Like it or not, prowar-antiwar Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic presidential nominee. That, at least, is the unspoken subtext of a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, whose self-coverage is headlined, "Clinton Widens Lead in Poll," but might as well have bellowed, "Clinton's Inevitability."
The numbers for whom we could now call Clinton's erstwhile competitors are devastating. "For the first time," reports the Post, "Clinton is drawing support from a majority of Democrats.... Among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents, 53 percent support Clinton, compared with 20 percent for Obama and 13 percent for former senator John Edwards." As for the rest of the stumping Democratic crew, their numbers stand not merely in the single digits, but, as the Post almost sadistically points out, "the low single digits."
You can search the polling results for some faint sign -- or hope -- of a surviving Democratic contest, but be warned. Attempt this only with strong drink in hand and a nearby support group at the ready. For there's not a dram of good polling news for anyone but Hillary.
Her popularity ... is being driven by her strength on key issues and a growing perception among voters that she would best represent change.... There is little difference between people who are tracking the campaign closely and those who are paying scant attention: Majorities in both groups said they would vote for Clinton if the election were held today.... Despite rivals' efforts to portray her as too polarizing to win the general election, a clear majority of those surveyed, 57 percent, said Clinton is the Democratic candidate with the best chance on Nov. 4, 2008. The percentage saying Clinton has the best shot at winning is up 14 points since June.... Democrats are far more likely to trust her than her main competitors -- 52 percent trust her most on Iraq, compared with 22 percent who trust Obama most on the war.
Then, yesterday, just to add financial insult to these electoral injuries and provide a deeper sense of inevitability to the inevitable, "her campaign announced that it had topped Obama for the first time in a fundraising period."
It is a mere tautology to note that Clinton's support has risen because Obama's support has dropped, or that Obama's support has dropped because Clinton's has risen. Of greater interest is the chicken-or-egg question: Which came first, Clinton's rise or Obama's fall? And, for my part, there is little doubt that Obama has played the chicken.
For weeks, months even, I have sat and watched the politically sophisticated on assorted talk shows bewail Obama's deplorable lack of aggressiveness vis-a-vis Clinton and ask, repeatedly, "Why in hell isn't he getting tougher on Hillary? Why isn't he going after her, with guns blazing, on her Iraq war vote? That's his only chance."
And I have sat and watched dumbfounded, because not one member of the esteemed punditocracy has uttered what seems the obvious: Obama, more than anyone, has always believed in Hillary's inevitability. Obama has been running for the second slot. Obama has demurred, and will continue to demur, from irritating his potential boss and saying something irremediable that would nix his vice-presidential chances. Obama, simply put, has had his eyes nearly all along not on the Oval Office -- just that of the v.p.'s in the West Wing.
It's the only logical explanation to that which has so oddly stumped the professional spectators. It cannot be proven, of course, and the Obama campaign and Obama himself would rave in innocent protestation. Nevertheless the explanation remains, exclusively -- and Obama is, if nothing else, exceedingly logical, even if his protective logic has contributed more than anything to Hillary's inevitability.