By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, June 19, 2007; 7:50 AM

Hillary Clinton is inevitable.

That, at least, is the consensus view of media wizards, strategists, pollsters and other kibitzers, that HRC is a virtual lock for the nomination. An official with a rival campaign told me that Hillary has an 80 percent chance of being the party's candidate, and most neutral observers would probably go with a higher number.

So why is there such unease about her within the party?

The conventional explanations don't fully cut it. Yes, the former first lady carries a fair amount of baggage from the 1990s. Yes, there will be concern about alternating Bush-Clinton dynasties. Yes, there is that first-woman thing, given that only men have occupied the Oval Office. And Hillary's high negatives, which were 50 percent in a recent Gallup poll.

But I don't think any of that gets at the reservations that some Democrats have about the New York senator. The baggage has been endlessly publicized. Her gender attracts lots of women. Negatives can come down if the electorate warms up to a candidate over the course of a campaign. There is something else, hinted at in that "1984" video, that some people find off-putting.

The hesitation, I think, is along the lines of this LAT piece:

"Frederick Cole wants the Democratic Party to take back the White House in 2008. 'Look what a mess we're in,' said Cole, a nurse in Louisville, Ky. 'It's time for some fresh, new-thinker ideas.'

"Yet if his party nominates Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York for president, the 52-year-old Democrat plans to vote for her Republican opponent.

" 'It's a personal thing,' Cole said. 'I don't like her. I think she's condescending and arrogant, even worse than Al Gore, who has no personality.'It is a paradox of the 2008 presidential race. By a wide margin, several polls show, voters want a Democrat to win -- yet when offered head-to-head contests of leading announced candidates, many switch allegiance to the Republican."

At least women love Hillary, right? Well, in the Nation, Lakshmi Chaudhry scrutinizes "one of the great ironies of Hillary Clinton's bid for the presidency. Many of the very same feminists who were her most ardent supporters as First Lady are now fiercely opposed to her historic bid to become the first female President of the United States. The woman once described by Susan Faludi as a symbol of 'the joy of female independence' now evokes ambivalence, disdain and, sometimes, outright vitriol. The right wing's favorite 'femi-nazi' now has to contend with Jane Fonda comparing her to 'a ventriloquist for the patriarchy with a skirt and a vagina.' . . .

"Let's be clear: Hillary has a 'feminist problem,' and more so with those who lean left.

"At first glance, the fault line dividing feminists in their view of Hillary Clinton is merely a matter of ideology. On one side are the mainstream moderate women's organizations such as NOW and EMILY's List, facing off against more radical progressive feminists, especially those opposed to the Iraq War. Some of her supporters claim that much of the anger is inspired by her now-infamous 2002 congressional vote . . .

"Antiwar sentiments run high indeed, but when it comes to feminism and feminists, the 'Hillary divide' also mirrors a deeper debate over the relationship between gender and political power. The ambivalence over Hillary's candidacy has just as much to do with increasing skepticism about the value of making it to the top."

Newsweek got at this last week with a piece about whether HRC can close the "likability gap":

"The real problem many Democratic voters have with Clinton is the sneaking suspicion that with so much of the country against her, she can never win a general election. Clinton's fate may well come down to her ability to deal with a vexing question: what is it about me that so many people don't like?

"The answer has eluded both Clinton and her husband throughout their three decades in the arena. They began their national political lives with a miscalculation--the idea that America was ready for a new kind of empowered, ambitious political spouse who would be 'two for the price of one,' in Bill's phrase. The country, however, didn't take to Hillary, especially after she bragged that she'd pursued a career when she could have "stayed home to bake cookies and have teas."

"Installed in Washington, Hillary morphed into a comic-book villain for her detractors--a man-eating feminist, they claimed, who allegedly threw lamps at her husband, communed psychically with Eleanor Roosevelt and lit a White House Christmas tree adorned with sex toys. The narrative of depravity--a tissue of inventions by conservatives--was often hard to follow. Was she, as they imagined her, a secret lesbian who fostered a West Wing culture of rampant homosexuality? Or was she the duplicitous adulteress who slept with former law partner Vincent Foster, ordered his death and then made it look like a suicide?"

Hmmm . . . not sure I would've gone there.

