When a candidate builds an entire campaign on her inevitability that she will be the Democratic presidential nominee, what happens to the campaign when she falls behind in the polls for the first time?
To this observer, Senator Hillary Clinton's campaign, which has been called formidable and a total wonder for staying on message and for its many endorsements and for its commitment to staying totally focused on winning the nomination, has not much going for it other than the fact that she was going to be the winner.
By coming out strong at the start, with huge name recognition, money and a husband who was a former popular president among Democratic activists the New York senator thought she could persuade everyone else that she was the winner and that was that and they should not bother even entering the fray.
Her message has been and is mostly 100% that she will be the eventual winner for the nomination of her party so everyone should jump aboard her bandwagon before it is too late. Her message in the early debates was to appear above the fray and let the less well-known candidates talk about the issues while she put up with these inconveniences like debates on the way to her nomination.
However, now that the voters are beginning to tune in on the endless presidential campaign for the first time they are saying "Not so fast" to the former First Lady. Who said you were inevitable? Who said you will be the candidate? Who said we want another Clinton in the White House?
And, now Senator Clinton is having to join the other candidates and realize there may not be a coronation--there might not be a nomination--and she may shortly be back in the United States Senate wondering what happened to her inevitability.
Voters don't like being told who is going to win before they get into the game and cast their first ballot. Voters like to make up their minds after hearing what all the candidates have to say on the key issues of the day. And, voters don't like hearing that one candidate is above the others and really may not have all that much experience as her campaign likes to promote each and every day.
As Senator Obama put it so well the other day, It is "my understanding that she wasn't Treasury Secretary in the Clinton Administration. I don't know exactly what experience she's claiming."
The former First lady cannot have it both ways -- did she or did she not make policy in her husband's administration? Did she do more in the way of policymaking than we now know?
Going to a conference in China is not really the backbone of a comprehensive foreign policy.
Bill Clinton had peace and prosperity and a terrific outgoing personality throughout most of his eight years in office. He also had some setbacks including his impeachment process but he remains popular with the Democratic base of voters.
However, Hillary does not have her husband's outgoing and friendly back slapping personality and she does not really have that strong of experience in foreign relations. Saying you have the experience to change is a meaningless campaign slogan.
In a nation that disdains dynasties it is becoming clear that electing Senator Clinton might give the world the view that all we ever vote for are the Bush and Clinton families. Both of these families have experience but it is time for a CHANGE!
Senator Clinton is showing that when the cloak of inevitability is gone she has little of substance to fall back on and begins attacking her opponents like all the other candidates. She is back in the game and not above the game and her campaign does not like this new role one bit.
Think about it. Would a Clinton White House really bring about change? The Clintons are the establishment just as the Bush family is the establishment on the other side.
Every other Democratic candidate has a good health plan so the former Arkansas lawyer does not even stand out in the area where she is supposed to be so dominant.
The other so-called second tier candidates have much more foreign policy experience than the New York senator.
And, many of the other Democratic candidates appear to have personalities that are more spontaneous and less programmed than Clinton.
When you take away the aura of inevitability what really does Senator Hillary Clinton offer the Democratic Party?
It truly is time for a change in our domestic and our foreign policies and Senator Clinton is not the person who will bring about the necessary new era in American politics. It is time for that new era and some candidate not named Clinton or Bush to provide us with this new spark to bring our country together and to restore our prestige abroad.
Democrats are now looking beyond the "inevitable" frontrunner and finding other candidates with ideas who can truly provide this necessary change in America's direction.
The bland pre-season is over and now the voters may surprise all of us and vote for change and a new era for America without the same old names in charge. You cannot bring about change with the same people at the top.
Voters are going to say no to inevitability and the political establishment. Voters are going to say with their ballots it is time for a new generation of leaders.