Wednesday, June 04, 2008
Hillary: The 2012 strategy
One can never know what lurks in the heart of a Clinton, but this strikes me as the most plausible explanation for Hillary's still-unfolding endgame:
I don't think she's interested in the Vice-Presidency.
I think what she's interested in is sealing Obama's fate with that "angry white woman" base, by forcing him to reject her.
Preventing exactly this has got to be the topic du jour inside the Obama camp.
20 Comments:
By 
Christopher Chambers, at
Wed Jun 04, 09:12:00 AM:
Even one your ilk, Tucker Carlson, is scratching his head here and contemplating this disturbing analogy between the Clintons and the final days of the Japanese Empire ie, kamikaze attacks, arming the whole population no matter how burnt and exhausted, making sure fanatics remain in power, unleash new jets and rockets that rival anything the Germans had...and then inflict so many casualities that the other side has to negotiate with you. Barack doesn't have a Fat Man or Little Boy...nor does there appear to be more than a few higher ups in the campaign who can be the peace party...or the Emperor.
And it's not just the "angry white women" contingent. For the first time in 50 years, a major Democratic actively and brazenly put out the "hard working white people" chimera. Of course, maybe she was kidding. But when 25% of her voters in some states have the balls to tell exit poller that they won't vote for Obama even when told that the two Democrats hold, despite propoganda saying otherwise, almost identical views on most important policy matters (and Obama's proposals may benefit them more)--oh Tigerhawk, please use your Caucasian intellect to clarify for my mongrel brain the best inference to draw?
In other words, why would he want someone on the ticket who panders to this kind of ignorance and latent racism? Plus you still have Bill out there, acting crazier than ever. Pay her campaign debt, promise her a BIG post (hey how about Supreme Court? We know she such an ego maniac she wouldn't do the smart thing and try to edge out Reid for majority leader!) have her put his name in nomination as a symbolic move and call it a day.
I think regular voters will moderate as time passes, and shake their head at her behavior these past six months. Tucker has. Indeed, he said if McCain and make up with Dubya, than these two can be cordial...
Forget 2012 for her--as a candidate.
By 
, at
Wed Jun 04, 09:40:00 AM:
CC+ TH, very good points. Having Obama and Hillary on the same ticket is like trying to make roommates of a cobra and a mongoose.
By , at
Wed Jun 04, 09:48:00 AM:
I don't understand why so many pundits are unhappy that Hillary doesn't withdraw. The dems built a mechanism designed to keep selection of the party's candidate in the hands of a small group of pols and out of the hands of the voters.
Hussein is an inexperienced, black racist, elitist product of a corrupt city and corrupt state government. If Hillary looks hard enough, she'll certainly find something that would put off even the most ardent Obama supporter, maybe, even some of the black ones.
It's not over until the convention declares who the candidate is. There is a lot of time until that point. And since most of the super=delegates are pols and labor leaders, they are probably as vulnerable as Hussein is. No, Hillary still has opportunities.
By Dawnfire82, at
Wed Jun 04, 10:23:00 AM:
"please use your Caucasian intellect to clarify for my mongrel brain the best inference to draw?"
I know it's in your genetics (hah) to see racism under every stone, but consider another possibility.
They might just see Obama as wussy and un-American. They might just be pissed off that he attended a church for two decades that preaches racial identity and hostility, and oh yeah curses (apparently routinely, since it's come up three times since MARCH) the very country that he wants to lead. They might just be put off by the idea of a scrawny, aragula munching, pedicured, socialistic pseudo-academic who has yet to demonstrate a shred of political courage (but has demonstrated quite a thin skin) becoming commander-in-chief.
I know I am, and if I had to choose between him and Hillary I'd choose her also. And if she lost the primary, I'd vote against him in the general. Most of my (conservative Democrat) family feels the same way.
So I guess we must all be racists, hmm?
Character matters in American politics, in case you never learned that. Europeans vote for platforms in parliamentary parties. Americans vote for people in disctricts.
Political schooling aside, I notice that you're (yet again) applying a double standard. Hillary and Barack have virtually identical platforms, but some people say they won't vote for Barack in the general, the fucking racists! But not a peep about the 90%+ of blacks who voted for Obama in the primaries. Come on. If their platforms are virtually identical, shouldn't that split be more like 55-45? 40-60, max, like all the other demographics?
