To Hillaryites, the Democratic Convention is all about the 2012 presidency
With the death of Bernie Mac yesterday, the dearth in comedy is made up by Michelle Cottle, a senior editor at The New Republic, in today's NY Times. Her op ed urges the Democrats to enter Hillary Clinton's name for presidential nomination which would precipitate a roll-call that would prove embarrassing for Obama and result in damaging his already fragile campaign against John McCain.
The roll-call campaign caused an incredulous Matt Lauer took a few minutes from the Olympics the other day to say, "What are they doing?" Not many are willing to say it, but this is not about so-called respect or closure for Hillary's supporters. It is about running Hillary for president against John McCain or whoever in 2012. The more Obama is damaged, the better the chance for a hoped for 1972 McGovern like disaster, thus executing the prime directive – getting Hillary elected as president.
Even Cottle admits that,
"Nearly everyone in the Democratic Party seems to think that officially entering Hillary Clinton’s name into a roll-call vote for the presidential nomination at the Democratic National Convention would be a dangerous show of disunity.
It’s true that having America watch as some portion of Mrs. Clinton’s 1,640 pledged delegates thumb their noses at BarackObama would disrupt the party’s vision of a carefully scripted Denver love-in." [Emphasis mine]
Cottle needs to come up with some rationale to cover up the real intention.
But finding a constructive way for Mrs. Clinton’s seriously aggrieved loyalists to channel their anger and disappointment could wind up being the path of less destruction for Mr. Obama’s campaign. Plus, it’s the right thing to do.
OMG. The ole "right thing to do" ploy, words that have often been found missing from the vocabulary of the Clintons. Think maybe the right thing to do is to do everything possible to get Democrat elected?
But Cottle continues, "More than a few of Mrs. Clinton’s devotees, including plenty headed to Denver this month, are in need of catharsis and a bit of closure."
Ahh! the old C&C - Catharsis and Closure. So what if the venting leads to Bush 3. Well, actually, that is the point, isn't it?
More. "She was a victim of sexism, that the historic nature of her candidacy was callously dismissed in all the hullabaloo over the historic nature of Mr. Obama’s, and on and on and on. Some of these allegations ring truer than others."
Hey Michelle, exactly which allegations ring truer than others?
But many of Mrs. Clinton’s supporters believe them intensely enough to want to make trouble for Mr. Obama. Discouraging Mrs. Clinton’s name from being entered into a roll-call vote would give her legions yet one more opportunity to feel that their candidate had been snubbed. Giving them the chance to see their beloved candidate honored in a highly public forum could, just maybe, help release a little steam from the pressure cooker. Beyond that, there could be other, more direct benefits for Mr. Obama’s candidacy. A roll-call vote for Mrs. Clinton could help Mr. Obama look magnanimous instead of messianic.
Fair or not, the man has earned himself a reputation as arrogant.
Arrogant and messianic. What's worse? A&M or Catharsis and Closure?
Let's make sure to get in a shot at Obama that could have come right from the McCain campaign. Or Karl Rove.
Yes, we would all be reminded of how close the Democratic race for president was when, on the convention floor, delegation after delegation rose to cast its votes. (A few die-hards for Mrs. Clinton might even get mouthy.)
Bet they will. The more mouthy, the better to start the Hill in '12 campaign.
In February I wrote:
[Randi's] plan being to use a national forum [as AFT President] to help Hillary get elected. Ooops! Actually, if Obama is the candidate and loses to McCain, Hillary becomes very viable in 2012, so think long-term. Who do you think the Weingarten/Clinton forces will really be rooting for?) An Obama loss and AFT HQ becomes Hillary Central.
We've been chronicling the ties that bind the UFT/AFT to the Clintons. Is there any doubt that, Randi Weingarten, our leader who is a super delegate, will support this roll call move, though look for carefully parsed language (probably written by Hillary/Randi common advisor Howard Wolfson) that will enable Randi to wiggle out of the mess when the shit hits the fan and McCain wins.
But of course they will paint the reasons as not due to the actions of Clinton supporters but to Obama's failures as a candidate.
In March I posted this:
If Obama gets the nomination and loses to McCain, Hillary gets to say "I told you so" and becomes the instant candidate for 2012. At the time, I read the piece to my wife, upon which she, basically a Hillary supporter at the time, said "WHY? HOW COULD THEY WANT McCAIN?" I responded because for the Clintons and their supporters it is about them, not the party. I told her we would be watching the true level of enthusiasm Randi Weingarten and the AFT/UFT have for Obama – oh, there will be lots of surface stuff, but with Randi's star so hitched to Hillary, an Obama win, leaving Hillary in Siberia, would not be part of the plan.
Maureen Dowd ("Hillary or Nobody") raised this same point in March:
Even some Clinton loyalists are wondering aloud if the win-at-all-costs strategy of Hillary and Bill — which continued Tuesday when Hillary tried to drag Rev. Wright back into the spotlight — is designed to rough up Obama so badly and leave the party so riven that Obama will lose in November to John McCain.
If McCain only served one term, Hillary would have one last shot. On Election Day in 2012, she’d be 65.
Why else would Hillary suggest that McCain would be a better commander in chief than Obama, and why else would Bill imply that Obama was less patriotic — and attended by more static — than McCain?
Why else would Phil Singer, a Hillary spokesman, say in a conference call with reporters on Tuesday that Obama was trying to disenfranchise the voters of Florida and Michigan. “When it comes to voting, Senator Obama has turned the audacity of hope into the audacity of nope,” he said, adding, “There’s a basic reality here, which is we could have avoided the entire George W. Bush presidency if we had counted votes in Florida.” So is Singer making the case that Obama is as anti-democratic as W. was when he snatched Florida from Al Gore?
Some top Democrats are increasingly worried that the Clintons’ divide-and-conquer strategy is nihilistic: Hillary or no democrat.
(Or, as one Democrat described it to ABC’s Jake Tapper: Hillary is going for “the Tonya Harding option” — if she can’t get the gold, kneecap her rival.)
I'm not the only one out there on this. The other day I came across this:
August 1, 2008
by Rick Pedraza
With hopes of being chosen as Barack Obama’s vice-presidential running mate dashed, Hillary Clinton has begun the process of carving out her political future.
The New York Post reports Clinton met earlier this week at a secret ladies-only dinner in Washington to discuss where she can go from here.
After learning she would address the Democratic National Convention on its second night – traditionally not the night the vice presidential nominee would speak – Clinton reportedly gathered her female posse together to discuss a possible White House run in 2012.The entire piece is here.
Oh, and it you doubt the above and want to point to the Hillary/Obama unity event or the fact that Hillary will campaign for Obama, think:
...pay campaign debt so campaign '12 can begin.
...make it look like you really want Obama to win even though the Clinton campaign said time and again that he can't.
And if you believed this all along, then you wouldn't want to touch the VP with a 10 foot pole, so I see any of that talk as part of the distraction - see, he dissed us again?
Huffington Post This is not really a case, as some have suggested, of throwing good money after bad.
Hillary Clinton's decision to dump another $6.4 million into her lifeless campaign actually makes an odd and devious kind of sense. Because for her the end game is no longer November, it's 2012.
Next: Why I think Obama won't win. Not because of narcissism (oh, that was Edwards.) Or messianic tendencies. Or arrogance. Can you guess the reason? Triple DUH if you can't.
Postscript: I do not write this as an Obama supporter and am still 50-50 about voting 3rd party. But for true Democratic party people to support the roll call vote, it is shameful.