Joining the Boys' Club

"But you don't hear those assumptions about Senator Clinton's fatal weaknesses from Republican pros much anymore. In fact, you hear the opposite. Republicans now sound worried that Hillary will win the nomination. Why? Because she's shown herself to be so formidable in the Democratic primary campaign thus far. The biggest eye-opener to R's has been her success in parrying Obama's challenge while enhancing her credentials as the most experienced and sober-minded Democrat in the field on issues of national security."

Some conservatives are starting to give the former first lady her due, starting with National Review Editor Rich Lowry:

"Hillary Clinton has led in almost every national poll among the Democratic presidential candidates, usually by double digits. She has turned in a solid, self-assured performance in all the debates, has revved up an impressive organization and hasn't made a major mistake under the glare of a media that magnify everything she does.

"Clinton is the underestimated frontrunner. How much will-he-or-won't-he commentary has been devoted to almost-certainly-won't Al Gore, and how many glossy pages and adoring column inches to Barack Obama, as she continues her steady march toward the nomination? Conservative commentators like me have especially tended to discount her. We have argued that she'd never dare to run for Senate in New York; that if she ran, she'd be a terrible candidate; and that if she really ran for president, she would collapse under the weight of her own dullness and high negatives. Alas and alack, it is instead incontrovertible that -- in her own way -- she's a talented politician who has a clear path to the Democratic presidential nomination and to the presidency.

"She's not a natural, a fact highlighted all the more by her association by marriage to the great natural politician of his generation. If the test of a candidate is whether you would like to sit down and have a beer with her, she will never pass it. She excels on other tests."

NYT columnist David Brooks also gives Hillary a hat tip:

"The biggest story of this presidential campaign is the success of Hillary Clinton. Six months ago many people thought she was too brittle and calculating and that voters would never really bond with her. But now she seems to offer the perfect combination of experience and change.

"She's demonstrating that it really helps to have lived in the White House. She can draw on a range of experiences unmatched by her rivals. She's dominated most of the debates. She's transformed her position on Iraq without a ripple. Her measured, statistic-filled speeches rarely inspire passion, but always confidence.

"Her success has put incredible pressure on Barack Obama. He continues to attract huge crowds and huge money, but he also continues to make rookie mistakes, like saying he'd talk with Hugo Chávez . . .

"The one thing Republicans had going for them was the head-to-heads. Bush, the war and the party could all be unpopular, but individual G.O.P. candidates beat Clinton because her negatives were so high. But she is changing that. People who've said they would never vote for her will take a second look once they see her campaign.

"That means in 2008, Hillary won't save the G.O.P. An orthodox Republican will not beat an orthodox Democrat."

Of course it would be unfair to judge any public person by letters she wrote as a college student. But the New York Times scores a bundle of Hillary's 1960s correspondence, and it makes her more interesting than the carefully controlled persona we see today: