Howard Kurtz has made it in the blogosphere without actually becoming a blogger himself--other journalists could learn a lot from him. There is something very "bloggy" about his column, like this opening sentence.

Hillary Clinton is inevitable.

Its not Kurtz's view, but an artificial consensus among the chattering classes. Nevertheless, that apparent inevitability is tempered with deep dissatisfaction.

"The real problem many Democratic voters have with Clinton is the sneaking suspicion that with so much of the country against her, she can never win a general election. Clinton's fate may well come down to her ability to deal with a vexing question: what is it about me that so many people don't like?

I've written about this before, but this really is the bottom line--Hillary simply isn't likable.

She's smart, experienced and driven--qualities of leadership that serve the entrepreneur and military commander extremely well as the faint of heart look to strong people with a plan in times of crisis, but political leadership is a completely different animal. Its the search for a nurturing presence--paternal or maternal, older brother or sister. Respect in the context of love.

Its why Bill sought to "feel your pain". We want politicians to indulge our personal agendas and Hillary isn't the indulgent type.

Hillary can win her party's primary, because its a strategic exercise that rewards maneuver and logistics, but its hard to imagine her winning the general election. Barack Obama is where he is today because for a fleeting moment, he created that "wise, older brother" image in his address to the 2004 Democratic convention. His problem is that Hillary and her campaign is just so much better than he is tactically.

Its not so much that she's making mistakes than the fact that she is offering herself for leadership at a time and place that doesn't need or want her. The left wants an ideologue, and she is too smart for that. The center-right just doesn't accept her values and agenda.

I suspect the Clinton's learned the wrong lesson from Bill's election. His success led them both to believe that the path to the top was a matter of nuture, and not nature. How could the possibly ignore the accidental quality of their ascendancy? If not for Ross Perot, George H.W. Bush would have almost certainly have had a second term and its unlikely that George W. would have ever run for the presidency--perhaps never have run for political office at all. This in spite of Bill's copious political talents.

Both the historical and human realities point to the fact that the people pick their president according the strange attractor of our chaotic political geography. You stand on the political terrain and just hope that the votes flow your way.

To some degree, you can pick your spot, but votes are the result of more than positions, euphemisms and money. What makes us trust this person and not that one? All the while, you rivals are working hard to frame you negatively in the public mind.

Ultimately, inevitability in politics is a fantasy.