Bill Kristol — Really?

Bill Kristol is out today with a notable rose-colored prediction. As loyal readers may remember, I am a fan of Kristol, yet his rose-colored prediction for Iraq did not bear fruit. And when he wrote in The Washington Post back in July that the Bush presidency “will probably be a successful one,” I began to wonder just what he is thinking.

Kristol’s article on the Weekly Standard‘s campaign site states his current odds for a Republican winning the White House are 2-1, and get this: If Hillary Clinton is not the nominee, then the odds jump to 4-1. Where is this coming from? He watched the Democratic debate this week and said that “the level of routine irresponsibility demonstrated throughout the debate was jaw-dropping” and that the party is now running on an irresponsibility platform comprised of “more illegal immigration, higher taxes, more government control of healthcare and more aggressive prosecution of the war on smoking than of the war on terror.”

Kristol, who has complimented Candidate Clinton before — as have Newt Gingrich, Karl Rove and President Bush — said she is “the only possible president among the Democrats.” But he attempts to lay out a scenario, because she runs to the right of her party, where she loses Iowa and then the nomination. Does Kristol actually believe Barack Obama or John Edwards will stop Clinton in Iowa and beyond and derail her nomination? Some people supporting the underdogs may think so, but I doubt Kristol does.

Kristol touts the strength of three of the four top contenders in the GOP field — and note to Mitt, you have been left out! Kristol says, “I believe the toughness of Giuliani, the sobriety of Thompson, the gravitas of McCain — any of these would be very difficult for the Democratic nominee to overcome.” This despite the fact that he concedes that Bush is unpopular and the Republican brand is “unattractive.”

“Hillary could well lose the nomination. And a Republican would then win the presidency. He probably will anyway,” Kristol concludes at the end. But he called Clinton a potential president who only “could well” lose her primary election. Does that really sound like 2-1?

***

ASK A.B. — Please join me for my weekly Q & A video posts by sending useful, interesting and entertaining questions to askab@digital-stage.thehill.com. We want to talk politics and have a few laughs. Spare us the offensive, unGoogleable, unthinkable or otherwise useless. I look forward to hearing from all of you, often.