David Leonhardt of the NY Times explains that Hillarity! is about as inevitable as these things can get for a non-incumbent to become the Dem nominee:
The Democratic Party is on the cusp of a primary-election campaign unlike any in memory. It does not have an incumbent president running for re-election. It does not even have a sitting vice president with an easy path to the nomination. Yet the party may conduct one of the least competitive nominating contests in modern political history.
He mentions comparisons to W in 2000 and Bob Dole in 1996 but I think a better comparison of "Inevitable yet unloved" would be Richard Nixon in 1968. Can we get some "Hillary's The One" bumper stickers?
Nate Cohn provides a modest ray of sunshine with a related piece:
The general election is a different story. Mrs. Clinton would not cruise to victory, and, yes, she could easily lose.
Sure, he says "easily lose" but I will be the one with my fingers crossed and my heart in my throat for six months, so I don't think it will be easy.
Finally, for those who may not have the stomach for this, the Times has other related coverage:
Blocking the Paths to Suicide
Don't do it! Four years, or even eight, is not a lifetime!
The concealed fact is that of those 30,000 deaths, roughly 19,000 are suicides. Every suicide is regrettable and the case can be made that access to guns increases the overall suicide rate by increasing access to a highly lethal means of acting upon what is, in many cases, a transitory suicidal impulse.
However, the case has not been made that reducing access to semiautomatic rifles with high capacity magazines or armor piercing bullets will bring down the suicide rate. Unless we have an underreported national epidemic of people committing suicide by shooting themselves fifteen times and bleeding out, I think it is fair to say that linking the suicide rate with a need to regulate magazine capacity is a bit of a misdirection play.