Same Events, Differing Conclusions

It is always interesting when two different journalists attend the same events, here the same speakers and yet come away with widely differing takes on those events. I mentioned last night the report of the Politico than anointed Hillary! Clinton as the next president because Republicans were in "despair". Toby Harnden from the Telegraph has a slightly different take on the entire situation.

The ultimate nightmare for Republicans is that the road now appears clear for Hillary Clinton to sweep back to the White House. Although many Democrats worry that she is not electable, Republicans tend to be convinced that the Clinton machine can succeed against Barack Obama and beyond.

But it is far too early for Republicans to despair. To start with, Democrats appear to be betting on defeat in Iraq. Scarcely a day goes by without a candidate offering a more radical solution to ending the war by capping troop numbers, withdrawing funding for Iraqi forces or censuring the president.

While this approach is producing some snappy sound bites and approving headlines, it leaves the Democrats with two problems. The first is the possibility that Mr Bush's troop surge could succeed in pacifying Baghdad. The second is that voters might balk if they feel they are being asked to embrace defeat.

Americans are not against the war because soldiers and marines are dying but because they are dying and there seems little prospect of success. But even by the end of next year they might not be ready to accept that defeat is inevitable.

There's more, but you really should read the whole thing. Is there gloom? Sure. Is that really remarkable at this point? No. But Harnden points out pretty much what I did last night. There is still time and there is still a long way to go until the next election. Frankly, I think Hillary! is in a lot worse shape than the myth-makers would have everyone believe. I also believe the Democrats (and, sadly, a few Republicans) are making a huge mistake by thinking they were given a mandate to lose a war. And the more they scramble over one another to see who can be first at the exit, the worse the payback will be during the next election cycle.