Hillary Clinton, Fratricidal Maniac

The New Republic: Hillary Clinton's Continued Run Is Damaging The Democrats' Chances

(The New Republic)  This column was written by Jonathan Chait.

---

The morning after Tuesday's primaries, Hillary Clinton's campaign released a memo titled "The Path to the Presidency." I eagerly dug into the paper, figuring it would explain how Clinton would obtain the Democratic nomination despite an enormous deficit in delegates. Instead, the memo offered a series of arguments as to why Clinton should run against John McCain - i.e., "Hillary is seen as the one who can get the job done" - but nothing about how she actually could. Is she planning a third-party run? Does she think Obama is going to die? The memo does not say.

The reason it doesn't say is that Clinton's path to the nomination is pretty repulsive. She isn't going to win at the polls. Barack Obama has a lead of 144 pledged delegates. That may not sound like a lot in a 4,000-delegate race, but it is. Clinton's Ohio win reduced that total by only nine. She would need 15 more Ohios to pull even with Obama. She isn't going to do much to dent, let alone eliminate, his lead.

That means, as we all have grown tired of hearing, that she would need to win with superdelegates. But, with most superdelegates already committed, Clinton would need to capture the remaining ones by a margin of better than two to one. And superdelegates are going to be extremely reluctant to overturn an elected delegate lead the size of Obama's. The only way to lessen that reluctance would be to destroy Obama's general election viability, so that superdelegates had no choice but to hand the nomination to her. Hence her flurry of attacks, her oddly qualified response as to whether Obama is a Muslim ("not as far as I know"), her repeated suggestions that John McCain is more qualified.

Clinton's justification for this strategy is that she needs to toughen up Obama for the general election-if he can't handle her attacks, he'll never stand up to the vast right-wing conspiracy. Without her hazing, warns the Clinton memo, "Democrats may have a nominee who will be a lightening rod of controversy." So Clinton's offensive against the likely nominee is really an act of selflessness. And here I was thinking she was maniacally pursuing her slim thread of a chance, not caring - or possibly even hoping, with an eye toward 2012 - that she would destroy Obama's chances of defeating McCain in the process. I feel ashamed for having suspected her motives.

Still, there are a few flaws in Clinton's trial-by-smear method. The first is that her attacks on Obama are not a fair proxy for what he'd endure in the general election, because attacks are harder to refute when they come from within one's own party. Indeed, Clinton is saying almost exactly the same things about Obama that McCain is: He's inexperienced, lacking in substance, unequipped to handle foreign policy. As The Washington Monthly's Christina Larson has pointed out, in recent weeks the nightly newscasts have consisted of Clinton attacking Obama, McCain attacking Obama, and then Obama trying to defend himself and still get out his own message. If Obama's the nominee, he won't have a high-profile Democrat validating McCain's message every day.

Second, Obama can't "test" Clinton the way she can test him. While she likes to claim that she beat the Republican attack machine, it's more accurate to say that she survived with heavy damage. Clinton is a wildly polarizing figure, with disapproval ratings at or near 50 percent. But, because she earned the intense loyalty of core Democratic partisans, Obama has to tread gingerly around her vulnerabilities. There is a big bundle of ethical issues from the 1990s that Obama has not raised because he can't associate himself with what partisan Democrats (but not Republicans or swing voters) regard as a pure GOP witch hunt.

What's more, Clinton has benefited from a favorable gender dynamic that won't exist in the fall. (In the Democratic primary, female voters have outnumbered males by nearly three to two.) Clinton's claim to being a tough, tested potential commander-in-chief has gone almost unchallenged. Obama could reply that being First Lady doesn't qualify you to serve as commander-in-chief, but he won't quite say that, because feminists are an important chunk of the Democratic electorate. John McCain wouldn't be so reluctant.

Third, negative campaigning is a negative-sum activity. Both the attacker and the attackee tend to see their popularity drop. Usually, the victim's popularity drops farther than the perpetrator's, which is why negative campaigning works. But it doesn't work so well in primaries, where the winner has to go on to another election.

