TNR BLOGS

May 11, 2008 | 7:21 PM
May 11, 2008 | 1:47 PM
May 11, 2008 | 12:39 AM

May 09, 2008 | 2:11 PM
May 09, 2008 | 1:07 PM
May 08, 2008 | 5:01 PM

May 05, 2008 | 1:35 PM
May 02, 2008 | 5:26 PM
May 02, 2008 | 2:40 PM

May 10, 2008 | 1:40 PM
May 09, 2008 | 6:40 PM
May 09, 2008 | 2:53 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
24.03.2008
Does Clinton Want Obama to Lose?

 

Last week, the Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias suggested that Hillary Clinton may want Barack Obama to lose the general election. The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum, an Obama supporter who often defends Clinton, replies, "she's not rooting for John McCain and she's not secretly plotting Barack Obama's downfall."

Who's right?

Obviously, it's impossible to know for sure either way, since it's a question of motive. I think Clinton's political interests clearly militate toward a harsh campaign against Obama. Her only chance of winning is to disqualify him as a general election candidate, giving the superdelegates no chance but to contravene the elected delegates, which they are otherwise reluctant to do. This also serves her interests because if Obama loses, she would be the front-runner in 2012. (Drum asserts, "It's either 2008 or nothing for Hillary," but he doesn't say why, and the assertion seems wrong on it's face -- she won't be too old in 2012, her Democratic fanbase wil remain intact, and her interest in the presidency will presumably be undiminished.)

Now, is Clinton actively thinking along these lines? Like I said, you can't know. Even if she's thinking in selfless terms, I'm not certain she would regard a John McCain victory over Obama as a total disaster. Senators tend to be very clubby and place enormous weight on paying dues. Clinton is said to consider Obama unworthy of the presidency, and indeed has said that McCain is ready to be commander-in-chief and he is not. She may not think a McCain presidency would be much worse for the country than an Obama presidency. I definitely suspect her chief strategist, Mark Penn, would prefer a McCain presidency. Penn is right-of-center on foreign policy and economics. His loyalty to liberalism is extremely tenuous.

But this is speculation. 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't care about the Democratic Party's interests at all, except insofar as they coincide with her own. Her continued campaign is significantly damaging Obama's general election prospects, and this would perhaps be defensible if she had a strong chance at the nomination, but she doesn't. As Politico recently reported, "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."

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's prospects as a feature or a bug is interesting but beside the point.

--Jonathan Chait

Posted: Monday, March 24, 2008 12:31 PM with 29 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

chrismealy said:

The only way HRC is nominated is if Obama flames out in a scandal or medical emergency or something like that. If that happens it'll be handed to her. So why is she fighting so hard? Fighting isn't going to make the meteor hit Obama in the head.

If she was smart she'd find a way to drop out between now and PA. But she's not smart. She's merely tenacious.

March 24, 2008 1:39 PM

teplukhin2you said:

"I'm not certain she would regard a John McCain victory over Obama as a total disaster"

I'm not certain most voters would regard a solidly Democratic Congress + a McCain presidency as a total disaster. Divided government with a moderate, eclectic POTUS worked well for the nation in 1994-1997. Wouldn't be all bad this time around, either.

March 24, 2008 1:50 PM

miceelf said:

Yes, she wants him to lose. She thinks she can get it in 2012.

But good luck with that. if he loses, she will (rightly or wrongly) get part of the blame for that.

He would have a better chance of getting the nomination in 2012 than she would, if he loses in 08. Particulary if the clinton machine keeps going the way they are going. She has permanently alienated a LOT Of democrats and turned off a lot of independents, particularly in the under 50 set.

March 24, 2008 2:25 PM

dbhuff said:

Wouldn'tit be nice if Country, Party, Self was the order that people evaluated their interests in?  Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.

March 24, 2008 2:26 PM

Rhubarbs said:

But when have Democrats ever nominated the person who came in second last time? Jesse Jackson didn't get the nod in '92, Bill Bradley didn't get the nod in 2004, and John Edwards didn't get the nod in 2008. Even among Democrats, losing to a loser does not make you look like a winner.

And I'm not sure that it's true that Hillary won't be "too old" in 2012. She'll be 66 by the time she'd take the oath of office, and even for a man that's considered on the old side among presidential candidates. And by 2012, a number of leading Democratic women in Congress and state governments will be in the prime of their political careers and in the presidential "sweet spot" of their 50s. People (like me) who are predisposed to favor women candidates in 2012 will likely face the choice between several charismatic women who earned their places by personal effort and achievement on the one hand and Hillary on the other. Hillary isn't even a legitimate "woman candidate" this year -- running against actual women in 2012, she'll look fatally like the cronyistic, nepotistic, old-boys-network, insider money, establishment candidate that she is.

