Does Clinton want Obama to lose?

The New Republic ^ | 03/24/08 | Jonathan Chait

[MEGoody]

Does Clinton want Obama to lose?

Well, of course. . .she's running against him.

Oh, the general election? Um, well since Obamie hasn't gotten the nomination yet, that question seems a bit premature.

[SlapHappyPappy]

Exactly. Hillary wants the winner this year to be either herself or McCain. She knows her shelf life is limited already, plus her hunger for power is far too great to wait 8 years. She also knows that Americans are showing a tendency to fatigue of any one party holding the Presidency for more than 8 years, so a run in 2016 after 2 theoretical Obama administrations would be an even tougher challenge for her.

[littlehouse36]

“...he’s a fading rock star hoping to cut it on the oldies circuit.”

Ping!

[RipSawyer]

“Accept the VP spot and have Obama whacked.”

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I really believe this would be her preferred way of handling the situation but she probably has been told that there is no way Obama would run with her as VP, could he really be THAT stupid? So if she cannot win the nomination she will see to it that McCain wins the general election.

[RipSawyer]

“The man is so insubstantial it is laughable.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

So is Hitlery but it is not truly laughable, it is truly frightening to realize that the American electorate includes so many eligible voters who have tapioca pudding where there brain should be.

[The Electrician]

I may be hallucinating, but isn't Jonathan Chait one of those longtime Clinton butt-kissers who recently came to the reluctant conclusion (in print, that is) that "the Right" has been right all along about the Clintons' sleaze and corruption?

Usually, if they acknowledge that "the Right" was right at all, it is done only when it's too late to have any meaningful impact on politics and policies (for example, the 1993 "Dan Quayle was Right" cover story headline in The Atlantic, which of course only appeared in print after Bill Clinton was safely elected, was done only for its ability to shock and disgruntle its overwhelmingly liberal readership, rather than printing it at a time when it would have truly been a Sister Souljah moment for the magazine and would have given "cover" to Democrat legislators to do the right thing for a change). At least some of them are seeing the light and saying such things openly now for a change, albeit in comments that are usually heavily larded with rhetoric about "the Right" still being the worst of the worst...