Clinton's path to the nomination, then, involves the following steps: kneecap an eloquent, inspiring, reform-minded young leader who happens to be the first serious African American presidential candidate (meanwhile cementing her own reputation for Nixonian ruthlessness) and then win a contested convention by persuading party elites to override the results at the polls. The plan may also involve trying to seat the Michigan and Florida delegations, after having explicitly agreed that the results would not count toward delegate totals. Oh, and her campaign has periodically hinted that some of Obama's elected delegates might break off and support her. I don't think she'd be in a position to defeat Hitler's dog in November, let alone a popular war hero.

Some Clinton supporters, like my friend (and historian) David Greenberg, have been assuring us that lengthy primary fights go on all the time and that the winner doesn't necessarily suffer a mortal wound in the process. But Clinton's kamikaze mission is likely to be unusually damaging. Not only is the opportunity cost - to wrap up the nomination, and spend John McCain into the ground for four months - uniquely high, but the venue could not be less convenient. Pennsylvania is a swing state that Democrats will almost certainly need to win in November, and Clinton will spend seven weeks and millions of dollars there making the case that Obama is unfit to set foot in the White House. You couldn't create a more damaging scenario if you tried.

Imagine in 2000, or 2004, that George W. Bush faced a primary fight that came down to Florida (his November must-win state). Imagine his opponent decided to spend seven weeks pounding home the theme that Bush had a dangerous plan to privatize Social Security. Would this have improved Bush's chances of defeating the Democrats? Would his party have stood for it?

[b-easy63]

Ooops. Ireland says Clinton not truthful about her role in Ireland. Lol


Irish blast Clinton''s foreign policy claim

Published: March 9, 2008 at 8:18 AM
Print story
Email to a friend
Font size:
BELFAST, Northern Ireland, March 9 (UPI) -- David Trimble, who helped broker peace in Northern Ireland said Sen. Hillary Clinton''s role in those negotiations was that of a cheerleader, not a participant.

Presidential contender Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., told CNN Wednesday that she "helped bring peace to Northern Ireland" as foreign policy experience becomes the latest issue in the Democratic presidential race.

"I don''t know there was much she did apart from accompanying Bill (Clinton) going around," Trimble said, adding, "I don''t want to rain on the thing for her but being a cheerleader for something is slightly different from being a principal player," The Sunday Telegraph reported.

Conall McDevitt, who served as the chief negotiator during the Good Friday Agreement talks that ended the conflict between England and Northern Ireland, said there was "no contact with her" during the negotiating processes. "So in a classic woman politicky sort of way I think she was active ... She was certainly investing some time, no doubt about it. Whether she was involved on the issue side I think probably not," McDevitt said.

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2008/03/09/irish_blast_clintons_foreign_policy_claim/9676/

[jesterbelle]

Hey Candida and Rowdy--don''''''''t ever say I did not give you anything? ENJOY!!!

Posted by b-easy63 at 12:28 AM : Mar 10, 2008



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by b-easy63 at 12:36 PM : Mar 10, 2008

Sheesh!shades of George Bush.It was pleasent though.Like reading the script for a Keystone Cops movie.Hmmm,PA. is the Keystone state,got to be a joke there somewhere,LOL Been having a heck of a time getting back here.The link for this story is gone from CBSs main page.

[b-easy63]

cCain & HRC are both ardent Israel before the US supporters; Obama is not. US presidents are required to support Israel above all else, including the US.

Obama''''s failure to march in lockstep with AIPAC (Israel) may not only cost him the presidency, it may cost him his life. The last president to actively oppose Israel was JFK. And, we know what happened to him. We just don''''t know who did it. . .

Posted by tuckerndfw at 12:42 PM : Mar 10, 2008


Actually, Hilary is not an ardent supporter of Israel or anything else (except maybe kids) When she was running for the Senator position. She almost cost herself the nomination by going on televison in Palestine and stating that the Palestinians deserved their own state and should be free of oppression. Major damage control had to be done before she was forgiven for that. I think, if elected, those who favor Israel, will find that they do not necessarily have a true believer in Hilary--though she may wait for the second term--before she shows them just how much she favors the people they oppress instead of Israel.