On top of which, she's really not going to have any friends left in the party if her conduct of this campaign is seen as playing any role in allowing a third consecutive Republican presidential term. If Obama loses to McCain, not only will that perception become widespread, those who defend Hillary from the charge will themselves sound like Nader apologists after 2000.

March 24, 2008 3:57 PM

blackton said:

rhubarbs, mice, great posts. it is either now or never for Hillary.

March 24, 2008 4:25 PM

arsonplus said:

Tep

I literally couldn't disagree more.  Divided government is fine for school uniforms but it's a disaster for health care reform, saner energy policies, science and technology investment, CIA , FBI and State Dept. reorganization and reorientation, corporate governance regulation and handling two grossly mismanaged wars.      

I doubt we'd get a bungled Katrina response from McCain, but we wouldn't get anything else either. [unless you count into a functionally retarded war with Iran].

March 24, 2008 5:23 PM

roidubouloi said:

I personally think that spite is a sufficient reason for Hillary to want Obama to lose.  It is for sure now or never for Hillary -- there will be a new crop of viable women in four let alone eight years and her time will have passed.  If she cannot have it, I think she is capable of trying to deny it to Obama just for having ruined her fun.

I would like to see the day when Hillary Clinton makes a gracious and magnanimous speech supporting Obama as the best man for the job.  Who wants to bet that I will live to see such a thing?  

By the way, in my estimation 10% chance is very generous to Hillary.  I would say 5% and shrinking.  After PA, it will be 2%, after NC, negligible.  What will Hillary do?

Tep, with things such a mess, we don't need divided government.  What we need is a filibuster proof majority in the Senate and a Democratic president.  It's 1932, or will be soon, if the lunatics are able to continue running the asylum as they have been.

March 24, 2008 5:49 PM

Annabella2 said:

Does anyone here really doubt that for whatever reasons HRC is doing her darnest to make sure that Obama is as wounded as possible for November?

You pick the reasons:

If I can't have it, I'll make sure you don't either... look at her dysfunctional family situation both in her childhood and her marriage.

Do the reasons matter?  That is what she is doing.

Yet another reason to despise the woman, as if one needed one more.

There are an awful lot of us who are going to walk if that happens.  There are a lot of us who would rather lose with Obama at this point than win with Hillary.  There are an awful lot of us to whom a third Independent party is looking better and better.  Who wants a Democratic Party based on HRC's Yellow Dog Democrats (Civil War times for those who don't know the term and might be tempted to think I made it up as an insult).

March 24, 2008 9:28 PM

adsprung said:

It is truly strange that both Clintons express such effusive regard for McCain, considering that McCain has made a career of denigrating Bill Clinton's performance as commander-in-chief. McCain repeatedly accused Clinton not only of vacillation and lack of strategic coherence, but also of putting personal political gain ahead of the national interest.  

March 24, 2008 9:56 PM

jmkerr said:

Clinton knows full well that McCain would be a better president than Obama. In fact, any of the Republicans who ran, as well as Edwards, would be a better president than Obama.  The man is a walking disaster, and a liberal one at that.

Apparently, the idea that Clinton might be staying in the race because more Democrats have voted for her, and that she thinks it's the best for the Democratic party, doesn't occur to anyone.

Not that she needs a reason. Staying in for her own purposes works for me. If the Dems want to have moronic rules that they haven't thought through, then they can live with all the consequences, whether it be a disastrous nominee or a fractured party.

March 25, 2008 1:33 AM

hewstino said:

I second what Rhubarbs and others have said concerning Hillary's now-or-never situation.  Age demographics is also a concern.  Several of Hillary's supporters will have passed away in four years time, and the new crop of  younger voters will simply not have the nostalgia for the Clinton Era which many of her older fans do.  At this rate, they may simply remember her as the Crazy Lady Who Tried To Wreck The Party back in '08.  

Nevermind that people may well remember the incompetent campaign she has run this year, as an establishment candidate with a marquee name, losing the nomination to a relative unknown.  If she has the same gang with her in four years time (Penn, etc), she might get even tougher competition than Barack Obama.

March 25, 2008 2:01 AM

hrlngrv said:

jmkerr,

Simple numbers (week old compilation from CNN).

