Hillary Clinton and the Audacity of Inevitability
“Man that guy’s message is inspiring, but Hillary’s going to win it.”
This is a direct quote from my college professor, in early February, 8 years ago. The “guy” was then-candidate Barack Obama. At the time he was a young and inexperienced U.S. Senator from Illinois who wouldn’t stop talking about hope. Now it’s laughable to think of Obama as naively optimistic and someone who should cower at the Clinton machine, but 8 years ago this Clinton’s inevitability narrative was still pervasive throughout American society. Intelligent pundits, citizens, and politicians counted Obama out despite evidence of his inspiring message, an unprecedented growing grass-roots campaign and his appeal to younger voters. We often forget but as late as February 12, 2008, Obama was technically still behind Hillary Clinton in major national polls. In late 2007, Clinton had the “black vote.” Due to her resume Clinton was inevitable. And then well, she wasn’t. Sound familiar?
I’ve been particularly cautious about making parallels between the 2008 Democratic Primary race and 2016. If the 2008 election season has taught us anything it is that past political performances and strategies do not necessarily dictate the future. Just ask Obama. And obviously, Bernie Sanders is not Barack Obama. The historical excitement of nominating the first black president is now gone. We have elementary school children who have never seen a white president. And even though Sanders would be the oldest and first Jewish president, after America electing a black guy, eh, that’s not terribly impressive. Even putting race aside, the two men couldn’t be more different. Obama exuded youth, moderation, and charm. Obama, the person, was personable in ways most politicians, including Sanders, could never dream of.
Sanders, on the other hand, is a frumpy old Senator from Vermont yelling about socialism. He seems rather uncomfortable in the celebrity spotlight and is impatient when it comes to typical political niceties. Superficially, there is nothing particularly appealing about him. But fortunately for Sanders, a more dissatisfied and angrier 2016 electorate seems less concerned about whether a candidate brushes their hair and smiles enough and more concerned about the boldness and honesty of his or her message. Sanders has a sense of conviction that is surprisingly refreshing, whether or not you agree with him. Sanders’ authenticity combined with his revolutionary message is more exciting than what’s coming from the 2016 Clinton camp.
Still, Sanders has an uphill battle and many question whether he’s realistic. It is also no secret that on paper Clinton is an amazing presidential candidate. She has the experience, qualifications and connections. But Clinton is like a college graduate with perfect grades, club leadership and volunteer experience that can’t offer a genuine reason why she deserves her first job other than “my resume is awesome.” No company serious about building a successful organization would accept that answer. Yet, when the media, the democratic political establishment and Clinton herself say she’s inevitable, we begrudgingly accept. I’ve met several Clinton supporters who professed their admiration of and even agreement with Sanders, but said they will cast a vote for Clinton because they assume she’ll win the nomination and ultimately the general election. I’ve even heard this inevitability narrative from Sanders’ voters.
Sanders’ almost-win in Iowa and his large win in New Hampshire put a dent in the Clinton machine and her self-proclaimed inevitability. He raised $5.2 million dollars in less than 24 hours after New Hampshire, but the real test, however, will be how minority — particularly black — voters respond to him. After all, New Hampshire and Iowa are two of the whitest states in the country. Upcoming South Carlina, in contrast, is one of the blackest. So far Sanders’ has yet to connect with the black community. Clinton might have some issues with getting people to trust her, however, she also knows that the strength of the inevitability narrative is strong enough to keep the black vote. Or will it?
Sure, Clinton’s inevitability narrative is stronger at this point during the race than it was in 2008. Right now, the polls are working in her favor but, the again, polls change — just ask Ben Carson. Some older black leaders who have recently thrown their support Clinton’s way like Congressman John Lewis (he withdrew his support for Clinton in 2008 to hop on the Obama Train). On the other hand, Sanders recently received the nod from one of the most prolific contemporary writers on racial injustice, Ta-Nehisi Coates. And though she didn’t explicitly endorse Sanders, The New Jim Crow author Michelle Alexander wrote a scathing and well-written piece entitled, “Why Hillary Clinton Doesn’t Deserve the Black Vote, ” detailing how the Clintons (Bill and Hillary) have done more harm than good politically for the black community — a community Clinton desperately needs. Oh yeah and then of course there is this tear-jerking video from Eric Garner’s daughter coming out for Sanders.
I wouldn’t be surprised if to keep the black vote, Clinton will decide to get very spiritual, talk with a southern drawl and eat at as many local BBQ spots as she can find in South Carolina. In addition, she’ll look to invoke fear of the unknown about Sanders, the same way she did Obama. While that pandering may have worked in the past, with racial violence being committed by homegrown terrorists and state-actors in Southern black communities, singing a gospel hymn at a few churches may not do the trick. Clinton shouldn’t be so sure people aren’t looking for something new, again. If Sanders’ message of revolutionary political change resonates with the black community, it could completely change the narrative of the race. Only time will tell. However, one thing is for sure, running on the entitled idea of your own inevitability can be a pretty risky bet. Just ask Hillary Clinton.
