Hillary 2016

I don't think Hillary is inevitable; in large part because I don't think any of Washington actually wants her. The media are already writing critical articles, and I don't think the current crop of Dems want the Clinton machine back on top. I think they have an anybody by Hillary attitude, and are just looking for anyone else who is viable--that's what they did last time, even though Obama didn't even seem viable when he threw his hat in the ring.

Here's an insider's anti-Hillary story, taking the line that she's too old to run. Notice this in a a left-leaning publication, and written by the liberal Charlie Cook.

Clinton turns 67 this October. At that age, she will likely be making her candidacy decision, and if nominated Clinton would turn 69 two weeks before the 2016 general election, notably the same age Ronald Reagan was when he was first elected in 1980. The choice to run for president is effectively a nine-year commitment: one year to run, another four years if she wins a first term—finishing up that term at age 73—and then, assuming she runs for reelection and wins, serving four more years to end a second term at 77 years of age. None of this is to say that the age issue could successfully be used against her. After all, Reagan won the presidency at the same age. But how many 67-year-olds make nine-year commitments, and what concerns have to be addressed if they do?