign. ... Clinton, by contrast, is a rock who has been through the meat grinder several times in the past. Things were not going to get worse for her, but they were going to get worse for everyone else."

First of all, Hillary has never been through a meat grinder. At worst, she's been scraped over a dull cheese grater, relative to what could have been done had the press been doing its job in the nineties. Also, her opponents aren't going to bring up her sordid past, because as Democrats they were complicit throughout in covering it up, and completely accepted the corruption of the Clintons as the price for political power (the straw that broke the back of my support for Democrats for my lifetime, or at least until a new generation comes along that renounces the behavior of their forebears). And the Republicans and other foes of a Hillary candidacy (like me) are going to keep their powder dry until she is actually nominated, and lay down the most withering fire in the campaign, not over a year before the election.

One other point. Even if she had "been through a meat grinder," that was then, and this is now, and there are a whole lot of voters who are unaware of the events of over a decade ago, because they were young and not paying much attention, or paying attention to only the salacious aspects, not the criminality and corruption. Now that young people get so much more information from the Internet, and the traditional media gatekeepers who protected the Clintons in the nineties have lost so much of their power, I suspect that we are going to be reintroduced to both of the real Clintons in the coming year, via people like the "Slick Grope Vets for Truth."

Exactly Rand. Hillary is hoping to get the bad stuff out of the way now, so people will be de-sensitized to it by next November. There's no reason to play by her playbook.

Senator Obama may be "clean" in Senator Biden's assessment, but he has ties to some individuals in deep with Chicago politics (like the Governer).

Do you suppose there is a Mutual Assured Destruction standoff between Senator Obama and Senator Clinton regarding getting into the politics of who is more damaged than the other?

The Clinton's (and their enablers) arrogated to themselves an extra-judicial status. Re-collecting and re-membering this couldn't happen to a "nicer" couple.

The trouble, of course, is that so many people of influence have so many skeletons in their closets, that the Clinton's have a sizable, ready-made body of unscrupulous protectors.

Given the abject failure of the DOJ to send Mr. Berger to prison for a very long time, I am not optimistic.

What exactly are Hillary's qualifications to be president? I know she meets the constitional requirement of being born in the US and over 35 years old, but really, what has she actually accomplished that indicates her ability to head up the executive branch of the government?

First Lady of Arkansas and the US? Psheww.
7 years in the Senate with an office staff of less than 20 people? Oh, how impressive! What exactly has she accomplished in the Senate? Has she ever created a job or had to meet a payroll? Has she ever done anything at all?

The same question can be asked of Obama the other candidates.

It's a shame there are no real candidates in this race ... yet(?)

This administration is a bust.

This Congress is a bust,

This country must have some leaders somewhere,
Draft Newt! At least he is a character and intelligent.

Draft Newt! At least he is a character and intelligent.

We already have a character called Hillary Clinton. She's intelligent too. And the games Gingrich played with Washington lobbying (packing lobby groups with republicans) while he was Speaker of the House put him in the same class of corrupt politician as the Clintons, as far as I am concerned.

I know that Hilary is intelligent, and I know about Newt's antics. I just think it's sad that Hilary is becoming electable because she is seen as "more reasonable".

Who knows, she may make a great president for many - the great unthinking unwashed perhaps.

I just think it's sad that all politics is now viewed as corrupt or banal and irrelevant to the lives of most people. Not quite what I came to this country for.

I suspect that we are going to be reintroduced to both of the real Clintons in the coming year, via people like the "Slick Grope Vets for Truth."

From a seasoned agitator of the Slick Grope Vets for Truth:

Hillary is a study in over-manicured bitchiness. This is a feminist with a chrome soul. It is said she can pry open a can of sardines with her clitoris. The temperature of Hillary Clinton’s heart is approximate to the average toilet seat in the Yukon.

Good thing that today's young people have the Internet --- although, alas, every silver cloud has a black lining. There is a danger that when today's young people get onto the net, they will use Google News or Wikipedia, both of which have been corrupted by leftist bias. Even a few of the blogs have a leftist bias. The more some things change, the more others stay the same. Young folks still need guidance from their elders to find reliable sources.

You're living in a delusional world if you think the GOP candidate will dredge up anything serious from HRC's past. Look at all the incredible material about Kerry's past that was left on the table last time around. The GOP had video tape of his Congressional testimony and did nothing with it. Why will it be different with HRC?

Why will it be different with HRC?

Hopefully because the candidate won't be George W(imp) Bush, who wants to "set a new tone in Washington"? You know, the guy whose justice department let Sandy Burglar off with a wrist slap so that Hillary could hire him as a foreign policy adviser for her campaign?

I live in hope but not expectation.

Hopefully because the candidate won't be George W(imp) Bush, who wants to "set a new tone in Washington"?

So what tough guy do you have in mind?

Not Rudy who won't be getting the nomination despite your wet dream.

Well, Mitt Romney is the one guy out of the top four Republicans whose snake does not have two heads. (Or more.) Not that it matters to me all that much, but it might in the Republican primary. On the other hand, Romney is a Mormon, and supposedly some of the Republican base thinks of Mormons at weirdos.

Again, Ron Paul is the one guy in the field who is actually running on principle. And he is faithful to his wife (his first one, that is), unlike a lot of these guys. Not that I agree with him on all issues, but he does deserve credit for never wavering.

I have to tell you the idea of Hillary meeting a meat grinder intimately has some appeal. I think that may be the only way to defeat her, grind her out of the race.

I have to tell you the idea of Hillary meeting a meat grinder intimately has some appeal.

It seems that she has a few things in common with Benazir Bhutto.