Salon's Walter Shapiro spent some time with the senator and marvels at her preparation:

"If Clinton wins the Democratic nomination (which is far from preordained), it will be as much because of the skills on display at Dartmouth Friday as any other factor. Clinton is relentless, never skimping on her homework, never taking her privileged position (by marriage) in the Democratic pantheon for granted. She may lack what the Bush family used to call 'the vision thing,' but she is the 2008 presidential candidate least likely to make a tactical error . . .

"These realistic views -- which are supported by most members of the Democratic foreign policy establishment -- may not always endear Clinton to the party's antiwar crusaders. More than her rivals for the nomination, she is a candidate who seems as concerned with how her words will appear to swing voters in Ohio and Florida in October 2008, as she is about satisfying the Democratic electorate in the primaries."

She even straddles the question of whether being called Hillary is demeaning.

Plenty of chatter about this NYT piece saying that McCain is having trouble raising money because he's ticked off so many special interests over the years. "It seems John McCain's tepid attempt to woo the Republican Party never had much of a chance," says Time's Joe Klein. "The New York Times reports that the money people don't trust him. He was never a very convincing Bible-thumper, either. But I would guess that the single issue that has sent his poll numbersplummeting in places like South Carolina is immigration.

"This is all very sad. You may disagree with McCain's position on the war (I do), but he's an essentially honorable man--which is why his attempt to pander to his party's base was so unconvincing--who is paying the price for not kowtowing to military contractors and Mexiphobes, two of the more loathsome fragments of the electorate . . .

"It will be harder for independents and Dems to vote for him this year because of his position on the war, but he remains living proof that centrism doesn't necessarily mean triangulation, that there can be such a thing as a vital center, bristling with fresh ideas--on immigration, on fiscal responsibility, on global warming in his case--free from the base-driven perversions of politics."

Bull Dog Pundit chews on the Arizona senator:

"I think the NYT is missing the big picture here. They're focusing way too much on the 'horse race' aspect of the campaign.

"I think the NYT's readers would be better served in understanding McCain's problems by instead focusing on substance. The reason he is having a tough time right now is his stand on the issues important to GOP voters.

"You want the reason McCain is struggling? It's because he's hellbent on giving rights to lawbreakers already in our country, even those who committed crimes while here illegally, and giving rights to suspected terrorists - but was more than happy to take away the 1st Amendment free speech rights of legal citizens."

Translation: Immigration reform and McCain-Feingold.

"Add to that his lead role in the 'Gang of 14,' his refusal to support the president's tax cuts, and his long history of seeming to get off on poking his finger in the face of the very conservatives whose support he is now begging for, and you've got the reason for his woes."

More bad news, via the New York Sun's Ryan Sager:

"The latest Mason-Dixon poll shows Mr. McCain down to an unbelievable 7% in the state's primary. This used to be Mr. McCain's best shot at winning one of the Early Three states; now he's below Mitt Romney (a place no candidate wants to be).

"The Big Four breakdown looks like this:

"Thompson: 25%/ Giuliani: 21%/ Romney: 11%/ McCain: 7%

"Now, partially, Mr. McCain's drop has to do with Fred Thompson's surge (which could stop surging). But it also has to do with the immigration bill. And it also has to do with the general stench of death emanating from the McCain campaign (when do you readers think he drops out? September? sooner?)."

A tad early for a media death watch, methinks.

Obama is apologizing for playing rough, says the Chicago Tribune:

"Sen. Barack Obama said Monday that it was 'a mistake' for his presidential campaign to issue documents raising questions about Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's ties to India and to Indian-Americans. "The memo's 'caustic tone' and its focus on contributions by Indian-Americans to the Clinton presidential campaign were 'potentially hurtful,' Obama said in a letter posted on the Web site of South Asians for Obama."

This would be the memo that referred to Clinton as (D-Punjab).

Hmmm...Could the GOP's leading non-candidate be taking this Reagan thing too far?

"Fred Thompson, the actor and former Tennessee senator who is expected to announce next month he is running for president, flew to London on Monday to meet Margaret Thatcher and deliver a foreign policy speech, his advisers tell The Politico."

