If it’s not the first rule of Republican politics, it should be: never, ever, ever underestimate anybody whose last name is Clinton. Not Bill, not Hillary. Not Chelsea, not even George. They’re very good at what they do, and when they’re about to be written off for dead, that’s when they’re at their very best.

We’ve counted out the Clintons before: during the New Hampshire primary in 1992, after the death of health care reform and the Republican takeover of Congress, and at the height of the impeachment brawl a few years after that. On each of those occasions, we had convinced ourselves that this was going to be the end of this unique family’s political journey. Each time, we were wrong.

When Hillary Clinton decided to run for president, I promised myself I would not be fooled again. As an equally loyal fan of the Republican Party and of the Green Bay Packers football team, I had come to regard the Clintons the same way I’ve always thought about the Dallas Cowboys. I don’t like them. I root against them. I want them to lose and occasionally find myself wanting bad things to happen to them. But they are very good at what they do. And if someone can knock them out in the playoffs — whether it’s the New York Giants or a senator from Illinois — I’m just as happy not to have to go up against them when the stakes are at their highest.

So throughout the Democratic primaries, I’ve been rooting for Barack Obama. The nobler side of me admires him, even across party lines, for the tremendous interest and enthusiasm he has engendered among younger Americans. But the larger, less decent part of me believes that Hillary Clinton would be a more formidable general election opponent for the Republican nominee. She’s certainly on the ropes right now: her campaign has been flailing through the last few rounds of primaries in a way that Clintons are usually able to avoid. But we’ve been losing to Clintons for a long time now: I’d still just as soon avoid her in a general election campaign.

There’s something other than superstition at work here: there’s also a question of ideological positioning. Many of my fellow Republicans don’t believe it, but Mrs. Clinton has actually fashioned a relatively centrist career as a senator. By contrast, Mr. Obama’s voting record has been designated by the respected and nonpartisan National Journal as the most liberal of any of the Senate’s 100 members. This is not merely an epithet: it represents a series of policy choices and legislative votes that leave Senator Obama to the left of Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and Barbara Boxer. Even the most inspirational and inclusive language in the world will face a stern test in the face of accusations on that front.

Without yet knowing the specifics of his record in office, general election voters are beginning to display an instinctual awareness of Senator Obama’s potential shortcomings. A Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg News poll released earlier this week showed Senator Clinton defeating John McCain on the question of which candidate would best handle issues relating to the economy and immigration, while Senator Obama came up short against Senator McCain on both questions. While the differences were not as notable, Hillary Clinton also matched up better than Barack Obama against John McCain on questions relating to health care and on terrorism. (Senator Obama ran three points better than Senator Clinton against John McCain on Iraq, the only issue on which he outpaced her.)

Which brings us back to the question of change versus experience. While Senator McCain is an insurgent and a maverick, he is also 71 years old and he has been a member of Congress for roughly a quarter of a century. Not surprisingly, both Democrats defeated Senator McCain on the question of which candidate would bring necessary change to Washington, Senator Obama more decisively than Senator Clinton.

But the debate over change — and perhaps age — may be overshadowed by the overwhelming margin (53 percent to 22 percent) by which voters say that Senator McCain has “the right experience” instead of Senator Obama, almost three times as large as his advantage over Clinton. American voters have made it clear that they want change, but in the middle of a difficult war and an impending recession, they want reassurance as well. Far more than against Senator Clinton, a McCain campaign against Senator Obama could benefit from the perception among voters that John McCain is better prepared for the presidency.

(In the overall matchups, Senator McCain edged both Democrats by small margins. In the interest of full disclosure, his margin of victory against Senator Clinton was four points larger, providing a statistically insignificant talking point to those who disagree with my assessment.)

Just as the Giants proved a tougher foe for my Packers than I’d anticipated, there’s no question that Senator Obama’s considerable strengths as a candidate and as a communicator would present a huge challenge to Senator McCain this fall. An unpopular war, an increasing likelihood of a recession and an eight-year itch that has returned the same party to the White House in three consecutive elections only once since World War II (1980-1988) make this an uphill fight for Senator McCain against either Democratic candidate. Most of my fellow Republicans, consumed with 16 years of Hillary hatred and awestruck by Senator Obama’s political skills, are still hoping Senator Clinton can come back and claim her party’s nomination. Only she, they think, can unify the Republicans and mobilize our voters to the polls in November.

But I’ve been burned by the Clintons too many times before, so I’m rooting for the new guy from Illinois to take her out in the playoffs next week. Forgive me for holding off on the eulogies, but I’d just as soon wait until Wednesday morning before performing last rites on the Clinton-for-president campaign.

Source: NY Times