Be careful what you wish for. . .

Jonathan Martin has a piece in the online magazine for politics junkies called Politico that says Republicans are delighted at the prospect of running against Clinton. To be clear, Republicans aren’t happy about having to contest Democrats in 2008, period. But since they must, Hillary offers Republicans the best prospect that they might actually win. It’s because she’s been around, because her negatives are so high, and because her polarizing style fires up dispirited Republicans.

To me, Clinton is the Democrats’ Nixon of 1968, and the Democrats’ Reagan of 1980. Nixon and Reagan carried with them so much baggage from their previous lives (in Reagan’s case, being an actor-spokesman for right-wing causes) that Democrats in those two very bad years for incumbent Democrats thought they might actually beat the damaged-goods Nixon or Reagan.

But Republicans, working from the same evidence in each of those elections, reached a different conclusion. A Republican was going to win. So why not nominate the Republican they wanted, rather than some compromised Republican whose main virtue was helping them win? Go for the real thing!

As we know in both 1968 and 1980, the Republicans' gamble paid off. Their true-blue Republican captured the White House. By that same token, in 2008 Democrats (the Pink Party) will be delighted to nominate and help elect Hillary.