Dick Polman unearths an old WashPost op-ed from October 2004:

"I see tangible progress. Iraqi security elements are being rebuilt from the ground up. The institutions that oversee them are being reestablished from the top down. And Iraqi leaders are stepping forward, leading their country and their security forces courageously . . . There are reasons for optimism . . . Training is on track and increasing in capacity. Infrastructure is being repaired . . . Progress has also been made in police training . . . Considerable progress is also being made in the reconstruction and refurbishing of infrastructure for Iraq's security forces . . . Iraq's security forces are developing steadily and they are in the fight. Momentum has gathered in recent months. With strong Iraqi leaders out front and with continued coalition -- and now NATO -- support, this trend will continue."

And the author? Gen. David Petraeus.

"Pretty encouraging, right? Any swing voter who read that piece might well have concluded that it would be nuts to dump Bush and elect John Kerry, what with the Iraqis so poised to take responsibility for their own security.

"Given Petraeus' rhetorical track record -- and his apparent willingness, back in 2004, to inject himself into the middle of a domestic partisan campaign -- why should we have confidence that in September he'll say anything that would deviate from the White House line?"

Americablog's John Aravosis votes no confidence in Petraeus:

"The latest from the US' commanding general in Iraq, David Petraeus, is that if the surge doesn't work, then we get to stay even LONGER in Iraq. Most of us, hell, all of us, thought that if Petraeus reported in September that the last-ditch surge effort didn't work, the war would be over. Not true. Now, the failure of our last chance effort means we'll stay even longer (to try another last-chance effort?). And, I assume, if Petraeus reports that the surge IS working, we'll also stay longer (you know, to finish the job). So, either way, win or lose, we're staying no matter what. So what exactly is the point of Petraeus reporting anything at all?"

This could be big: Rosie to "The Price is Right"?

At the New Republic, Tennessee native Michelle Cottle offers a musical analysis of the political scene:

"Country music prides itself on being the voice of red-state America. So it's hardly surprising that, in the years immediately following September 11, country music artists came out loud and proud with a variety of fightin'-mad anthems. From Clint Black's 'Iraq and Roll' to Darryl Worley's 'Have You Forgotten?' to Toby Keith's infamous 'Courtesy of the Red, White and Blue (The Angry American),' aggressive, defiant flag-waving made perfect cultural (not to mention economic) sense.

"It also jibed neatly with blue-staters' sniffy view of country fans as blindly patriotic . . . rednecks . . . By the time of the Dixie Chicks 'incident,' in which an anti-Bush utterance by lead singer Natalie Maines while in England led to the group's ex-communication from the country fold, there was little doubt that, when it came to Iraq, Nashville had the president's back . . .

"But a funny thing happened on the way to the surge. Sometime around 2004, the in-your-face calls to arms faded, and the war-themed offerings coming out of Nashville started taking on a more somber tone. In 2004, for instance, both girl-group SheDaisy and John Michael Montgomery produced hit singles focused on the pain of separation felt by soldiers and their loved ones. The former, 'Come Home Soon,' climbed the country charts to number 14; the latter, 'Letters from Home,' all the way to number two.

"Even Darryl Worley seems to be mellowing. Worley's 2003 'Have You Forgotten?' is often held up alongside Keith's 'Courtesy of the Red, White and Blue,' as evidence of country's deep-seated, reflexive patriotism. ('Some say this country's just out looking for a fight / Well after 9/11 man I'd have to say that's right.') But his 2006 hit, 'I Just Came Back from a War,' is more ambivalent. The story is told from the perspective of a recently returned vet sitting in a bar, trying to explain to his buddies why he seems different:

"I just came back from a place where they hated me and everything I stand for

"A land where our brothers are dying for others who don't even care any more

"Chances are I never will be the same, I really don't know any moreI just came back from a war."

Facebook Watch: The Guardian says that 12,000 of the BBC's 25,000 staffers are on the social networking site. (And only one of them has friended me so far!)

Can Britney sue a Florida radio station for using her bald-headed image on billboards, along with one of its jocks, alongside the headline Total Nut Jobs? Let's just say that if I were a laywer, I wouldn't be dying to take that case.

Finally, I couldn't resist this HuffPost link:"LAT Forces Joel Stein to Pull Out of Teaching Oral Sex Class." And it has the virute of being true!