___________________________________Obama________Clinton

Primaries only excluding FL and MI    12,524,038  12,054,168

Primaries only excluding MI______   13,093,079 12,911,376

Primaries (ex MI) and Caucuses (ex TX)   13,459,399 13,080,810

OK, maybe Obama voters include many more idependents and Republicans than Clinton voters, but how does that argue against Obama being the better candidate for the general election? Do you seriously believe Clinton will pick up more than a handful of Obama's non-Democrat primary voters? Especially if she only wins the nomination by virtue of the superdelegates?

Then there's the matter of which of them would be best for the down ticket candidates. Do you believe Clinton would bring out more voters in November than Obama?

Of course Clinton thinks she's the best possible candidate for the Democratic party. That doesn't mean anyone else needs to believe it. But in her favor, she's fair - she's been handing the Republicans loads of ammo for their attacks against Obama AND HERSELF come the general election.

What a candidate!

March 25, 2008 2:26 AM

dcshungu said:

" Does Clinton Want Obama to Lose?"

With Chait posing the question, I knew that it was just a rhetorical. The foregone conclusion was that the answer was "yes." But here are just a few reasons why the question is ridiculous and should not be asked by anyone with an ounce of gray matter between the ears:

1. Of course Hillary wants Obama to lose because that would make her the winner! Duh! Did she enter this contest to lose?

2. Hillary did NOT make up the myopic rules of engagements (open primaries, bizarre delegate allocation  formulae) that have left us with a deadlocked contest; the party did and those is just playing by those rules, so what is wrong with that?

3. The superdelegates could end this thing right now but have not; why is that? Hint: Electability doubt: He could not deliver the knock out blow in TX and OH, are we sure Obama is the "killer" we want to field against McCain? October Surprise factor: Is there another reverend Dr. Wright  out there who'll just surface in time for the GE? Party ID: Most rank and file Dems prefer Hillary; Obama is yet to prove his general appeal by winning a Big One; hell will freeze over before he wins most of the red and purples states that have given him his thin lead... The result? The superdelegates want to "wait and see", so the contest will go on regardless of what Chait and TNR promulgate.

4. Out of more than 2k pledged delegates required to win the nomination, Hillary is trailing by just over 100. The contest is as close as it can get. With several more contests remaining and Obama looking "human" after the Wright fiasco, it is not at all unthinkable that  Hillary could trounce Obama in PA and WV, and take one or two states that Obama is expected to win. Not only would she wind up with the lion's share of delegates from the remaining contests to make delegate gap even smaller and she would wind up with the 'Big Mo'... Denver here we come!

5. With Obama looking increasingly vulnerable, this is no longer about Hillary's ambition: It is now about determining which candidate will be more likely to bring home the bacon against McCain. I would argue that Hillary is that candidate, but no one really knows for sure at this point, which is why the superdelegates have taken a "wait and see" attitude and want to let this thing play itself out: They want Hillary to stay in.

6. With the contest virtually tied, Hillary owes it to millions of her supporters to keep fighting. It is not just for herself that she will stay in the race until the last contest, it is also for those who have supported her.

7. TNR, having pushed the Obama candidacy while pillorying Hillary (Chait after IA: "Hillary = toast"), failed to deliver the "coup de grace" and is now attempting the "coup de dis-grace" by pushing for Hillary to be a quitter, thus betraying her supporters. If this contest has taught us anything, it is that Hillary is a fighter. To Chait and TNR: Hillary won't quit, so just get used to the idea...

March 25, 2008 4:42 AM

Wandreycer1 said:

Hillary IS toast.

March 25, 2008 7:56 AM

Wandreycer1 said:

The worst thing about this race is posts like this and exchanges like this thread.

March 25, 2008 8:03 AM

wyllie said:

dcshungu  said:

"3. The superdelegates could end this thing right now but have not; why is that? Hint: Electability doubt: He could not deliver the knock out blow in TX and OH, are we sure Obama is the "killer" we want to field against McCain?"

I don't agree with you here.  The main reason the super delegates have not ended this thing is that they don't want to come out on the wrong side.  If you come out and support Obama and he's taken out by 'sniper fire', Clinton get's the nod and you can kiss your political career goodbye.  

Pelosi has said as much - read about it here: www.sfgate.com/.../detail

People keep talking about states that don't matter - seriously what's that chance that either one of them will take Texas?  If Clinton puts her support behind Obama, he will certainly carry the states she has been stronger in like California, New York and maybe even Ohio.

