Vulnerability is the New Inevitability

Hillary Clinton now faces long odds in Nevada and South Carolina -- and that may work to her advantage.

Clinton has a cyclical tendency to rise and fall and rise and fall, only to rise once again. While her unexpected New Hampshire comeback triggered tons of commentary about polls and tears, the results may have actually turned on her conflicted feelings about her own success. Having spent most of her life as an overachieving underdog, Clinton still does best running against the odds. And she does worst feigning the aura of inevitable incumbent, a role that was obviously uncomfortable both for her and the Democratic electorate.

Clinton in Salem on the eve of the New Hampshire Primary.

After a year running as an inevitable frontrunner, placing a weak third in Iowa was the toughest rebuke in Clinton's political life. Yet she looked much more comfortable afterwards. She was thoughtful in her newly interactive campaign events, and forceful when debating her rivals. She sounded more passionate appropriating the messages of change and populism than she ever was about taking credit for her husband's administration.

She spoke about her achievements as a woman leader with a newfound candor and pride – not as a contest over who has it harder, though Gloria Steinem took that tacky route – but as a relevant demonstration of her mettle. Like Barack Obama, Clinton has broken barriers in her legal and political career. That kind of experience can reveal more grit than speeches, because it demonstrates a candidate's ability to rout adversity. It was not easy serving as the only woman the board of a Fortune 50 company in 1985, nor battling the Republican attack machine while taking on the largest policy role of any first lady since Eleanor Roosevelt. Yet Clinton spent most of last year pretending she had the incumbent experience of a pseudo-president, instead of the record of a fighting underdog.

Forced back into a tough spot, Clinton sounded more genuine reminding voters of her record, not her husband's. Suddenly, the power lawyer who hid a failing bar exam for decades was not claiming invincibility or incumbency. Instead, she conveyed a fighting and even frantic sense that she need more time, that she had more to say, that momentum and polls and pundits should not cut this election short. She truly needed The People to back her in a fight against all the varied forces that distort, abridge and control our elections. Bill Clinton hit this point on the night of the New Hampshire victory, telling a reporter, "they know what they're doing here. They knew that they were telling America we should continue this [race]." Maureen Dowd may be right that at bottom, Clinton essentially cried for herself, not for America. But after a year of campaign contrivances, Clinton was undeniably an underdog, wrestling with that core, unyielding fact of a healthy democracy: power comes from the people.

If the storyline sounds melodramatic, it's partly because our politics are often broadcast as a supercharged blend of sports and entertainment. Clinton seemed especially beleaguered because the media establishment rushed to end her campaign after a single state spoke. (Having led New Hampshire polls for most of 2007, she might have won there no matter what.) But the media often pumps up politicians just like celebrity entertainers, prepping to tear them down for the sake of entertainment. And when the elites come to destroy you, the people are your only hope.

-- Photo Credit: Daniella Zalcman

Comments (43)

1. ....interesting, how much a little rebuke by frankengrits can achieve, isn't it?

   Posted by rafaxl at 01/15/2008 @ 1:21pm

2. And when the elites come to destroy you, the people are your only hope.

   I don't think that is a fair characterization. Hillary is clearly part of the elite in the Democratic party and is the quintessential "establishment candidate".

   The media has a tendency to focus on the immediate and attempts to extend this immediate reality into the future. That is all that happened after Iowa, so to try to portray this as an elitist sinister plot to sink Hillary is dishonest.

   Certainly, a more "genuine" Hillary is more appealing to us all, but if it takes her almost losing her bid to be president to become more genuine, then you have to wonder whether she will revert to her old disingenuous self after she wins?

   Posted by Metteyya at 01/15/2008 @ 1:29pm

3. "If the storyline sounds melodramatic, it's partly because our politics are often broadcast as a supercharged blend of sports and entertainment."

   BROUGHT TO YOU BY!!!!!!!!!!!!!

   The Great Folks At Chevy Trucks -- Chevy Trucks, Built by Mexicans

   Humana HMO -- We Care

   and,

   CoorsLite, Official Beer of K-Street!!!!!

   and now, to present tonight's candidates, here's the unfortunate symbol of everything that's wrong with our bread'n'circus world..............

   BRITNEY SPEARS*!!!!!

   *for prez '12

   Posted by frosty zoom at 01/15/2008 @ 1:36pm

4. and now, to present tonight's candidates, here's the unfortunate symbol of everything that's wrong with our bread'n'circus world..............

   BRITNEY SPEARS*!!!!!

   Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/15/2008 @ 1:36pm

   Too true. Sad fact. If you take a look at what's going on around the world today - election politics, war victories and set backs, cloned food-stuff, climate change, car bombings, manhunts, missing hikers, et cetera, what is in the "top ten most read articles" of every major news source? Britany Spears. WTF? I'd love to say "WHO CARES?" but apparently, a lot of folks. I must be too far removed from the pulse of America. (Thank Gawd)

   Posted by FritztheCat at 01/15/2008 @ 1:53pm

5. I must be too far removed from the pulse of America.

   Posted by FRITZTHECAT 01/15/2008 @ 1:53pm

   actually, i think they may be too far removed from your pulse.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 01/15/2008 @ 1:59pm

6. She wasn't supposed to lose anything...that was the problem with Iowa and why NH was her "Comeback Kid" moment.

   The obvious original plan for Her Nibs was to sweep the nomination, and use that to bolster an idea that "the American people are DEMANDING Hillary" (despite the fact it was only the Democratic Party primaries).

   She'd knock down Obama easily ("think they'll actually vote for a black guy, no matter how cute he is?")...struggle but ultimately knock out Edwards ("again, cute...but with $400 haircuts and a Jed Clampett mansion in Raleigh, easy to blow up his 'populist' image") and mop the floor with Biden, Dodd, Richardson, Dondi, and That Guy From Alaska.

   Problem was...Obama won Iowa. And the Media loved him for it, as they (like a lot of folks) had grown tired of her "Inevitability" and the BOREDOM of a primary season that that would create.

   Now, she gets to play the victim. And it might work. He (BO) can win South Carolina even Nevada...and she can go into Super Duper Tuesday as "the little lady being crushed by the Patriarchy" and sweep enough Big States to get a delegate majority, not just plurality.

   Regardless, much as many would like to see her knocked on her ass...and FRANKGRITS to be taken down a peg or two for his cultish devotion to her...

   she's probably still going to be the Democratic candidate for 2008.

   Posted by Mask at 01/15/2008 @ 2:05pm

7. The Bush 2 experiment was a miserable failure.Hopefully,the Democrats won't try a Clinton 2 experiment.Hopefully,they will learn from the failure of the Bush 2 experiment.

   Posted by i'm nobody at 01/15/2008 @ 2:08pm

8. the Democrats won't try a Clinton 2 experiment.----Posted by I'M NOBODY 01/15/2008 @ 2:08pm

   Peace...prosperity...budget surpluses...Post-Renaissance judges and justices...

   not a bad outcome from the experiment, I'M.

   Posted by Mask at 01/15/2008 @ 2:57pm

9. she's probably still going to be the Democratic candidate for 2008.

   Posted by MASK 01/15/2008 @ 2:05pm

   bite thy tongue!

   Posted by frosty zoom at 01/15/2008 @ 3:17pm

10. Mask-I doubt that Hillary will bring us peace and prosperity nor will Hillary bring back the nineties.Those days are gone and will never come back.Hillary gives Bush2 everything he wants and will be far more like Bush2 than Clinton1.I'm not buying into the return to the Clinton 90s propaganda.Hill isn't Bill.Of course,Bill is sounding loonier as each day passes so I'm losing respect for him.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 01/15/2008 @ 3:17pm

11. Posted by MASK 01/15/2008 @ 2:57pm

    nafta, media consolidation, wto, rise of al-qaeda, "the iraq liberation act of 1998", 1996-02-08 - Telecom Reform Act, .....................

    not bad in a superficial, inflation hiding, same ol' same ol' foreign policy, make rich people richer kinda way

    sure could be better................

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/15/2008 @ 3:23pm

12. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/15/2008 @ 3:17pm

    Sorry, dude... end of winter, FRANKG probably have the last laugh.

    Posted by I'M NOBODY 01/15/2008 @ 3:17pm Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/15/2008 @ 3:23pm

    You want Utopia?...keep waiting. You want "a helluva lot better than now", the 90s were a pretty good target to shoot for.

    Posted by Mask at 01/15/2008 @ 3:32pm

13. Mask-You must remember that it was Bill's words that helped to justify invading Iraq and Hillary's vote that helped to get us there.Bill was a decent president,but that has no meaning as far as Hillary is concerned.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 01/15/2008 @ 3:32pm

14. Mask-We need to look to the future and not try to return to the past because that never happens.I'm not looking for utopia.I'm looking for new and fresh.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 01/15/2008 @ 3:35pm

15. "And when the elites come to destroy you, the people are your only hope."

    And also Diebold perhaps. The NH recount starts tomorrow (Wed).

    But if on Super Tues the Dems choose dynasty over change, the GOP may yet keep the WH.

    Posted by Lit at 01/15/2008 @ 4:19pm

16. I'm looking for new and fresh.

    Posted by I'M NOBODY 01/15/2008 @ 3:35pm

    Bush was "new and fresh"....in 2000. Not the same ol' "old and stale" Clinton/Gore stuff.

