« Clinton: TPM Reader Recommendations Unfair | ☠enghis's Blog | Dembillc wins the "Troll You'd Most Like to Have a Beer With" award »
Does Hillary Want Obama to Be President?
Disclaimer: Sincere post
If Obama wins the nomination, Clinton has said that she will support Obama, and I'm sure that she will, but will she actually want him to win?
I'd like to highlight a passage from the Still In It to Win It Time article:
Clinton is too disciplined and devoted to progressive issues to consciously try to sabotage Obama's candidacy, but I worry that her support will be tepid. The Democrats will need as much enthusiasm as Clinton can muster to heal this rift and bring her supporters to Obama's side in the general election.
If Obama wins the nomination, Clinton has said that she will support Obama, and I'm sure that she will, but will she actually want him to win?
I'd like to highlight a passage from the Still In It to Win It Time article:
Clinton believes Obama's support is largely a mirage--a bunch of true believers whose passion might help him cinch the nomination, but that may prove an insufficient bedrock for winning a general election when the spell might be broken by tough questions about national-security credentials, economic-policy plans and rich experience. She can't stop from shaking her head in disbelief when longtime friends who are elected officials inform her that they are going to endorse Obama and were chiefly convinced by their children's enthusiasm for his candidacy.This is obviously a reporter's interpretation, but if accurate, it worries me. If Clinton's chief concern with Obama's candidacy is his electability, then she may not be very incentivized to help him win the general election. If he were to lose, her position would be vindicated, and she could cry, "I told you so," to all those who doubted her. Such a tendency is very human, unfortunately, and I'm sure that we've all experienced this variety of schadenfreude.
Clinton is too disciplined and devoted to progressive issues to consciously try to sabotage Obama's candidacy, but I worry that her support will be tepid. The Democrats will need as much enthusiasm as Clinton can muster to heal this rift and bring her supporters to Obama's side in the general election.
Advertisement
Actually, I'd argue the opposite point from that premise. If her chief concern is his electability, then she should become very active in helping im win the general election once he sews up the nomination.
March 28, 2008 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uh, no, I believe Hillary Clinton wants to be president, that's why she's campaigning. If you give me your shipping address, Ghengis, I'll get that ton of bricks right off to you.
March 28, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
C'mon, Bev, I expect you to read the actual post and not just the headline! (Perhaps you were just being funny?)
March 28, 2008 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you bevd. I could use some bricks.
attn: Genghis
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
PS Admittedly a misleading headline. I could have chosen better.
March 28, 2008 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm really curious as to why someone who is intelligent would give any kind of credence to that article.
Here we have two reporters who begin an article with a vicious jab and then prognosticate, speculate, mind read, make accusations without sources - in fact they don't identify any source other than a "confidant" and "an unaligned democrat", provide no examples, no proof, neglect to tell the reader that Clinton has campaigned for Obama in the past, has held fund raisers for him in her home and in this vacuum of historical context (such as the Carter/Kennedy 1980 convention which was far more bitter than this race and actually called for a balloting on the v.p. slot after which Kennedy gave one of the better speeches of his career in support of the democratic party) by commission and ommission offer their article as a testament of Clinton's "beliefs".
These same people who are castigating her for meeting with Scaife and his editorial board, while praising Obama's "new politics" of embracing and forgiving enemies and talking to friend and foe alike, who can't imagine why Clinton would meet with that editorial board and fail to mention Obama's appearance on Fox after their airing of the Wright sermons out of context - these same people think nothing of assigning the worst and most malignant motives to Clinton no matter what she says or does.
These people are the same people who claim the trip to Bosnia wasn't dangerous while airing the hurt feelings of Colonel David Hunt, who was insulted, insulted!, that Clinton said Bosnia was dangerous after explaining that they had F-18s in the air, secret service and navy seals on the ground, 40 tanks and 4000 armed troops around the airport, which might suggest to sentient people, that yes, someone might have thought this visit had some inherent danger in it - and you have some concerns about this particular article?
And Halperin! This same reporter who spent three hours on the Hugh Hewitt show begging Hewitt to love him like a brother conservative. This article was a "reporter's interpretation" this was a reporter's hit job and frankly that is what concerns me.
March 28, 2008 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
BevD, I'm not sure which "people" you're referring to unless you're generalizing all people who criticize Clinton, which seems a bit over broad.
I think that it's fair though, to question the article. The particular passage that concerns me doesn't cite anyone at all, so you're right, it could be completely bogus, and I hope that is.
(I do note that you could have made the same argument more effectively if you used less incendiary language.)
March 28, 2008 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I'm generalizing about all reporters. I despise them as a class.
March 28, 2008 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting post... If you think HRC will ever support Obama, I have an island in the Gulf of New Mexico to sell you.... In order for HRC to endorse Obama means, she would have to reject her 60s/70s status quo delusions... For all of HRC's positives, none are positive in 2008... her time was, at the latest, 2004... Obama effectively destroyed her base... the only folks she has left are the comatose and brain-dead.
