Hillary As Rocky?

There's a lot of nameless irritation about Sen. Hillary Clinton. Some of it is in her campaigning, some of it is with her almost Sybil-like message changing, some of it is with her almost uncanny ability to "spin" or "misspeak" so frequently.

However, my own recent irritation with Clinton revolves around her particularly contradictory and insulting attempts to portray herself as the underdog for the Democratic nomination.

She was asked yesterday by ABC News how she planned to win the nomination. Her response: "Why is this question directed at me?" She went on to complain that the question should also be asked of Sen. Barack Obama, as he can't win without superdelegates either. Of course, the de rigeur "double standard" complaint was rehashed shortly thereafter.

Of course, there is no double standard here. When there's a political race, the candidate who is losing is asked how they plan to win. John Edwards, Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee were all asked this question prior to dropping out of the primaries. On the other hand, you wouldn't ask the leading candidate how he plans to win...because he's already winning.

A few days ago, Clinton was speaking to the AFL-CIO in Philadelphia. There, she compared herself with fictional boxing legend Rocky Balboa. (This implies that Obama would be - Apollo Creed? Maybe Clubber Lang, as a Chicago foil for the Italian Stallion, would be her chosen projection for Obama instead?)

Now, I love underdogs. I find them encouraging and uplifting. As a lifelong, dyed-in-the-red St. Louis Cardinals fan, I rejoiced when they thumped the "experts" and the Detroit Tigers to win the 2006 World Series. As a current Pittsburgh area resident, I loved seeing the sixth-seeded Steelers win three road games and Super Bowl XL. My movie collection includes "Rudy", "Hoosiers", "Pride", "Stand and Deliver", "Lean on Me" and "Invincible". I also have "Rocky", "Rocky II", "Rocky III" and "Rocky Balboa". I've even run the steps of the eastern entrance to the Philadelphia Art Museum. (My lungs were very unhappy with me for several minutes afterward.)

You, Senator Clinton, are no Rocky Balboa. Trying to claim that you're an underdog is disingenuous - at best.

A reasonable definition of “underdog” is, someone who STARTS OUT way behind and faces serious shortcomings in skill against prohibitively formidable front-running opposition. With a little luck, a lot of support from those closest to him, and a remarkable ability to focus on the goal despite tremendous obstacles, the underdog becomes top dog in a closely-fought climactic contest.

The Clinton spin machine would like you to see Hillary Clinton as a brilliant, tough, put-upon victim of (choose at least one: sexism, misogyny, anti-feminism) who is scrapping just to stay in the race and fight for every American's vote.

“She’s being victimized! She’s being railroaded by this young punk with no brain, big ears and a big grin! Don’t let the sun go down on her! She’s the only one who can run the country!”

I agree that she's brilliant and tough. The rest of it? Pure bunk.

Hillary Clinton started out with enormous advantages. She got virtually all positive media attention when she announced her candidacy. She enjoyed tremendous name recognition. Compared to Obama, she is the consummate Washington insider, with the connections to match. She was running at 40% in national polls for the Democratic nomination last year - with EIGHT other candidates in the field. She has a two-term President spouse who has thrown all his political resources and chits behind her candidacy. She had 200 superdelegate endorsements before a single vote was ever cast in the Iowa caucuses. She had a $120 million war chest ready to go.

Now, all she has is a $5 million IOU and a small - but difficult to close - delegate deficit.

If Clinton loses this race, it has nothing to do with her gender. It has to do with her badly misreading the electorate and badly mismanaging her campaign. Why would one run as a candidate of “experience” in a year where incumbents in general are likely to take a beating? Why would one claim “35 years of experience” that would have to have started the moment she matriculated from Yale Law?

The abject failure to push a correct and consistent message can't be foisted off on Bill Clinton, Mark Penn, Patti Solis Doyle or anyone else. If she can mismanage a $180 million campaign this badly, I shudder to think what she’ll do with a few trillion.

Rocky Balboa? I think not. Try the 2007 New England Patriots. Bill Belichick must have a "19-0" hoodie he can lend to Clinton.