Clinton needs to answer several unwelcome questions

WASHINGTON — Humor me while we conduct a little thought experiment. Imagine that Barack Obama lost 10 states in a row. Imagine that he now trailed Hillary Clinton substantially in the number of Democratic primaries and caucuses won, in total votes cast, in pledged convention delegates, in the overall delegate count, in fundraising and in the ineffable attribute called mojo. Imagine that Obama was struggling, at this late hour, to come up with the right message. What would the conventional wisdom say?

That it was over, of course. That Obama was toast. That staking everything on the March 4 primaries in Ohio and Texas was a starry-eyed hope, not a plan, and that it was time to smell the coffee.

Whenever Obama faced reporters, he'd have to answer tough questions. Why was he carrying on, knowing that he'd have to win by unrealistically large margins in all the remaining states to catch up? Didn't it worry him that relying on the superdelegates — the Democratic establishment, basically — to hand him the nomination could divide and weaken the party? Wasn't he concerned that Republican John McCain has such a head start in unifying his party and plotting his general election campaign?

The above, you will have noticed, is an accurate description of where Clinton stands right now. Yet nobody is forcing her to respond publicly to those painful questions. The reason is obvious: She's Hillary Clinton, and history suggests it's foolish to count out a Clinton until the last dog dies.

But history can be a deceptive guide — and the Clinton campaign's failure to recognize that fact may be what finally dooms her candidacy.

From Obama's solid victory in the Iowa caucuses through his blowout victories in Wisconsin and Hawaii, the Clinton campaign has never acted as if the brain trust seriously entertained the notion that she could actually lose. The Clintons and their advisers knew, better than any Democrats, how to win the presidency: Just consult the history books.

"Listen, Hillary is going to be the nominee," campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe told reporters the day after Iowa, as if the result were just a clerical error.

By the time the campaign realized that Obama was more than a nuisance, he had become a nemesis. When Obama began mesmerizing voters with his simple but powerful message — change, hope, empowerment — Clinton's pollster-guru, Mark Penn, responded with slogan after slogan that sought to marry the words "change" or "hope" with Clinton's basic theme of "experience." Slogans had always worked in the past; surely they would work again.