SOME PEOPLE THRIVE on adversity, but most of them are not politicians seeking high office. The Clintons, first Bill and now Hillary, are the exception. Three times in the Democratic presidential race Hillary Clinton has suffered shattering losses that threatened to destroy her candidacy. And three times she has embraced her underdog status and revived her campaign for the Democratic nomination.
It happened twice in January and then even more dramatically on Tuesday when she defeated Barack Obama in the Ohio and Texas primaries. Her first turnaround was in New Hampshire, where she won the primary after finishing an embarrassing third in the Iowa caucuses. Three weeks later Clinton was routed in South Carolina, only to recover on Super Tuesday by winning big state primaries in New York, California, and New Jersey.
For the Clintons, near-death experiences have become their political signature. Recall that Bill Clinton was the self-styled “comeback kid” as he marched to the 1992 Democratic nomination. As president, he recovered from the 1994 Republican landslide to glide to re-election in 1996 and later brushed off impeachment to finish his presidency with his personal popularity intact.
This year, Hillary Clinton has emerged as a disciplined and far more effective candidate when her campaign is on the verge of collapse. She becomes more focused and energized, tougher, meaner, and, oddly enough, more appealing. And of course she then survives.
At times, she appears downright schizophrenic. On the one hand, she tears up, she plays the victim of unfair accusations, and she moans about how harshly politics treats her. On the other, she storms ahead aggressively, runs sharply negative TV ads, and blisters Barack Obama with charges. The Los Angeles Times put this headline on a front-page story yesterday that explained her victories in Ohio and Texas: “Going negative proved positive in comeback.”
Though not in so many words, Clinton sends this message to America: I’m going to be in your face, imposing myself on you, making demands, and never letting up, until you elect me president. I’ll never go away until you do. The single adjective that best describes her is relentless. In presidential politics, this is a very helpful trait.
Only a week or two ago, her majority coalition in the primaries was disintegrating. But in Ohio and Texas, she put it back together, clobbering Obama among seniors, Hispanics, those earning less than $50,000 a year, folks without a college degree, Catholics, and women.
For once, Obama’s campaign made mistakes that spurred her comeback. He delivered a 45-minute speech, carried on national TV, after winning the Wisconsin primary last week. It was an exercise in self-indulgence.
Meanwhile, his supporters may have caused a pro-Hillary backlash by calling on her to drop out of the race, even though she still had a chance of winning. It would be for the good of the Democratic party and would improve Obama’s chances of winning the general election, they insisted. This was an exercise in sheer arrogance.
Plus, Obama fell into a trap by responding instantly (and unimaginatively) to her TV spot that suggested he’s not ready to be commandeer-in-chief. His answer was that she’d voted for the war in Iraq, which everyone already knew. He sounded like a man with a tired mantra.
As impressive as her rebound was, Clinton still has problems. Obama has a lead in delegates of slightly more than 100. And she’s not likely to overtake him in the delegate count in the final dozen primaries.
But she needs to keep winning primaries for two reasons. One is that she must stop superdelegates who’ve endorsed her from stampeding to Obama. They won’t if she’s the hot candidate. The other is that she needs to bolster her case for counting delegates from Florida and Michigan, whose primaries were disqualified by the Democratic party because they took place before February 5. If she finishes the primary season with a string of victories, she’ll be in a better position to have her case taken seriously.
There’s also the flip side of her ability to thrive on adversity. Like her husband, she tends to stumble once things go well. She gets cocky and over-confident, also like her husband. And the cycle begins again.
Fred Barnes is executive editor of THE WEEKLY STANDARD.