March 28, 2008 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
She already has endorsed Obama. She made a statement along the lines of it being ridiculous to choose McCain over Obama if Obama were to be the candidate. I'm not her biggest fan, but I give her credit for saying it, especially now before it's even officially wrapped up.
March 28, 2008 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think she said, "If I'm not the nominee, you short support Obama." Seems to me she said, "If I'm not the nominee, don't vote for John McCain."
I might be unduly swayed by the initial headlines, but I don't think it is splitting hairs to draw that distinction.
As far as the central premise of the G man's post, I'm not too worried about how actively she supports Barack once he has the nomination sewn up. As long as she doesn't accept McCain's offer of the VP slot, I don't think we can expect too much more from her. Hell, by the time the general election rolls around she might've had so many sleepless nights that she'll be going around the country telling everyone that SNL plagiarized her and started doing sketches about media bias after she brought it up in a debate.
March 28, 2008 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Never count out the zombie demographic! You know, maybe that's why she's always wide awake at 3am, but sleep-deprived all day long. Come to think of it, it's been a long time since I've seen Hillary outdoors in the sunlight. Hillary is a vampire! Yes, it all makes sense to me now...
March 28, 2008 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
She'll certainly support Obama. My question is what she'll want in her heart of hearts and how that will affect the level of her support. Not that anyone can know the answer.
March 28, 2008 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
you've answered your own question: she will, of course, support obama. i have no doubt.
as for what's in her heart of hearts: i'd say the disappointment of a lifetime... but this is where you guys underestimate her every time. hasn't she proved herself a warrior yet? think about the 90's... think about her time in the senate... she will do what she has to do, and what's in her heart is her business.
if obama is elected it will be because hillary supported him after he got the nomination. if obama loses, it will NOT be on hillary...
March 28, 2008 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're probably right, she'll likely do what she needs to for the Dems (and her career) regardless of how she feels personally. Shit, now I'm agreeing with you.
March 28, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whats the price merlot? JK
March 28, 2008 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it would be better if Clinton would be 100% gung-ho behind Obama, a tepid endorsement would suffice. There will be others like Al Gore, John Edwards, Wesley Clark, Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean, etc. will all throw their support 100% for Obama. Even many of Clinton's staff would probably go behind Obama, after reading all the turmoil and jockeying going on behind the scenes with Mark Penn and Harold Ickes, etc...
so that leaves who? Hillary, Bill, Geraldine Ferraro, Mark Penn and James Carville?
March 28, 2008 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Obama gets the nomination--and I'm in a pessimistic mood this week, as you can, indeed, never count Bill and Hillary out--it's possible that neither Obama nor the party in general will want her to be a high-profile supporter. If she makes some statements strongly encouraging her supporters to support the candidate, that'd be great; but her negatives are so high that she might actually hurt him among independents and Republicans.
I've heard it said that B. Clinton didn't campaign strongly for Gore because he was too busy with his wife's senate campaign. But my impression was that Gore himself didn't want to make a big deal about Bill's support. I can't believe Gore was all that happy about Hillary's apparent vice-presidency, which pushed Gore almost completely out of the picture while Bill was in office. But maybe I'm anthropomorphizing politicians too much.
March 28, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh baloney. Gore was not "pushed out of the picture" in the least, and he would be the first to say that - and did. He undertook many important projects for the administration and if you had read his books you would know that.
March 28, 2008 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, that's not what Hillary says.
March 28, 2008 7:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Have you listened to Hillary? Barack Obama is probably not a Muslim,... as far as she knows? This is a woman whose egotism and ambition know no bounds. And for Bill Clinton, this is a new legacy for his presidency, something to overshadow all that Monica Lewinsky stuff.
This has ceased to be about 2008. Barring a miracle, Hillary can't win the nomination THIS year. But if she can make sure that Barack Obama loses in November, she'll have her chance again in just four years. And as Genghis says, it will be oh, so sweet to tell the Democratic Party, "I told you so."
Just wait and see. She'll stay in and try to do as much damage to Obama as possible. Then, when she's absolutely forced to concede, she'll gracefully bow out. But she won't want the Democrats to win this thing, no way. It might not be a conscious decision, but she'll be doing everything she can to justify her campaign and position herself for another run in four years. And that means that Obama must lose in November.
March 28, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
An awful lot of people hope your right Kinkistyle. Been worrying about the time frame, as has Rachel Maddow, a pundit that is highly respected & smart as a whip. She has said if it goes to the convention, Mc Cain could likely win.
Anybody hear Harold Ford say yesterday at the end of the primary, each will pitch & it will be over befor the convention, that wouldn't allow much time for healing.
March 28, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink