Does Hillary want to beat up Obama so that he can’t win the general election in November, assuring McCain of the presidency so that she can have a clear field to run again in 2012? . . . if McCain wins, she would have to be considered the presumptive front runner for the nomination, a status which she might parlay into a nomination more successfully than she has been able to do this year.
Every day that she stays in the race and punches Barack Obama, she must realize that she is decreasing his chances of getting elected in November Each time that she waves the bloody shirt and says that only she is strong enough to fight the war on terror, she obviously raises doubts about Obama’s strength and leadership. . .
Every time she criticizes him for not switching pastors or for saying downscale white voters are bitter, she raises issues that are very destructive to Obama should he win the nomination.. . .
In 2004, it is pretty obvious that Hillary did nothing to help John Kerry beyond giving a speech at the convention and waging a token campaign on his behalf. Bill did even less. Their goal was obvious: they wanted Kerry to lose to Bush so that Hillary could run in 2008. Is she playing the same game now? Only time will tell.
. . .it's on the cards now that Obama is the nominee. Hillary's most interesting and often most admirable character trait is that she always fights and never, ever gives up. If Obama wins in November, the chances that Hillary can ever be President, four years or eight years hence, or at any other time, are vanishingly small. Can she ever give up this wish-dream she's been single-mindedly chasing (like her husband), for virtually her whole life ? I wonder if, whatever she says now or later, she can ever support an Obama candidacy ? Should Obama be the Democratic nominee, is it possible that Hillary, in her secret heart, might somehow see it in her interest for McCain to win come November ? Is she capable of being that devious ?
3 comments:
there are numerous details of this essay that i fail to agree with EJM I.
GASP!!!!
i thought that hillary was the presumptive front runner for this coronation, er ah, nomination.
these are, after all, democrats we are speaking.
what would prevent george soros, et al, from putting up the golden child once more?
all it takes is money.
maybe even get someone farther left than the golden child.
as I previously stated, i think we are going to be with the golden child for many election cycles to come.
i.e., if mccain defeats the golden child, the campaign will begin on nov. 5, and will run 24/365/4.
that is 24 hours a day, 365 days a year (ok, cut me some slack on leap years), for 4 more years.
what about his senate seat you ask?
no bother.
all he need do is show up and vote present.
he will be too busy with those elmer gantry camp meetings to do much else.
and as i continually inquire, "how in the hell did so much of this country move so far left so fast?" in either 2012, 2016, 2020, or 2024 the golden child will be elected.
the country will be a full blown nanny state by that time.
if sharia is not established by then that is.
You might well be right, LL, and the size and nature of St. Barack's internet database make your argument a powerful one.
On the other hand, a lot of similarly fervent Democrats, once (several times in fact) upon a time, thought that Adlai Stevenson was similarly inevitable. Stevenson and his core supporters remind me more than a little of Obama and his.
Consider the sums being spent to elect St. Barack. Consider the absolute fanaticism of his most committed supporters; the absence of such support for McCain and the generally sad state of the Republican Party. One might think that if the Democrats can't win it now, they can't ever win it, at least while they're as liberal as they are today.
My point (and I do have one) that the amount of money and hope invested in Obama must have a return. If Obama can't take what he's been given and make it pay, I cannot imagine even stupid-party Democrats would give him another chance. Yes, there have been great comebacks (Nixon, McCain, to a degree Reagan), but none of these people were as obscure as Obama before their first Presidential runs.
Maybe, if he loses, he comes back. But my guess is that, as a flash in the pan phenom, that didn't pan out, he'd be more like Clayton Williams.
I'm probably wrong, I evaluated him last year as a lightweight that Hillary would cut to pieces. My prediction was, er, somewhat less than nominal, but it's not my fault she was too inept to manage it.
As for sharia and the nanny state: it's possible but I doubt it. On sharia, the radical islamicists are their own worst enemies. They will make the counter-cause all the recruits it needs, and probably help cause both a Christian and a Jewish religious revival. As to the nanny state -- we are soon going to be unable to pay for the welfare side of it: even if, as the Obamaites are likely to want to do, the government expropriates the upper middle class. As for the police state side of nannydom, I wish I had something comforting to say, but I don't. I think much more of that's coming.
El Jefe
Other than Clinton’s massive sense of entitlement to the Presidency that is the most plausible argument for her behavior that is publicly available.
But does she really think that the Democratic Party will forget four years later if she loses them the main prize in 2008.
It could also be that the Clinton campaign staff has the world’s highest concentration of “yes” people in the world.
An Obama Presidency may be too high price to pay but at any rate I think, if she’s lucky, Clinton is on the fast track to be an “elder states person” in the Senate for decades. But like Spitzer many of her allies would be happy to see her fall and if it is safe to even pile on.
If you don't like McCain at least do your self a favor and VOTE against which ever of them gets the nomination.
Post a Comment