It’s true that Mitt Romney, as a candidate, has many of the same vulnerabilities that Hillary Clinton failed to overcome in 2008. For one example, if Democrats were united in their opposition to a war that Clinton had authorized, Republicans are just as united in opposing a health care bill inspired by Mitt Romney. But, it’s really an insult to Hillary Clinton to compare her campaign to Mitt Romney’s. Clinton ran a strong campaign and would have probably won if she hadn’t had some really terrible strategists who were simply out-smarted by the Obama team.
What made Clinton a strong candidate was her tenacity and her ability to stay on message. She never could erase her Iraq problem, but she didn’t adopt twenty different explanations to try to excuse it. She was also the first obviously qualified serious female candidate for the presidency. That alone gave her candidacy a compelling aura and a ton of energetic support. Her hawkishness and her connections to the Democratic Leadership Council hurt her, but you can’t compare anything in her record to the flip-flops Romney has made on abortion, gay rights, and the environment. A small majority of Democrats wanted a more progressive candidate than Clinton, but few Democrats doubted that Clinton was with them on almost every issue. Clinton had a core, and people could sense it.
You just can’t say that about Romney. He will change his position on core moral issues whenever it suits him. That makes him impossible to trust. If he faced a challenger with one tenth of Obama’s talent, he’d be crushed. But he has no opposition. He appears to have competition, but it’s an illusion.
The only question is, will Romney win the nomination or will the Republicans nominate someone who never really had any intention of winning. Because, other than Rick Perry, none of Romney’s opponents are really serious about becoming president. And, so far, Perry’s potential as a candidate has proven illusory.
