{"id":14998,"date":"2008-03-24T15:20:49","date_gmt":"2008-03-24T19:20:49","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com\/archives\/14998.html"},"modified":"2008-03-24T15:20:49","modified_gmt":"2008-03-24T19:20:49","slug":"clinton-wants-obama-to-lose-the-nomination-not-the-election","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/stevebenen.com\/thecarpetbaggerreport\/clinton-wants-obama-to-lose-the-nomination-not-the-election\/","title":{"rendered":"Clinton wants Obama to lose the nomination, not the election"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>The fact that Hillary Clinton continues to fight on, despite practical hurdles that appear insurmountable, has led some to argue that she&#8217;s intentionally trying to undermine Barack Obama&#8217;s general-election prospects, possibly to improve her own chances in 2012, or to maintain the Clintons&#8217; collective role as the leaders of the Democratic Party. Either way, the argument goes, if Clinton can&#8217;t be the nominee, she intends to make sure Obama can&#8217;t be president.<\/p>\n<p>Matt Yglesias has <a href=\"http:\/\/matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com\/archives\/2008\/03\/the_phony_war.php\">made the case<\/a> for this argument, <a href=\"http:\/\/matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com\/archives\/2008\/03\/good_news_for_people_who_like_1.php\">at least twice<\/a>, over the last couple of weeks. Kevin Drum <a href=\"http:\/\/www.washingtonmonthly.com\/archives\/individual\/2008_03\/013380.php\">entered the fray<\/a> over the weekend, calling the argument &#8220;crazy,&#8221; adding, &#8220;Hillary has a long, long history as a partisan animal. She&#8217;d no more root for a McCain victory than she would for another attack by al-Qaeda&#8230;. And if she gave even a hint of not supporting Obama wholeheartedly during the fall campaign? Not only would she have no future presidential prospects, she&#8217;d be lucky to escape being tarred, feathered, and ridden out of town on a rail.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>Jonathan Chait <a href=\"http:\/\/blogs.tnr.com\/tnr\/blogs\/the_plank\/archive\/2008\/03\/24\/does-clinton-want-obama-to-lose.aspx\">weighed in<\/a> today and changed the question a bit.<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>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&#8217;t care about the Democratic Party&#8217;s interests at all, except insofar as they coincide with her own. Her continued campaign is significantly damaging Obama&#8217;s general election prospects, and this would perhaps be defensible if she had a strong chance at the nomination, but she doesn&#8217;t. As Politico recently reported, &#8220;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.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>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&#8217;s prospects as a feature or a bug is interesting but beside the point.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Let&#8217;s take a minute to unwrap this a bit.<br \/>\n<!--more--><br \/>\nOn the first question, I think Kevin&#8217;s right and Matt&#8217;s wrong. I was deeply frustrated when Clinton started praising John McCain&#8217;s experience and commander-in-chief qualifications a couple of weeks ago, but it&#8217;s a stretch to look at those unhelpful and counter-productive remarks as evidence of her actually wanting a Republican president in 2009.<\/p>\n<p>As far as I can tell, based on all available evidence, Clinton loves her country and loves her party. She&#8217;s been playing hardball for a few months against Obama, and has engaged in some campaign tactics I found more than a little troublesome, but I consider this more evidence of her willingness to do what it takes to get the nomination, not evidence of her trying to sabotage U.S. interests by helping McCain&#8217;s candidacy.<\/p>\n<p>As for Chait, I think he may be assuming certain motivations that may or may not exist. He argues, &#8220;Clinton is acting as if she doesn&#8217;t care about the Democratic Party&#8217;s interests at all, except insofar as they coincide with her own.&#8221; That very well may be &#8212; I&#8217;m not in a position to say for sure &#8212; but here&#8217;s a different angle to consider: isn&#8217;t it at least possible that Clinton is acting in such a way to help the Democratic Party <i>as she sees it<\/i>? <\/p>\n<p>In other words, at Clinton HQ right now, a team of advisors are likely thinking, &#8220;If Obama&#8217;s the nominee, Democrats lose. We may be the only ones who realize it, and we may only have a 10% shot, but we need to keep fighting, keep tearing Obama down, and keep this damaging process going in order to save the party and protect the party&#8217;s interests.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>This isn&#8217;t to say this perspective is right &#8212; indeed, I&#8217;m pretty sure it&#8217;s ridiculous &#8212; but it&#8217;s also likely a mistake to assume nefarious motives. Clinton thinks she&#8217;s the only candidate standing between us and a third term of Bush policies. From her perspective, her interests and the party&#8217;s interests are one and the same.<\/p>\n<p>Given the landscape, I&#8217;m fairly certain she&#8217;s mistaken. But if there&#8217;s solid evidence that she&#8217;s actively working towards helping Republicans, I haven&#8217;t seen it. The Clinton campaign is probably working under faulty assumptions, not disloyal ones.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The fact that Hillary Clinton continues to fight on, despite practical hurdles that appear insurmountable, has led some to argue that she&#8217;s intentionally trying to undermine Barack Obama&#8217;s general-election prospects, possibly to improve her own chances in 2012, or to maintain the Clintons&#8217; collective role as the leaders of the Democratic Party. Either way, the [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[617],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-14998","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-general"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/stevebenen.com\/thecarpetbaggerreport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14998","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/stevebenen.com\/thecarpetbaggerreport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/stevebenen.com\/thecarpetbaggerreport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stevebenen.com\/thecarpetbaggerreport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stevebenen.com\/thecarpetbaggerreport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=14998"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/stevebenen.com\/thecarpetbaggerreport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14998\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/stevebenen.com\/thecarpetbaggerreport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=14998"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stevebenen.com\/thecarpetbaggerreport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=14998"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stevebenen.com\/thecarpetbaggerreport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=14998"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}