Even her campaign is saying that she might have a one in ten chance of winning (you can read all about that here: www.politico.com/.../9149.html or watch the news on TV as that's all they are talking about right now) - it's time to take one for the team and start going after McCain or we might be getting the "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" brigade?

March 25, 2008 8:03 AM

Wandreycer1 said:

Hillary's first and only loyalty is to her country -  saying she "owes" her voters and donors first and foremost is the hallmark of the narcissism of this campaign.  This has become nothing but an expression of ego problems for all involved.  It's become sickening.

March 25, 2008 8:05 AM

dcshungu said:

wyllie coyote sez:

"I don't agree with you here.  The main reason the super delegates have not ended this thing is that they don't want to come out on the wrong side.  If you come out and support Obama and he's taken out by 'sniper fire', Clinton get's the nod and you can kiss your political career goodbye."

Translation: The superdelegates are just a bunch of self-interested cowards, with their fingers up in the air gauging the direction of the most favorable wind. Whether out of cowardice or by Confucian wisdom, the superdelegates' reticence in jumping in to stop this fight is a green light for Hillary to persevere. It will depend on how she fares in the remaining contests. If she looks very strong, captures the lion's shares of delegates, and has the momentum, the cowardly superdelegates will remain on the sideline, and this thing will go all the way to Denver...

March 25, 2008 8:47 AM

dcshungu said:

"Hillary's first and only loyalty is to her country -  saying she "owes" her voters and donors first and foremost.."

It is because of their loyalty to the country that so many have supported her, as they feel she'll make the better POTUS. The selfishness and ultimate in narcissism would be for so many to support her and for her to act as if she did not care about the support. One more time: Obama is not winning this thing by a landslide at the moment and, as the Wright bombshell just showed, anything can happen before now and the last primary contest, that could upset what so many of you now think to be "inevitable." Another thing that we have learned during this election is that nothing is "inevitable" in this contest:

1. Hillary was the "inevitable" nominee until she was upset in IA.

2. Obama then became the "inevitable" nominee (Chait: Hillary = toast") until NH toppled that bandwagon.

3. Then Super Tuesday was going to "clarify" the picture, with Hillary being favored to do well, but the outcome was a draw and the picture got even muddier.

4. After winning 12-13 straight contests post-Super Tuesday, Obama was again the "inevitable" until he failed to deliver the knock out punch in TX and OH.

5. And now, we are in limbo. No one knows what will happen because the contest is in the hands of superdelegates, who seem perfectly happy to just "wait and see." Obama is not "inevitable" because anything could happen between now and Denver, or in Denver...and it propably will.

March 25, 2008 9:06 AM

PeteBeck said:

Based on my experience, Chait and most of the commentators don't understand what's going on.

I've been active in local and to a lesser extent state Democratic politics for roughly 20 years.  In all those years I have never -- repeat never -- encountered any serious candidates who did not believe right up until election day that they had no chance of winning.  To be a strong candidate with broad support -- which Hillary Clinton certainly is -- means that you have a belief in yourself, your ideas and your prospects, that override all "objective" facts that may indicate something else.

In short, I am sure that Clinton certainly believes that she is the best person for the job and that she has an excellent chance of winning both the nomination and the November election ... regardless of what someone in TNR or the NYTimes may say to the contrary.   Under those circumstances Hillary Clinton will press on.  Yes, the other candidates (Dodd, Biden, et al.) have dropped out, but they had absolutely no chance of winning based on actually counted votes, which is not the same for Clinton.  Also, I suspect that none of them had the same faith in themselves that Clinton has, or they would have conducted better campaigns.

Is this campaign good or bad for the party.  On balance, I say good.  Clinton is not saying anything about Obama, and vice versa, which McCain and/or his supporters won't say in the general election.  It is better to get the negatives on the table now, with time do learn how to deal with them.

In fact, the most serious mistake, I think, by either Clinton or Obama has been Obama's refusal to deal with the Wright/patriotism issue before it was pushed into his face.  If he had done so 15 months ago (and probably in a slightly different way) it would probably just be background noise today.  By comparison, look at McCain't recent comments about Keating 5.

March 25, 2008 9:29 AM

PeteBeck said:

FIRST PARAGRAPH CORRECTED

Based on my experience, Chait and most of the commentators don't understand what's going on.

I've been active in local and to a lesser extent state Democratic politics for roughly 20 years.  In all those years I have never -- repeat never -- encountered any serious candidates who did not believe right up until election day that they had a good chance of winning.  To be a strong candidate with broad support -- which Hillary Clinton certainly is -- means that you have a belief in yourself, your ideas and your prospects, that override all "objective" facts that may indicate something else.

