In addition to my passion for politics, I am also a die-hard baseball fan.

So I have come to regard the Clintons the same way I view the New York Yankees.

I don’t like them. I root against them. I not only want them to lose, I want bad things to happen to them.

But like the Yankees, the Clintons are very good at what they do. And despite an early season slump that has both playing beneath expectations, it’s never a good idea to underestimate their skill, their perseverance, and their willingness to do whatever it takes to win.

That said, last week’s Republican presidential debate gave us our first chance to take a look at the field of contenders who will try to deny Hillary her White House pennant next year. (Barack Obama is the political version of an over-valued technology stock, to mix sports and business metaphors. The only question is whether his bubble bursts before the primaries or afterwards. So unless Al Gore runs or John Edwards steps up his game, let’s count on facing another Clinton in the 2008 World Series.)

There’s admittedly little that can be learned from ten candidates fighting each other for eighty-plus minutes of microphone time, especially given the determination of moderator Chris Matthews to devalue the process even further with questions better suited to a radio talk show than a presidential forum. But it was instructive to see what the top-tier candidates thought it was important to emphasize during their speaking opportunities , giving us a glimpse into their own beliefs about their strengths and weaknesses as candidates. And it was helpful to see the rest of the field getting a shot at prime-time, to see which of the also-rans could either move up to challenge the front-runners, or which could potentially serve as running mate to one of them.

(Click here to read the rest of Dan’s full commentary/column.)

This entry was posted on Tuesday, May 8th, 2007 at 12:00 am and is filed under Blog Posts.