Peggy Noonan begins her recent column, “On the matter of Hillary Clinton’s candidacy I find myself holding opposite and irreconcilable views: ‘That can’t possibly work,’ and ‘She’s inevitable.’”

I’m on the same beam as Peggy. The way I have been putting it is, “I wouldn’t be surprised to see Hillary forced out of the race before the end of 2015. In other words, I wouldn’t be surprised to see her fail to reach the starting gate. And I wouldn’t be surprised to see her waltz to a coronation, at the Democratic convention.”

Those are two extremes. But I think each would be equally unsurprising, which is strange.

What’s in the best interest of the Republicans? A Hillary nomination — or her replacement by someone else? I know you should be careful what you wish for, but, as a Republican, I’d kind of like to run against Hillary.

(I reserve the right to change my mind, because a “pundit” doesn’t have to commit to anything, which is part of why the occupation is so irresponsible . . .)

P.S. Peggy writes of Hillary, “In speeches she continues to do strange things, such as speaking with a Southern accent this week in South Carolina.”

This reminds me of the recent U.K. elections. Ed Miliband went to be interviewed by the comedian-politico Russell Brand — and he busted out an accent previously unheard from him.

I myself had heard Miliband speak for years, mainly during Prime Minister’s Questions. And, for Russell Brand and his audience, he displayed a totally different English.

Let me not be too hard on him, or Hillary. We’re all influenced by our surroundings. We all have different ways of speaking, depending on circumstances. And, as she has pointed out, Hillary lived in the South for 20 years or something.

But: If a politician is too extreme in his, er, linguistic flexibility, there is a question of “authenticity” (dread word).