My must read of the day is "There Is No Alternative," by Ross Douthat, in the New York Times:
I really have no idea what proposals Clinton will run on, what arguments she’ll make. But as with Franz Josef, it’s not her policies that make her formidable; it’s the multitudes that "Hillary" the brand and icon now contains. Academic liberalism and waitress-mom populism and Davos/Wall Street/Bloomberg centrism. Female empowerment and stand-by-your-man martyrdom. The old Clintonian bond with minority voters and her own 2008 primary-trail identification with Scots-Irish whites. And then the great trifecta: continuity with the Obama present, a restoration of the more prosperous Clintonian past and (as the first ... female ... president) a new "yes we can" progressive future.
Like the penultimate Hapsburg emperor with his motley empire, then, she has the potential to embody a political coalition — its identities and self-conceptions, its nostalgias and aspirations — in ways that might just keep the whole thing hanging together.
But without her, the deluge.
The policy emphasis of liberals today doesn't seem to inspire much. Douthat is correct when he says their current focus is on issues that do not have much bearing on the average person, but that doesn't lessens the strength of Hillary Clinton—it makes her stronger.
Liberals need Clinton because she transcends policies. Her appeal is multifaceted and that's what makes her seemingly difficult to beat.
This is politics and, of course, things can change in an instant, but the coalition Douthat describes is why it will take a strong, charismatic Republican to break it down—a candidate I have yet to see.
If Hillary surprises us and doesn't run, Democrats have an uphill battle to switch momentum and produce a candidate that can help them keep control of the White House, but as long as she stays in the game Republicans have an arduous coalition to disperse.