The flagging Clinton campaign

Ezra writes:

When the rationale for your campaign is that you're the frontrunner with the experience to win, losing your lead in the polls doesn't only put you in second place, it actually shreds the argument for your candidacy. What we're beginning to see here is how underdeveloped the arguments for Clinton were when separated from her aura of inevitability.

I think HIllary has been offering two separate rationales for her candidacy and that they should be looked at separately. Her first is experience--both as a political leader and as a political pugilist. The former has never been very convincing, and, as such, has been called into question by nearly every member of the commentariat whose been paying any attention. I don't think it ever stuck. The latter, while plausible, is also a little bit mixed. Hillary, after all, hasn't exactly batted 1.000 over the years in her political fights, and she attracts political fights like like insects to ripe fruit.

But it's the other rationale that's always struck me as a condescending non-sequitur. Loosely translated, that rationale has been: "Vote for me--I deserve to win because I'm winning." I don't think imploring voters to accept the status quo, and help an establishmentarian further entrench herself has inspired anybody. Especially when the campaign's major theme has change, and how to create it. And, in addition to not making any sense, it's a flawed message in that, as Ezra notes, when the facts on the ground change, the entire basis of the argument evaporates.

So as soon as her campaign began flagging, she became desperate to get back on top. Unfortunately her efforts have been ugly and amateurish and, at the very least, haven't harmed her main rival. Meanwhile, as far as that goes, I think a crucial, but overlooked fact--revealed in the past month or so--has been that, of the three front-runners, only one has demonstrated an ability to go negative with any degree of prowess and that's John Edwards. And though it's true that his attacks on Hillary have seemingly benefited Obama, I don't think that matters much. In a multi-party race, an attack might be successful, but of little help to the attacker. But in an (essentially) two-person election, in which things are basically zero-sum, that phenomenon doesn't apply.