Saturday, March 22, 2008
If Obama gets the nomination, the Clintons want McCain to win:That seems pretty obvious, dispite what Kevin Drum thinks. We've already heard Hillary say that she and McCain are qualified to be Commander-in-Chief, and Obama maybe not. Now Bill Clinton says: “I think it would be a great thing if we had an election year where you had two people who loved this country and were devoted to the interest of this country. And people could actually ask themselves who is right on these issues, instead of all this other stuff that always seems to intrude itself on our politics.” The Obama camp are crying foul, saying that Bill is implying (through omission) that Obama doesn't love his country. That's looking for the worst in a statement, and isn't particularly convincing. What is convincing, and real, is that Bill Clinton is saying nice things about John McCain - in an election year when McCain is going to be the Republican candidate in November. He's also putting Hillary on the same plane ("two people"), just as she did regarding the C-i-C "threshold". Can anybody point to a situation in previous elections where a leading candidate and the surrogates were promoting the other party's nominee? (Presumably only happening prior to that candidate's party nominee being chosen.)
posted by Quiddity at 3/22/2008 05:47:00 PM
4 comments
I'll show you politics in America. Here it is, right here:
'I think the puppet on the right shares my beliefs.'
'I think the puppet on the left is more to my liking.'
'Hey, wait a minute, there's one guy holding out both puppets!'
- Bill Hicks, Rant in E-Minor, 1997
This is so obvious. I can't believe no one else is saying it. It only stands to reason Clinton wants Obama trounced in the general if she can't get the nod. Look what she stands to lose if Obama wins. (BTW, it's amazing how little "political" analysis is done by political analysts. No one talks about power. Somebody on MSNBC said Clinton's handing on because of her "emotional attachment" to the presidency. Unbelievable.) The contest for the Democratic nomination is also a fight for control of the Democratic party. Although Hillary has only a vanishingly small chance at being nominated (someone in her own campaign put it at 10%) and her "path to the nomination" looks more like Sherman's march every day, she contines. Worse, she and Bill now regularly praise McCain and put Obama third. (Most recently, Bill implied Hill vs McCain would pit two people who love their country, ominously omitting Obama.) Their aim? To destroy Obama's reputation and deny him the nomination or -- plan B -- the election. Because, if Obama wins, Hill & Bill will be displaced along with their entourage and supporters, the DLC, Terry McAuliffe, Mark Penn, the whole gang of consultants and hangers-on. Their power base disappears. He's no longer titular head of the party, she's just the junior senator from NY. Obama's win would usher in a new politics, promote new people, affirm new ideas: a new wave of activists, Howard Dean's DNC and its 50-state strategy, etc. But if Obama loses to McCain, he and his movement will be discredited and Bill & Hill will still reign. It's not just about keeping her chances alive for 2012, it's about clinging to power.
did you know mccain strategist, charlie black, is a mark penn employee?
In response to michaeldee's comparison of the Clinton campaign and Gen. Sherman's march. I suggest that her tactics compare more favorably to the Japanese on Okinawa, holding out to the last man, inflicting as much damage as possible on the "enemy", but ultimately losing badly. I just hope Obama is able to "occupy" Washington the way the marines did with mainland Japan.
|
