Is this guy Catholic?
Posted on 03/25/2008 8:48:48 AM PDT by CondiRice08
Last week, the Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias suggested that Hillary Clinton may want Barack Obama to lose the general election. The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum, an Obama supporter who often defends Clinton, replies, "she's not rooting for John McCain and she's not secretly plotting Barack Obama's downfall."
Who's right?
Obviously, it's impossible to know for sure either way, since it's a question of motive. I think Clinton's political interests clearly militate toward a harsh campaign against Obama. Her only chance of winning is to disqualify him as a general election candidate, giving the superdelegates no chance but to contravene the elected delegates, which they are otherwise reluctant to do. This also serves her interests because if Obama loses, she would be the front-runner in 2012. (Drum asserts, "It's either 2008 or nothing for Hillary," but he doesn't say why, and the assertion seems wrong on it's face -- she won't be too old in 2012, her Democratic fanbase wil remain intact, and her interest in the presidency will presumably be undiminished.)
Now, is Clinton actively thinking along these lines? Like I said, you can't know. Even if she's thinking in selfless terms, I'm not certain she would regard a John McCain victory over Obama as a total disaster. Senators tend to be very clubby and place enormous weight on paying dues. Clinton is said to consider Obama unworthy of the presidency, and indeed has said that McCain is ready to be commander-in-chief and he is not. She may not think a McCain presidency would be much worse for the country than an Obama presidency. I definitely suspect her chief strategist, Mark Penn, would prefer a McCain presidency. Penn is right-of-center on foreign policy and economics. His loyalty to liberalism is extremely tenuous.
But this is speculation. An easier question to answer is, How much does Clinton value her own interests versus those of the Democratic Party? And here the answer is very clear: Clinton is acting as if she doesn't care about the Democratic Party's interests at all, except insofar as they coincide with her own. Her continued campaign is significantly damaging Obama's general election prospects, and this would perhaps be defensible if she had a strong chance at the nomination, but she doesn't. As Politico recently reported, "One important Clinton adviser estimated to Politico privately that she has no more than a 10 percent chance of winning her race against Barack Obama, an appraisal that was echoed by other operatives."
To inflict serious damage on the likely nominee in order to pursue a one-in-ten chance of securing the nomination is, ipso facto, an act of extreme selfishness. Whether she sees the damage to Obama's prospects as a feature or a bug is interesting but beside the point.
THE DAMAGE DONE TO THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY by Bill Clinton was the worst experienced under any incumbent president since Grover Cleveland. Here are some of the stats:
- GOP seats gained in House after Clinton became president: 48
- GOP seats gained in Senate after Clinton became president: 8
- GOP governorships gained after Clinton became president: 11
- GOP state legislative seats gained since Clinton became president: 1,254 as of 1998
- State legislatures taken over by GOP after Clinton became president: 9
- Democrat officeholders who became Republicans since Clinton became president: 439 as of 1998
- Republican officeholders who became Democrats: 3
If Obama is the nominee, clinton will sabotage him. No way she waits 8 years to run again.
The Clintons are bad people. Perhaps in the end it is only they who will remove the scales from the eyes of America and help the sheeple to turn away from Liberal Fascism.
” Republican officeholders who became Democrats: 3”
Unfortunately, one of those is Mccain.
The Democrats do not like their “losers” to run again. Gore and Kerry were not the “annointed” frontrunners for the 2008 election. She will lose all of her power after this cycle.
Some people are wondering why the Republicans are keeping their powder dry attacking Obama. The answer is that Hillary is doing an OK job right now on that front. Personally I think Obama will start faltering when it sinks in to most people his church/pastor problem and the fact that someone who’s name is Hussein might become president. Hillary will likely win the nomination and then the battle will begin.
But if Obama wins the nomination there will emerge groups who will make the Swift Boaters look like choir boys, then things are going to get real ugly real quickly.
If Obama becomes President, there is no way Clinton could wait 8 years. To do so would require her beating Obama's VP in the primary. That is a tough prospect, unless his administration is just a total disaster the last 4 years, in which case she could do it, but beating the GOP nominee would be even tougher.
She needs Obama to lose to McCain. Period.
There are 3 available scenarios to Hillary. Sabatoge Obama so McCain wins, she runs in 4 years.
Steal the nomination at the convention.
Accept the VP spot and have Obama whacked.
The sense of entitlement among Obama supporters is breathtaking. The man is so insubstantial it is laughable.
Is this guy Catholic?
For some reason I find myself wondering if the stars are lining up perfectly for Mitt Romney to be the ideal presidential candidate in 2012 -- regardless of who wins this year.
Similarly, I see Barak Obama as Spock, (from Star Trek) -- ashamed of his earth (white) mother.
And there are the ears, as well ...
Damn, these liberals learn slowly.
McCain may have become a “democrat”, but he still supports our troops and our mission in Iraq.
I find that comment repulsive, ignoble, and shocking. However, I have no problem believing it could be a plausible outcome. Is that not an amazing thing? Name another recent political figure about which the same could be said with little or no argument from vast number of the American populace. John Gotti? Pol Pot? Chavez?
Astounding!!!
Someone else said several months ago that an Obama/Clinton administration would be the first one where the secret service had to protect the President from the Vice President.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.