JAMES TARANTO: New and Improved? Mrs. Clinton’s not-yet-a-campaign runs into some difficulties.

A participant in the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll provides this amusing quote, which appears in today’s Journal story about the results: “Anita Windley, 30, who voted for [Barack] Obama in 2008 and again in 2012, doesn’t think he’s doing enough to help people in her New York City neighborhood. She complains that jobs are still hard to find and the local schools are subpar. ‘It’s time for somebody new,’ she said, ‘like Hillary.’ ”

That would be Hillary Clinton, who if she wins the presidential nomination in 2016 will be the oldest Democrat ever to do so. Lewis Cass, 66 when he lost the presidency to Whig Zachary Taylor, has held the record since 1848, 99 years before Mrs. Clinton’s birth.

Although she hasn’t even declared whether she’s a candidate, there’s a common view that Mrs. Clinton’s nomination and election are inevitable. If you’re convinced that is true, you can put money on it: According to OddsChecker.com, London bookmakers are offering slightly better than even odds on her victory in November 2016. Before risking your life savings, consider that you’re betting on three contingencies. For the bet to pay off, she has to run and win the nomination and win the election. . . . She seems to be acknowledging that she privately changed her mind about Iraq long ago and dishonestly concealed her new view. Her defense is that it was a white lie and did not benefit her politically. Now, at long last, she is prepared to reveal her real position–which happens to be, even more clearly than it was in 2008, the only politically expedient position for a Democratic presidential candidate to take.

If only the Dems could find a clean and articulate newcomer — preferably a minority — who voted against the Iraq invasion. Less baggage that way. Of course that would rule out all of these folks: