She’s in it to win it. Yes, she is. The phrase has already become more familiar than “this call may be monitored for quality assurance.”

Whatever you may feel about Senator Clinton, or Senator Obama, or the others — who are probably kicking the furniture at already being lumped together as “the others” — here’s one feeling most of us share: Aieee! Didn’t we just get done with an election? Do we really have to start all over again this soon?

It’s like taking off on a plane to Los Angeles, finishing your pretzels, and looking down at your watch. Good God — five more hours to go? It wouldn’t be so bad if there were a great movie to look forward to. But you know exactly what you’re going to see.

In fact, I already saw it. It started running about a day after Hillary made her announcement: the infinite pundit loop. Very intensely, one of the oh-so-serious morning anchors was interviewing the author of one of the oh-so-illuminating Clinton books.

“What about Bill Clinton?” the anchor was asking. “Asset or albatross?”

Gee, never heard that one before, right? And can you possibly guess the answer? Oh, go ahead. Try. Do you think the pundit replied:

A: “Gosh, I guess I never really gave it much thought.”

B: “Why? Did Bill do anything controversial?”

C: “This may surprise you, anchorman, but I solemnly believe Bill Clinton is both an asset and an albatross.”

I am so glad I was watching this, because the answer turned out to be C. You learn something new every day. The interviewer then went on to probe whether Bill might, in fact, overshadow Hillary.

“She has to be very careful about that,” came the shocking reply.

And isn’t Hillary rather “polarizing?” (Underneath, the crawl read, “Polarizing?”)

By golly, the pundit averred, she just might be.

And there you have it: the exact conversation we are going to hear almost every morning, noon, and night for the next 21 months. Or, more precisely, 645 days. Of course, Obama-mania came up, leading to the interviewer’s inevitable final question for the writer: “Is she going to be able to pull it off?”

“Yes, she’s going to win by seven states against the surprise Republican nominee, Scooter Libby.”

Oh, please. You know the writer didn’t say that. He waffled, said good-bye, and no doubt trotted off to his blog.

Now, the fact that I actually watched this whole exchange, despite its painful predictability, shows that there is something undeniably exciting about having “one of the most famous people on the planet” (another annoying catchphrase) vying for top office. “Whither Kucinich?” this was not.

“But I wonder, how long are we going to pay attention?” the director of the Quinnipiac Polling Institute, Maurice Carroll, asked. “Everybody will have fun with the Bill Clinton stuff,” he said. And they’ll love handicapping the First Serious African-American vs. First Serious Female Candidate horse race.

“But a two-year campaign is unprecedented,” Mr. Carroll said. And it may be unbearable.

“You know how when you’re home with the flu, you turn on a soap, and there’s Jason, and he’s in the hospital, and Diana is in love with him, and they’re getting married?” my political junkie pal Divyashakti asked. “Then you’re home again a month later, and you turn it on, and Jason’s still in the hospital, and they’re still getting married? That’s what this is going to be like.”

That is, until it suddenly changes. And then it’ll be worse.

“With an attempt to find a story every day, they’ll just keep making bigger and bigger mountains out of smaller and smaller molehills,” said a journalist who asked to remain anonymous because he may, indeed, be part of the problem. “A little remark will come to dominate, and sometimes even define, the candidate.” Think John Kerry’s bungled joke. Think “macaca.” Think the Dean scream.

Now think 21 months.

Hillary is in it to win it. Fine. But the rest of us? We’re just in it — for the long haul.