Ms. Hillary is not “a real fine lady,” and yet I am certain that John DiIulio’s Weekly Standard article on her prospects at this point should have been titled in honor of the Roger McGuinn tune (video below, with McGuinn, Gene Clark, and Chris Hillman): “Don’t you write her off.”
At NRO’s Corner, Victor Davis Hanson projects himself into the mind of the Clintons and opines:
I still maintain that the Clintons (if she can squeak by in the next two primaries) will use every means to find a way to challenge, seat, or sway delegates to win the nomination, regardless of the aggregate popular vote or ongoing delegate count. While that may not work, I still think she will try if she wins Texas; and if she wins the last three states, it will work. Apparently Peter [Robinson, who wagers that the Clintons will accede to the popular vote winner of the primaries and caucuses] wants to suggest that the people of Florida and Michigan should be “disenfranchised” or that “undemocratic” caucuses in the night should weigh the same as the results of plebiscites, or that time-tested and loyal super-delegates should have their traditional roles neutered, or that tiny states that will not be in play or won’t matter in the fall should count the same as CA, Fl, MI, NJ, NW, OH, TX, and PN.
I could con all that up in about ten seconds, so I’m sure the Clintons’ team can do far better.
The prospect that Hanson conjures is the one that John Hinderaker believes too good to be true. Mark Steyn agrees. In his weekly column, he argues that the Clinton spell is broken, and adds for good measure: “Hillary is what the Clintons look like with their pants up….Bill gave the party an appetite for slick lounge acts, and this time round Barack