    Go back in the past and tell me you'd choose the "new and fresh"?

    Posted by Mask at 01/15/2008 @ 4:43pm

17. And also Diebold perhaps. The NH recount starts tomorrow (Wed).

    Posted by LIT 01/15/2008 @ 4:19pm

    How much you wanna bet that the recount STILL has Hillary winning?

    How much you wanna bet that EVEN SO, the Blogosphere Conspiracy Theorists won't believe the recount and keep the theory alive?

    Posted by Mask at 01/15/2008 @ 4:44pm

18. Mask-Bush1 was new and fresh.Bush2 was stale.One per family,please.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 01/15/2008 @ 5:21pm

19. Bush1 was the Putin of his time. from CIA to head of state. there was NOTHING fresh or new about him.

    Posted by McQ at 01/15/2008 @ 8:29pm

20. FrankGrits writes "I think there will be a backlash from white voters against obama based in ingratitude. The Clintons have the record on civil rights and Obama called them out on it. I think white voters will be saying see ya later. This is not good for dems in the general election."

    I'm not sure what exactly you are talking about, but I think you will find that most white people under 60 don't expect blacks to be "grateful" for being treated equally. Plantation days are over.

    Should blacks be grateful to Clinton for making Sista Soulja (a black woman who couldn't rap, sell records or say anything original) a campaign issue instead of taking on Farakan or Sharpton, whose ideas she was parroting? Of course they would have fought back and hurt him politically, far easier to pick on a woman in her 20s with no real capability to defend herself.

    Posted by Guiles at 01/15/2008 @ 8:45pm

21. Posted by GUILES 01/15/2008 @ 8:45pm

    FRANK truly believes that black Americans should be GRATEFUL to Hillary's followers for continually bringing up whether Obama is "really black" (check FG's "mulatto" and "Afro-American" posts) and that they should realize that Hillary/Bill know what's best for them and that "their guy" should dutifully back out and allow the good white folks who know how to handle America...handle it.

    Posted by Mask at 01/15/2008 @ 9:21pm

22. I love this a lot of African-Americans don't like Bill anymore and in not liking him don't like Hillary either. Why you might ask? Because of what he did to Harlem and the sour taste that has left in many peoples mouths.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/15/2008 @ 10:29pm

23. "...not as a contest over who has it harder"

    Oh PLEASE!! Clinton is always whining about how "difficult it is" and the truth is her most effective strategy has always been the sympathy route. How presidential is that? How stupid and gullible to it make women out to be that they would be such suckers for an opportunist's sob story? Most likely the poor little Hillary approach will get tired fast and then you will see the Clintons resort to dirty, divisive, calculated moves.

    Oh, that already happened? What a surprise.

    Posted by Lil at 01/16/2008 @ 08:11am

24. If Hillary is elected for two terms, which would end her presidency in 2017, we will have had nearly 30 years of Bushes and Clintons. With all of the critical issues facing us today we need a president who can look forward and solve problems. I believe is a very capable woman, however she is incredibly divisive. She will inherit a divided country, and while she talks about being ready to lead on day one, will 50% of the country be willing to follow or will there be more of the same gridlock in Washington? Too many people dislike and don't trust the Clintons. She has inherited baggage, which may not be fair, but baggage none the less. I am afraid that we will see the same divided government and people as we see today. As much as I and others dislike George Bush, we will see the same sentiment from many Republicans. I don't think we have another four or eight years to figure this out. We have an urgent need to change the course as soon as possible. Obama talks about change, but it won't stop there. He is equally intelligent, and his opposition to the war from the beginning shows his ability to see the total picture and not just the one being fed to everyone.

    By the way, I do think that Bill Clinton was a good president. However, don't vote for Hillary thinking that just because she is president we will return the prosperity of the 90's. Those days are gone. We live in a much different world than the one we lived in during the 90's. We need a president that will restore our position in the world, address climate change, energy dependence, end the Iraq war in a way the protects our soldiers, citizens and the Iraqi people, and address the economy. These are difficult issues, and we need a unified government to solve them.

    Posted by loria at 01/16/2008 @ 08:30am

25. Frank-The first Clinton was new and fresh.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 01/16/2008 @ 09:24am

26. These are difficult issues, and we need a unified government to solve them.-----Posted by LORIA 01/16/2008 @ 08:30am

    "unified government"?...wasn't that what was once (pre-2006) bemoaned as ...

    "one party rule"???

    Posted by Mask at 01/16/2008 @ 09:27am

27. Because of what he did to Harlem and the sour taste that has left in many peoples mouths.

    Posted by CCCOMFO1 01/15/2008 @ 10:29pm | ignore this person

    exactly what did he do to Harlem?