In short, I am sure that Clinton certainly believes that she is the best person for the job and that she has an excellent chance of winning both the nomination and the November election ... regardless of what someone in TNR or the NYTimes may say to the contrary.   Under those circumstances Hillary Clinton will press on.  Yes, the other candidates (Dodd, Biden, et al.) have dropped out, but they had absolutely no chance of winning based on actually counted votes, which is not the same for Clinton.  Also, I suspect that none of them had the same faith in themselves that Clinton has, or they would have conducted better campaigns.

Is this campaign good or bad for the party.  On balance, I say good.  Clinton is not saying anything about Obama, and vice versa, which McCain and/or his supporters won't say in the general election.  It is better to get the negatives on the table now, with time do learn how to deal with them.

In fact, the most serious mistake, I think, by either Clinton or Obama has been Obama's refusal to deal with the Wright/patriotism issue before it was pushed into his face.  If he had done so 15 months ago (and probably in a slightly different way) it would probably just be background noise today.  By comparison, look at McCain't recent comments about Keating 5.

March 25, 2008 10:06 AM

roidubouloi said:

Kerr,

Don't know where you get your numbers from, even a week old.  Including the caucuses and the FL vote, but excluding MI, the Obama has 526,000 more popular votes than Hillary.  Make up a better argument why don't you.

March 25, 2008 11:32 AM

roidubouloi said:

I hate to disagree, but I think most of you are wrong.

Hillary hanging on has nothing whatever to do with any calculus about her chances to win or some vision for what's best for the nation.  She will hang on even if the odds are 1,000 to one because this is her last chance on this Earth to be President of the United States and she will not abandon the fantasy until there is no longer a chance, however slender.

The super-delegates have not declared and closed the race because the party does not want it to appear that the supers disenfranchised the primary voters of the remaining states.  After PA, or at the latest NC, when it is clear that the pledged delegate count cannot be changed materially even if the wildest fantasies of Hillaristas (so evident in these posts) come true, then the super-delegates will divide and the nomination will be clear.

The only serious question is whether, even then, Hillary will exit gracefully or whether she will carry on attacking and trying to undermine Obama in order to change the outcome.  I would give that slightly better than even odds.

Side note:  I don't think I have ever before been in agreement with David Brooks, but I have been posting that Hillary's chances are right now about 5% -- and Brooks this morning wrote the same thing in the NYT.  I am going for a full medical check-up.  Something must be wrong with me.

March 25, 2008 11:41 AM

wyllie said:

I know I'm dreaming, but what I WOULD like to see is both campaigns get back on topic.  I had the opportunity to see Bill Clinton today and he said a lot of stuff I agree with, which is not all that different to what Obama is saying - as far as I could tell, he did not say anything negative about Obama and instead spent the whole time talking policy - which is good.  That's what people want to hear about and it's a good message too.  Clinton and Obama should take advantage of all the press they are getting right now and use it to get the party message out there and stop beating each other up.   If they can refrain from the Judas McCarthyism (unless they are referring to McCain) and stay on topic, I will be more than happy to see this thing keep going until the convention.  It's great for the party, etc. blah, blah I'm going back to my dream land on another planet...

March 25, 2008 1:49 PM

Political Animal said:

HILLARY IN 2012?....In the event that she fails to win the Democratic nomination, is Hillary Clinton actively hoping that Barack Obama loses in November, thus opening up the possibility of another Hillary run in 2012? Matt Yglesias says yes, your...

March 25, 2008 2:51 PM

xian said:

For dcshungu:

Man did you nail it. Your are right on the money. Your first  six point blog outlined just exactly how I feel about the question. I could not have written it better. For Obama reality is going to bite him in the behind in a few more weeks. 1. Hillary did not make the rules. 2. Electability doubts 3.Trailing by only a hundred delegates. 4.Supers want Hillary to stay in. 5.Hillary owes it to millions. 6. Hillary is a fighter. And you are one hellofva blogger.

March 25, 2008 5:31 PM

Wandreycer1 said:

If Hillary truly cared about what was best for this country, she would do everything she could to elect a Democrat - instead, in the only possible way she has a prayer, she's handing the right all the ammo they need. Screw her. Hillary is 100% about Hillary.

March 25, 2008 5:35 PM

jmkerr said:

"Make up a better argument why don't you."

I said *Democratic* voters.

Of course, from what I hear, almost all of Obama's margin of victory comes from one state. Haven't checked it out yet.

March 25, 2008 6:22 PM