Hillary's lead in the race has been based on a sense of inevitability (if not entitlement) surrounding her candidacy. It will be interesting to see how the next two weeks unfold now that dominant position has been eroded.

As far as the Republican side goes, Robert Novak weighed in today. Although no McCain supporter, he makes the case that McCain is likely to be the last man standing in the primary and probably has the best shot in the general.

If Huckabee wins Iowa and McCain wins NH, Romney is pretty well finished. McCain would be well positioned against Huckabee in Rudy's supposed strong big states on Super Tues.

I have a post on my blog about Novak's article for those interested.

http://thepoliticalpost.wordpress.com/2007/12/27/last-man-standing-bob-novaks-take-on-mccain/

FWIW, Pollster.com did an analysis of possible house effects in IA polls earlier in the week and I happened to notice that SV's polls tend to be a little above the mean for Obama and a little below for Clinton.

The tragic event in Pakistan today gave the electorate a mild shock waking them out of the sleepy concerns of foreign policy and national security.

Of course, all the candidates addressed the situation of an unstable nuclear armed country with various factions of power including al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

Sen. Obama's response was, by most accounts, rather flat and unemotional while Sen. Clinton's was more polished and had personal anecdotes which reminded voters of her personal connections with world leaders.

The situation also highlights that the former president will be by her side. It also bolsters the Clinton assertion that leaving the country in the hands of a senator with two years of national experience is lacking in wisdom and high on the risk factor.

Well, since we are apparently talking about foreign policy here too, here is a fairly interesting take on leading from day one.

Would any of our Clinton supporters be willing to see if they can dig up a comparable amount of policy specifics as were given for Obama here?

As a sidenote, the ratio of Clinton supporters who present cognizant arguments (which I can respect) to apparently mindless ideologues is much higher over here than at HuffPo, apparently. It is interesting to look at the makeup of the poster groups on the various "leftist" blog/newssites.

stlounick,

You might be intterested in how I covered former Amb. Joe Wilson's endorsement of Mrs. Clinton. The last post was more about perception in light of recent events.

http://thepoliticalpost.wordpress.com/2007/12/23/joe-wilson-for-hillary-clinton/

It also bolsters the Clinton assertion that leaving the country in the hands of a senator with two years of national experience is lacking in wisdom and high on the risk factor.

How so? I mean aside from bald assertion by Clinton and Obama supporters, how does today's tragic events suggest anything whatever about the comparative merits of either candidate?

Greg,

The average person does not listen to daily political commentary or regularly size up the candidates' positions and/or experience.

The answer to your "How so" question is that those who do not give much attention to politics or world affairs, for that matter, do get a jolt from big news events such as the case in Pakistan today.

The average person who is not plugged in but hears of a nuclear Pakistan on the brink of becoming a chaotic and potentially ungovernable nation-state is rightly jolted.

The electorate will look to the closest thing to experience, in my opinion, at such a time. And Mrs. Clinton has a "leg up" on Mr. Obama in that capacity.

yesterday gone,

Personal connections account more than photo ops with the general public. Also, delivery (which is not one of Sen. Clinton's strong points) matters in moments of international disruptions.

Sen. Clinton proved herself, in my opinion, to be much more dignified and (believe it or not) empathetic in manner than Sen. Obama with regard to the assassination in Pakistan.

Awe, now. Don't hold back, Rich. Tell us how you really feel.

You might want to read my take on your repeated plugs of your blog: LAME! :)

Buck:
Responding to your question, she was a partner in the top law firm in Arkansas and otherwise regarded as an outstanding member of the bar, both regionally and nationally based on corporate and long-standing public service and community work. She was also a highly regarded graduate of what is arguably the nation's most distinguished law school, with many, many close friends from her time there no on the campaign trail (especially in Iowa and soon in New Hampshire) vouching for her warmth, leadership and long-standing community concern (including taking an extra year in law school for a community volunteer project and to match up with Bill Clinton's graduation year of 1973) before her work in Washington on the Judiciary Committee staff later. All of this is well-documented, and I hope answers your question. She's a wonderfully nice person, and the more unwarranted claims to the contrary the more people who know her are ready to (literally) go the extra mile.