I suppose that racially motivated votes are ok when it's for your guy who benefits, right? Sorry. I don't mean to step on your 'empowerment' exercise. I just can't stand hypocrisy.
By , at
Wed Jun 04, 10:32:00 AM:
For those not blinded by BO's gauzy and substance free image-only campaign and actually paying attention to what has been going on in Democratic primaries, Obama has proven a progressively weaker and vulnerable candidate over the last several months. I put the Clintons in the latter camp, hence HRC's continuing push. Barry lovers, I suggest you look at the delegate wins since Feb 1 and ponder key states a bit.
As for Hillary's willingness to share a ticket with BO, she would be aligning herself with a guy who has pandered to ignorance and blatant (as opposed to "latent") racism. Don't see the future in that myself.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Wed Jun 04, 11:16:00 AM:
This comment has been removed by the author.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Wed Jun 04, 11:20:00 AM:
Re: "Hussein"
That's so juvenile.
Yesterday David Brooks wrote in the New York Times: "I’ve spent the past few years trying to find conservative experts to provide remedies for middle-class economic anxiety. Let me tell you, the state of free-market thinking on this subject is pathetic. There are a few creative thinkers (most of them under 30), but for the most part, McCain is forced to run in an intellectual void."
He's right. Republicans better start coming up with some new ideas -- quickly. Slash-and-burn tactics will NOT win the general election this year.
O/T: Hey, DF 82, are you still on active duty in the U.S. military?
If so, did you see the May 26 article about Adm. Mullen in the NY Times? The article says:
"The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has written an unusual open letter to all those in uniform, warning them to stay out of politics as the nation approaches a presidential election in which the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will be a central, and certainly divisive, issue."
Link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/26/us/politics/26military.html?ex=1369713600&en=05f851ac392c48c1&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
Stars and Stripes had a similar article.
Link: http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=62453&archive=true
By , at
Wed Jun 04, 11:59:00 AM:
"please use your Caucasian intellect to clarify for my mongrel brain the best inference to draw?"
That BHO's racism and contempt for the electorate is a legitimate campaign issue that concerns a lot of voters?
By Georg Felis, at
Wed Jun 04, 12:26:00 PM:
Hillary – The Energizer Bunny of Politics
As much as I view this political battle on the Democrat side as kind of a “Jason vs Freddie” movie (i.e. We don’t care who wins, we just want to go see the fight), TH is right, Hillary is staying in the race for something.
Two possibilities: If she’s irrational, this represents a kind of Dr. Strangelove, Go Down With The Bomb strategy where she is going to hang on like some sort of deranged evening guest who just wont leave even after you put out the cat and turn out the lights.
If she’s rational, you have to ask, what is her Goal. If she still thinks she can win the nomination….um… see above. At this point you can think of her as the bank robber holding a gun to the hostage while negotiating with the police for a helicopter and a plane. (Give me X, or the White, Female, Lower-Class Voters get it!) The only three things I can think of is the VP spot (which BHO would have to be nuts to give to her), a Supreme Court nomination (just what we need, the first First Lady to have to testify under oath before Congress as to her faulty memory and conveniently lousy filing skills on the Court) or the Senate Majority Leader position. I think Harry Reid needs to be shopping for a new office space. And he better hurry.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Wed Jun 04, 12:56:00 PM:
"racism...is a legitimate campaign issue"
At the same time hammering on racial issues will alienate a lot of Independents, libertarian Republicans, and wealthy Republican contributors who deal with all kinds of people in the Age of Globalization. The Republicans need those folks to win.
So the question is this: Would you rather talk about race or win the general election?
By Dawnfire82, at
Wed Jun 04, 02:12:00 PM:
DEC: Asking if I read an article in the NYT... clever!
No I hadn't, but I checked it out. It seemed like a warning to the whole Armed Forces, as an entity, to try to remain apolitical. Indeed, near the end it included this: “I am not suggesting that military professionals abandon all personal opinions about modern social or political issues,” Admiral Mullen wrote. “What I am suggesting — indeed, what the nation expects — is that military personnel will, in the execution of the mission assigned to them, put aside their partisan leanings. Political opinions have no place in cockpit or camp or conference room.”
He said it was a response to mutterings of 'legitimate' questions around the military about the results of the political race. Basically, he said that we shouldn't worry about it, politics shouldn't interfere with operations.
Trying to warn me?
"Hey, DF 82, are you still on active duty in the U.S. military?"
