16/04: Who Knows What Lurks in the Heart of Hillary Clinton?
Category: American History and Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
The Okie Gardener wrote today:
"I see [Hillary] conceding and withdrawing from the race only if she is convinced that Obama will lose to McCain, that McCain because of age will serve only one term, and that she then will be well-placed for 2012."
Some revised and extended comments in response to that assertion, which strikes me as plausible but uncharitable.
Hillary is, in fact, laboring under two reasonable assumptions:
1. It ain't over until the Fat Lady sings (nothing is more American than that). If you are not in it, you cannot win it. One thing we can say for sure: Barack Obama will NOT arrive in Denver with a sewn-up nomination--unless Mrs. Clinton steps aside (or the superdelegates come together earlier to preempt the "impending crisis"). Hillary is hoping for a late-round knock-out, which is not unfathomable. Do we really think we have heard the last Obama revelation? The bottom could drop out of the Obama market between now and mid-summer. Not likely, but certainly not impossible.
2. Mrs. Clinton honestly believes (and I agree) that she is a much more formidable general election candidate than Obama. Are we not more and more persuaded with each passing week that her primary opponent has some seriously inviting weak spots? We are increasingly optimistic about running against this "young man in a hurry." Bring him on. As I have said repeatedly, this is a bad year to run as a Republican--but Barack Obama's dedication to liberal orthodoxy, and his tin ear for Red-State culture, gives me some hope for victory.
And, one more factor, Mrs. Clinton is also laboring under the not so reasonable (but, nevertheless, absolutely essential) delusion of all presidential aspirants: "I am the very best candidate for the job."
In other words, Mrs. Clinton believes with all her soul that she is exactly what America needs right now, and she must suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune and go the distance to save us. For this reason she should not quit, just as Ronald Reagan did not quit in 1976.
In that vein, the Gardener asserts that she is attempting to secure the defeat of her opponent to position herself for the next campaign. While I concede that thought may be a variable, I tend to believe it is way down the list of important considerations. And, if that is her plan, it is awfully risky and probably too clever by half.
I am more inclined to believe that she sees this present opportunity as her one and only chance--which strikes me as a much more compelling explanation for her refusal to throw in the towel. She is fighting like there is no tomorrow--and she is most likely correct.
There is no doubt that she does damage to Obama by staying in. Of the three remaining candidates, he is the most vulnerable to extended close scrutiny. What more are we going to learn about Hillary or John McCain? On the other hand, each day brings another facet to our perception of Barack Obama.
Why would she do that?
Who knows, she may actually favor McCain over Obama (and for reasons wholly apart from her electoral chances in 2012). Not that I am predicting that she will endorse McCain in any way. Hill and Bill will line up behind Barack like good soldiers (Joe Lieberman supported John Kerry in 2004). But I think Hillary might see a McCain win over Barack Obama as more than just good politics for her personally, and even more than merely just desserts for a disloyal party. I think she might actually believe in her heart of hearts (or even sub-consciously) that Barack Obama is too much of a "dice roll."
One last thought: why my sympathetic conjecture in defense of Hillary's motives?
I suspect Hillary is no more evil-minded and selfish than Andrew Jackson or Henry Clay. Politics tends to make us see the worst in our opponents. Certainly, Jackson and Clay partisans saw the other side as unscrupulous, diabolical, and traitorous. We tend to see the opposition in the same light today.
This fits a basic pattern in American politics in which we tend to lionize their current party champions, demonize their contemporary political foes, and then canonize them all in a non-partisan burst of patriotic ardor once they have been dead long enough.
Clay and Jackson were fallible men with great qualities and serious faults. Their greatness was partly the product of ambition, self delusion, and an ability and willingness to deliver and suffer vicious blows in the public arena. Their darker sides drew from the same pool of personal traits. Bill Clinton has it right: politics is not for the faint of heart. Hillary is in the tradition of those multi-faceted characters from the past.
"I see [Hillary] conceding and withdrawing from the race only if she is convinced that Obama will lose to McCain, that McCain because of age will serve only one term, and that she then will be well-placed for 2012."
Some revised and extended comments in response to that assertion, which strikes me as plausible but uncharitable.
Hillary is, in fact, laboring under two reasonable assumptions:
1. It ain't over until the Fat Lady sings (nothing is more American than that). If you are not in it, you cannot win it. One thing we can say for sure: Barack Obama will NOT arrive in Denver with a sewn-up nomination--unless Mrs. Clinton steps aside (or the superdelegates come together earlier to preempt the "impending crisis"). Hillary is hoping for a late-round knock-out, which is not unfathomable. Do we really think we have heard the last Obama revelation? The bottom could drop out of the Obama market between now and mid-summer. Not likely, but certainly not impossible.
2. Mrs. Clinton honestly believes (and I agree) that she is a much more formidable general election candidate than Obama. Are we not more and more persuaded with each passing week that her primary opponent has some seriously inviting weak spots? We are increasingly optimistic about running against this "young man in a hurry." Bring him on. As I have said repeatedly, this is a bad year to run as a Republican--but Barack Obama's dedication to liberal orthodoxy, and his tin ear for Red-State culture, gives me some hope for victory.
And, one more factor, Mrs. Clinton is also laboring under the not so reasonable (but, nevertheless, absolutely essential) delusion of all presidential aspirants: "I am the very best candidate for the job."
In other words, Mrs. Clinton believes with all her soul that she is exactly what America needs right now, and she must suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune and go the distance to save us. For this reason she should not quit, just as Ronald Reagan did not quit in 1976.
In that vein, the Gardener asserts that she is attempting to secure the defeat of her opponent to position herself for the next campaign. While I concede that thought may be a variable, I tend to believe it is way down the list of important considerations. And, if that is her plan, it is awfully risky and probably too clever by half.
I am more inclined to believe that she sees this present opportunity as her one and only chance--which strikes me as a much more compelling explanation for her refusal to throw in the towel. She is fighting like there is no tomorrow--and she is most likely correct.
There is no doubt that she does damage to Obama by staying in. Of the three remaining candidates, he is the most vulnerable to extended close scrutiny. What more are we going to learn about Hillary or John McCain? On the other hand, each day brings another facet to our perception of Barack Obama.
Why would she do that?
Who knows, she may actually favor McCain over Obama (and for reasons wholly apart from her electoral chances in 2012). Not that I am predicting that she will endorse McCain in any way. Hill and Bill will line up behind Barack like good soldiers (Joe Lieberman supported John Kerry in 2004). But I think Hillary might see a McCain win over Barack Obama as more than just good politics for her personally, and even more than merely just desserts for a disloyal party. I think she might actually believe in her heart of hearts (or even sub-consciously) that Barack Obama is too much of a "dice roll."
One last thought: why my sympathetic conjecture in defense of Hillary's motives?
I suspect Hillary is no more evil-minded and selfish than Andrew Jackson or Henry Clay. Politics tends to make us see the worst in our opponents. Certainly, Jackson and Clay partisans saw the other side as unscrupulous, diabolical, and traitorous. We tend to see the opposition in the same light today.
This fits a basic pattern in American politics in which we tend to lionize their current party champions, demonize their contemporary political foes, and then canonize them all in a non-partisan burst of patriotic ardor once they have been dead long enough.
Clay and Jackson were fallible men with great qualities and serious faults. Their greatness was partly the product of ambition, self delusion, and an ability and willingness to deliver and suffer vicious blows in the public arena. Their darker sides drew from the same pool of personal traits. Bill Clinton has it right: politics is not for the faint of heart. Hillary is in the tradition of those multi-faceted characters from the past.
