Foolish uncertainty about Hillary winning the nomination

It’s one debate performance, people!

First, this from Time Magazine:

George H.W. Bush on FOX News Sunday’s “American Leaders” series with Chris Wallace.

“Well, look, if she’s the nominee, I obviously will be for her opponent. I thought a few weeks ago that she was almost a ‘gimme’, as we say in golf, for the nomination. I’m not sure I feel that way now. Well, there seems to be more kind of internal — in her own party there seems to be more willingness to take her on and to argue about stuff. But she’s a formidable opponent and she’s done very well, in my view. Now would I be for her? No.”

Second, this from National Review:

Newt Gingrich called in to Sean Hannity’s radio program to discuss Hillary Clinton’s debate performance. Highlights:

The fact that she said she’s basically sympathetic with Rangel’s trillion dollar tax increase – that’s going to arouse some deep opposition. The huge Democratic tax increase allowed us to win in 1994… Then, I saw in a ticker on Fox News, when Sen. Edwards said nominating her would be ‘a victory for a corruption machine’… it brings back a lot of memories of the Chinese funding scandals of 1996… It takes her winning the nomination from an 80 percent likelihood to a 50 percent. It’s even money. If she doesn’t turn this around quick, I may have to call back in and take it even lower.”

Both Newt Gingrich and George H. W. Bush are basing this on one weak debate performance? Come on!

She will come back in the next debate ten times stronger on the issue and ready to answer those questions. She’ll probably use it against her opponents. Sure, the debate footage is good campaign fodder for Republicans and her opponents. However, I just don’t think her performance means all that much other than it gives cable news something to discuss this week.

She’ll be the nominee, have no doubt. However, she may just be in for a bumpier ride if her opponents sense any blood in the water.