Sarah Palin Versus The Obamessia in 2012?

For those who are already writing this campaign off, Paul Bedard speculates on a 2012 campaign:

Many Republicans aren’t happy with the direction of the 2008 election and are already looking ahead to the 2010 congressional contest and the 2012 presidential election where they expect to see Sen. John McCain’s running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, as the nominee running against President Barack Obama. Don’t laugh. Here’s how they say she can get there from here, should the polls stick and McCain lose in November. First, Palin spends more time in Washington, getting to know the lay of the land. Maybe she moves to take a leadership role in the Republican Governors Association or the National Governors Association, a perch that helped to launch Bill Clinton. Next, she travels internationally to world energy and military hot spots. In essence, she builds a more complete résumé that will make her an easier sell on the national stage. And, of course, she wins re-election in 2010. And along the way, she proves herself better than this year’s throwaways, Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney. Says a key Republican promoting the scenario: “As of today, Palin is the top contender. She clearly has the potential to be a winning top-of-the-ticket candidate: solid character, solid values, fire in the belly, etc. But four years is a long time. Neither Romney, Huckabee, or others have the complete package. If Palin spends a bit more time traveling overseas and domestically, broadening her horizons, and wins re-election in Alaska in 2010, she will be the nominee in 2012.”

Not so fast. I wouldn't be so quick to assume Obama will be the nominee in 2012 if he wins this year. If his presidency goes as I suspect it will he will be a weak incumbent and will be vigorously challenged by Hillary Clinton, just as Jimmuh Carter was challenged by Ted Kennedy in 1980. The difference is that Clinton will win.

It's much more likely to be Sarah vs. Hillary than Sarah vs. Barry.