[jesterbelle]

Trying to track it down.Back in a few.

[b-easy63]

Finally, a really close look at the demeanor and interaction of Hitlery supporters. Seems she does not inspire peace or even decent employees. But her campaign mgr says it is not her fault--she has never managed anything this big before.

As if he does not have a clue that the US is far bigger and his candidate is campaigning under the so called aura of experience:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/10/us
/politics/10clinton.html?_r=1&ex=1362801
600&en=c935ca61808be762&ei=5088&partner=
rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin



Hey Candida and Rowdy--don''''t ever say I did not give you anything? ENJOY!!!

Posted by b-easy63 at 12:28 AM : Mar 10, 2008

[jesterbelle]

Geez,the spyware on this site is ridiculous.You probably don''t notice it if you''re on cable or DSL.I''m on dial up,and I have to kepp my spyware program running in the background,otherwise it locks up.Everytime you change a page here,you get a nice new batch of tracking cookies.

[b-easy63]

Been fixing lunch.
No,I haven''''t.Is it on here?bBefore I look at it though,I want to know if it''''s something that''''s going to sicken me.I''''m in a fairly good mood today,and I don''''t want to flock it up.LOL

Posted by jesterbelle at 12:24 PM : Mar 10, 2008


I posted it last night. Going to find it for you...

[jesterbelle]

So get busy acting strong or get picked off. I''''m starting to lose patience too.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by b-easy63 at 12:21 PM : Mar 10, 2008

Ditto!

[b-easy63]

Her "I''''m a survivor at all costs", victimize-me-once shame-on-you; twice-shame-on-me attitude has driven her to become a thuggish, muggish personality and a ruthless, brutal politician. She''''s angry and wants retribution by defeating a man, any man for the highest office in the U.S. That feeds right into her self-righteous, give-me-justice-because-I-deserve-it belief. And it shows up in her dominant, "always kick their *** and let them know who''''s boss" angry persona. She''''s a political hit-woman and would have done well working for Al Capone. Posted by rigpa44 at 12:16 PM : Mar 10, 2008

You are wrong about Hilary thinking she is a victim. She is no one''s victim--but if the card can work for her--she will play it. Rumor has it, that she not only never cared if Bill cheated, but orchestrated many cheats, handled the fallout and even helped to minimize or even do damage control. They say she is not even interested in him sexually. All goals were for the WH someday and her as the first President, and if she has to, she''ll become Mother Teresa and ascend from the heavens for votes--just as soon as she can find a harness that won''t show up too much on camera.

[b-easy63]

They will offer Obama the VP and if he refuses, his political career will be over. The Dems will destroy him for refusing to support their agenda and chosen candidate.

He may have a future as an independent, but if he refuses to be HRC''''s VP, his political future as a Dem is over.

Political parties and the mafia are roughly equivalent.

I''''m anticipating casting my vote for McCain. It appears the Democratic "leadership" (used very, very loosely) appears to be determined to force their Queen on voters regardless who voters try to choose.




Not correct. They will fear him as they do Lieberman. He draws too many and even as an Independent he could Ralph Nader them--so they will keep him really close--put him in lots of committees and continually dangle carrots of advancement or power to him while steadily indoctrinating him into the status quo and trying to corrupt him so that they can have leverage.

The Dems have learned--Keep your friends close, your enemies closer--they did not dispatch Ted Kennedy into the Obama Camp for nothing. who do you think will whisper to Obama that VP would be excellent for him and he should do it for the good of the party? Why the great Senator he trusts, who promises him only a brief detour of about 8 years from Camelot.