Funny you should mention that. I've got another 19 days in uniform before I go on terminal leave. Old wounds that have just worsened over time have finally rendered me unfit for continued duty. I walk with a cane now. Fortunately, I was able to complete some nice schools there at the end...
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Wed Jun 04, 03:43:00 PM:
Yes, DF82, I was trying to warn you. I always enjoy your comments.
By , at
Wed Jun 04, 04:28:00 PM:
I'm always so impressed by Christopher Chambers Negroid intellect.
By , at
Wed Jun 04, 08:52:00 PM:
Nice delusion, but not very likely...
Look, I know I shouldn’t be so sanctimonious about the inherent weakness of the human condition when it applies to victims of borderline personality disorder and the conservative right, which is the same thing. Lord knows they have a vast plethora of silly or otherwise stupid raison d'être to ingest whatever is handed to them, no matter how ludicrous and irrational, even those of them too dim to come up with a justification that rings factual next to their fallacious twaddle. Some of them even mull over their respective condition as a illness, like hairy knuckle syndrome or elephantiasis, which, like the religious right, is caused by parasitic worms. Scientists and all other rational people say that we should circumvent these people/worms, and prescribe for those unfortunate enough to surrender to this brain debilitating condition increased roughage, avoidance of moldy political rhetoric, and to not eat or otherwise pay attention to any pinhead who goes on about other disorders as patriotism or other molasses-based (textured) feeds. It must be said, however, that once the victim succumbs to this “compost”, absolute avoidance of GOP Polio is unattainable at this time. After doing everything "right," imbibers, child molesters, and people with just casual acquaintance with GOPeer “thinking” will still have increasing diminished realistic thought capacity
By , at
Wed Jun 04, 09:16:00 PM:
By , at
Wed Jun 04, 09:59:00 PM:
Carl ... you're an idiot, but if your dibble lines up some pussy more power to you. Look, for every far right nutjob, there's at least one far left kook to balance him out.
Obama is just weak, and his sctick is played. In the end, those who vote for the GOP this go round are voting a broad list of issues that matter to them. Whether it's the lightning rod issues of the leftist lefty, or simple matters of tax policy, they get their vote. Casting all is as silly as thinking every democrat thinks the driving issue of our times is gay marriage, or the war is just silly.
Hillary and Bill's days appear to be over, and Bill did a lot of damage to what matters most to him - validation of his narcissm and legacy. I wouldn't count them out just yet, or the damage done to the D-team in pressing on the stereotype of what they've worked so hard to build these last 40 years. I'll vote national security and Obama pledge to jack up my marginal tax rate. I'll vote and offset one loon who thinks it's a good thing to 'negotiate' with rogue nations.
I really could care less about what matters most to the dems in my locality, other than giving more handouts to lazy good for nothing losers who want their government to be mommy and daddy hooking them up for what they've failed to provide themselves. If that makes me a neo in their eyes, I'll still sleep tight each night.
By , at
Thu Jun 05, 01:02:00 AM:
By clint, at
Thu Jun 05, 03:02:00 AM:
Totally agree (with the original post).
Hillary Clinton's best chance to become President is to begin writing the narrative that the horror of the McCain Presidency could have been averted, if only the Party had listened to her (she said that Obama wasn't electable!) and picked the candidate with the popular majority (by one set of counting rules).
This requires that Obama lose.
And, hey, if she picks up something nice in the process (Senate Majority Leader, anyone?) that can't hurt...
By jj mollo, at
Thu Jun 05, 04:09:00 PM:
I think this assessment is way too cynical. Hillary has spent a lot of time and effort supporting the Democratic party over the years. Can't it be that she cares for the party more than her own power? She believes in it, at least to a certain extent. She just happens to think that she is the best person to do it, but that doesn't mean that she would betray the party. Everything is a trade off. She still believes she has a chance this year, but if not, she will do everything she can to help the Dems.
Most people that fight so hard for power in the US are doing it so that they can use the power for the benefit of the people. No one ever seems to succeed at their mission, but the process of everyone trying leads to a better country. In the US, swing voters and good conciliators have the real power, not the ranters at the extremes.
By Georg Felis, at
Fri Jun 06, 09:42:00 AM:
jj, you're asuming in Hillary's own opinion
Hillary < Democrat Party
We who have watched her over the years realize in her own mind
Hillary > Everybody Else
Its simple math.