    Posted by McQ at 01/16/2008 @ 10:40am

28. Nice to see you sucking up to Hillary already, Ari. But really, what's with this "power to the people" bullshit. Nothing's more unconvincing than this merit school civics-class pwoggie-bloggie crap. Hillary leads Obama 2:1 in the delegate count in a lead that's only going to expand. Why not tell the truth for a change?

    Posted by AlanSmithee at 01/16/2008 @ 10:45am

29. Posted by ALANSMITHEE 01/16/2008 @ 10:45am

    So who you voting for in November, ALAN....or are you just one of those who is going to "sit around until the Revolution comes, man!" types?

    Posted by Mask at 01/16/2008 @ 12:15pm

30. Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/15/2008 @ 5:56pm

    Name one President we've ever had in modern America who was new and fresh i.e. not a politician or a General.

    Perhaps with this question, you have put your finger on the problem.

    Posted by srjenkins at 01/16/2008 @ 1:33pm

31. the presidents job is being a politician. why would anyone expect anything else? the generals too turned into politicians once they started to run for office, usually long after their military career.

    Posted by McQ at 01/16/2008 @ 1:41pm

32. Posted by SRJENKINS 01/16/2008 @ 1:33pm |

    Yeah, THE SHOOTIST is right....no "non-politician" will ever become President.

    Unless it's some SANE "Ross Perot" who buys the election and the Repubs and Dems are nominating TOTAL morons.

    Posted by Mask at 01/16/2008 @ 2:04pm

33. why would anyone want it any other way. we don't draft plumbers to be brain surgeons.

    Posted by McQ at 01/16/2008 @ 2:11pm

34. Unless it's some SANE "Ross Perot" who buys the election and the Repubs and Dems are nominating TOTAL morons.

    Posted by MASK 01/16/2008 @ 2:04pm

    conditions seem ripe!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/16/2008 @ 3:30pm

35. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/16/2008 @ 3:30pm

    Bloomberg?...naw. First, he IS a politician (so SRJ's dream would still be a dream).

    Second, he'd draw more from the Left than the Right, despite having Hagel as Veep...which means that Her Nibs and Bill would pull out an FBI file and destroy ol' Mike before the first debate.

    Third, nobody outside NYC knows the guy...and fewer would care.

    Posted by Mask at 01/16/2008 @ 3:46pm

36. .which means that Her Nibs and Bill would pull out an FBI file and destroy ol' Mike before the first debate.

    what makes you think Mike has any skeletons?

    "he'd draw more from the Left than the Right,"

    you're right there. that is why I think it's a terrible idea.

    he does have more money than the rest of them combined, has his own media company, and is very media savvy. all in all a formidable candidate.

    I imagine he is as well known nationally as Bush2 was.

    Posted by mask2 at 01/16/2008 @ 3:53pm

37. and the Repubs and Dems are nominating TOTAL morons.

    Posted by MASK 01/16/2008 @ 2:04pm | ignore this person

    you got that half right.

    Posted by mask2 at 01/16/2008 @ 3:54pm

38. Posted by MASK2 01/16/2008 @ 3:54pm

    So, you're not voting for either major political party this year?

    Posted by Mask at 01/16/2008 @ 4:58pm

39. Huh?

    Posted by mask2 at 01/16/2008 @ 5:08pm

40. Posted by MASK2 01/16/2008 @ 5:08pm

    Oh, sorry...so you're going to vote for SOME "half-moron"?

    Posted by Mask at 01/16/2008 @ 7:24pm

41. Posted by MASK 01/16/2008 @ 3:46pm

    i should have said,

    "conditions ALWAYS seem right!".

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/16/2008 @ 9:31pm

42. Oh, sorry...so you're going to vote for SOME "half-moron"?

    Posted by MASK 01/16/2008 @ 7:24pm | ignore this person

    are you running for office?

    Posted by mask2 at 01/17/2008 @ 07:59am

43. Some good points. I also think it was a mistake for Hillary to put much stock in the "inevitability" storyline, although I would have to suggest this was created by journalists, not her, she merely "rode along." Is she tougher when she is behind? Maybe. Every politician goes though highs and lows. After all, different people in different states are going to have views colored by their own needs and their perceptions about how the candidates will fulfill them. If you ask me, this is just normal. No one can win all the time. Why do journalists add this as a "new requirement?" You can't ever get 2nd or 3rd place without suffering a "defeat" now, yet the truth is that people in a given state might prefer another candidate because they share a common concern, not because they are voting to defeat someone. Today's journalism is more about shaping public opinion than it is about reporting. They are focused on what "they" think things mean and this is nearly always negative and it certainly always helps the corporate position. Why frame things in such an obviously unrealistic manner?

    Posted by Erik at 01/17/2008 @ 7:42pm