[jesterbelle]

Have you read the article about Hilary''''s campaign? It turns out she runs it and did run it like Bush--replete with crazy loyalty, insularity and secrets--just like him. Maybe they are soul mates and don''''t know it--or maybe they do--which is why she seldom cast a vote against most devious things he wanted. She probably thought "yeah. That will come in pr-e-t-t-y handy...when I am Emperor...er...King, er queen...er [fvck me], I mean -- President."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by b-easy63 at 12:13 PM : Mar 10, 2008


Been fixing lunch.
No,I haven''t.Is it on here?bBefore I look at it though,I want to know if it''s something that''s going to sicken me.I''m in a fairly good mood today,and I don''t want to flock it up.LOL

[b-easy63]

Such is life, I''''m currently anticipating voting for McCain given the fact Obama is ineffective at responding to HRC''''s continual trashing of the Dem party and her continual whining and sniveling about how hard it is being a woman.

Posted by tuckerndfw at 11:45 AM : Mar 10, 2008

Now. I have to admit to considering he is too passive to be President. Americans don''t mind a good, decent person, but we would mind, if that person is only these things because they are too weak to stand up effectively to anyone.

Obama better get tough fast. Because though I deplore her tactics--I can''t help admiring her tenacity and chutzpah. If Obama does not want to lose ground or get floated that he is indeed a pretty boy lightweight with bs dream talk--he better show some grit and the ability to put Hilary in her place. He walks a fine line due to voter back lash though. FAce it, any way is a gamble--But Obama: by and large, most women LOATHE a passive man. No matter how idealistic. It takes a special woman to want or accept a weak man. Sort of the mommy or I need a project for life, type.

So get busy acting strong or get picked off. I''m starting to lose patience too.

[rigpa44]

Let''s take off the gloves Hillary. Obama wisely won''t do it because people love a woman who is a victim, even if it''s politically fabricated on her part as a strategy to get to the White House. People are sympathetic and sensitive toward her after her political-surrogate husband "didn''t have ***" with Monica and psychologically and emotionally abused her. Anyone who goes after her too hard, touches the fabricated, political victim hot-button and will get burned. Hillary suffers from post-traumatic-stress syndrome.

Her "I''m a survivor at all costs", victimize-me-once shame-on-you; twice-shame-on-me attitude has driven her to become a thuggish, muggish personality and a ruthless, brutal politician. She''s angry and wants retribution by defeating a man, any man for the highest office in the U.S. That feeds right into her self-righteous, give-me-justice-because-I-deserve-it belief. And it shows up in her dominant, "always kick their *** and let them know who''s boss" angry persona. She''s a political hit-woman and would have done well working for Al Capone.

Do you think for a minute she''s going to bludgeon and torture the Republican''s into submission by constantly cutting off their - limbs - with her iron, egoic will - like she''s trying to do with Obama, McCain and all perceived "enemies" of Clinton? Not!

[b-easy63]

Have you read the article about Hilary''s campaign? It turns out she runs it and did run it like Bush--replete with crazy loyalty, insularity and secrets--just like him. Maybe they are soul mates and don''t know it--or maybe they do--which is why she seldom cast a vote against most devious things he wanted. She probably thought "yeah. That will come in pr-e-t-t-y handy...when I am Emperor...er...King, er queen...er [fvck me], I mean -- President."

[b-easy63]

You know B,that almost sounds better than him winning the nomination.You know they''''re going to twist his arm to put Medusa on the ticket as veep.

Posted by jesterbelle at 12:05 PM : Mar 10, 2008


Yep. They might as well just turn around and plunge the knife in his back now, than wait for Hilary to do it. At least they''d do one clean stroke instead of death by a thousands of microscopic, untraceable back to Hilary and Bill--cuts.

Hilary was a Republican you know. Her entire family was/is? She was a Goldwater girl. She retains a certain streak not only for ruthlessness, but for having no respect for any behavior nice or not--that does not net a win. You win--and how is left up to the whiners and goody two shoes--to her and Bill--it''s not about integrity or anything so lofty (who cares about that stuff) it is not about honesty (they don''t have it and their marriage is rock solid) it is about having a goal--and come hell or high water--achieving it--and morality and conscience be damned.

