This article makes a few interesting suggestions. For one, it states the obvious fact that Republicans will be attacking the new House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, a lot in the coming years. The questionable assertion is that, in doing so, the right will be aiming for Hillary.

It’s questionable not in that the right wants this to happen — sources in the article confirm that — but in that it has any prayer of working.

For starters, Pelosi is a good target. She’s far to the left of most Americans. She supported pull-outta-Iraq-now Murtha for majority leader, and even her own party shot her down.

I don’t think voters will connect Pelosi and Clinton that closely, however. They are, incidentally, two different people. And Clinton has made a few centrist remarks recently to warm people up to the thought of her.

Another major reason: Clinton is in the running for president because she brings back memories of the Bill Clinton years — when the economy was good, entanglements overseas were embarrassing but minor and the hot-button issue was an (admittedly vile) misuse of office for sex. Attacking Pelosi will do nothing to undo the Hillary-Bill association, which is much stronger than the Hillary-Nancy one.

Finally, the election isn’t for another two years. If going after Pelosi will have any effect, it’ll be closer to the vote. Attacking Pelosi now can jam up her agenda (great idea), but I don’t see it carrying weight through 2007 and most of 2008. Unless the Repubs think up some really pithy insults.

I’d argue that to bring down Clinton, Republicans will have to go after Clinton. This Rube Goldberg stuff is worth a shot 24 months out, but they’ll have to get serious soon.

Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.