[jesterbelle]

THE PRESS: That was Senator Obama, folks, former Democrat Presidential nominee, now running mate of GOP hopeful John McCAin. God Bless America and Goodnight.

LOL


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by b-easy63 at 11:52 AM : Mar 10, 2008

You know B,that almost sounds better than him winning the nomination.You know they''re going to twist his arm to put Medusa on the ticket as veep.

[jesterbelle]

THE PRESS: That was Senator Obama, folks, former Democrat Presidential nominee, now running mate of GOP hopeful John McCAin. God Bless America and Goodnight.

LOL


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by b-easy63 at 11:52 AM : Mar 10, 2008

You know B,that almost sounds better than him winning the nomination.You know they''re going to twist his arm to put Medusa on the ticket as veep.

[b-easy63]

It would serve her right,the way her campaign blew his comments about Reagan all out of proportion.
Posted by jesterbelle at 11:49 AM : Mar 10, 2008


That is not all he was doing. He was stating a truth. Rightly or wrongly, Reagan put forth a paradigm as did the GOP in 1994. Not saying they were good but they did beat the Dem platforms: Prior to 1994, the dems had only one platform--we will take care of everyone and spend lots of money.

After 1994, realizing they could be beaten, they were scared to be or stand for anything--instead trying to be little Republicans then switching to liberals, then switching to chicken hawks--which ever way the wind blew. IN trying to be all things and nothing and being willing to not take a stand until the polls said overwhelmingly what Americans wanted. They rendered themselves weak and not credible. They failed to extend a new idea--a new paradigm. A change.

The first step of any change is not action. It is the idea, the second step is vision, the 3rd step is inspiration and the 4th step is the will/determination to roll up our sleeves and achieve it--but it is the last that is the clincher: to hold onto the vision and persevere. Will is the gas for the engine (inspiration) of will.

It doesn''t take the place of driving a car somewhere--but you can''t get anywhere without gas. And you won''t have a destination without vision.

All components are needed to bring about change--and none are unworthy or deserve ridicule.

[b-easy63]

OBAMA: Well...(chuckle) You know I don''t subscribe to that "enemy" nonsense but remember Pat, I''m a Harvard man--I always try to seek out and go to the best school when it comes to my education. Senator Clinton repeatedly made it clear that the person with the most experience was more Presidential--so I picked the most Presidential of the two. I mean, Hilary is likeable enough...but face it, decades in the Arms Services and on the various Congressional committees sort of trumps the Children Defense Fund and trips with Sinbad--though I hasten to add--I love children and appreciate the causes and love comedians too--but if one must go back to school--if it can be done, you try to go with the best.

THE PRESS: Wow. Well, that certainly will give Senator Clinton something to reflect on. Thank you for coming on Senator Obama

OBAMA: Yes, Pat. I believe it will. thank you for having me.

THE PRESS: That was Senator Obama, folks, former Democrat Presidential nominee, now running mate of GOP hopeful John McCAin. God Bless America and Goodnight.

LOL

[b-easy63]

What if.....

THE PRESS: Senator Obama, why did you defect from your own party and decide to be the running mate of the GOP candidate?

Obama: Well, Pat...besides my sincere belief in bipartisanship, I reflected on Senator''s Clinton''s comments about my lack of experience and need to learn in a junior position to President, then I considered that McCain''s experience was far more substantiative and Executive in scope and years than Hilary''s. so I decided that if I must seek a mentor, why not achieve several objectives like bringing the country and voters together and continuing my political education all at the same time.

THE PRESS: Very interesting position Senator, but you know, many are saying you did this out of pique to spite the party for sort of --you know, stealing the nomination from you.

OBAMA: Not at all Pat. I considered that my party gave the nomination to who they thought the stronger candidate was and that my lack of experience was my most negative factor.

THE PRESS: So why not Hilary? Why John McCain, a member of the GOP the sworn enemy of the Dems?


see next post