Introducing for the first time to the Dem. Party — Hillary Machiavelli
[Posted By WLS]
Put your hand up if you think Hillary Clinton’s life-long ambition to be President will end next week in Texas and Ohio?
Obama may, in fact, win the nomination. But that’s only a minor stumbling block in the Clinton world. Remember, Bill Clinton left the interior of the Democrat party to embrace the DLC in order to make himself more electable — hell with all that “libralism”.
The “party” is meaningless to them other than as a vehicle to power — as is the good of the party — if they are rejected by that party.
So, what happens if Obama wins the nomination?
Well, the Clintons will say all the right things, and congratulate all the right people, but their resentment will seethe just below the surface. The nastiness of the campaign will not go away, and a grudge will be held because Obama will have denied her the destiny to which she believes she is entitled and the legacy which he thinks he is owed.
I predict — and bookmark this spot for posterity — that the Clintons will not lift a finger to help Obama in the general election. Why? Because an Obama win only puts a Clinton resurrection off another 4 years until 2016.
If Hillary can’t win in 2008, what is Plan B?
How about this for nostalgia for the Clintons: A 2012 campaign against an older, not-well-liked-by-his-party GOP one-term incumbent who might be struggling with a difficult economy and a changing world.
If the Golden Boy goes forward in Nov 2008 and, dare they think it, gets beat by McCain, that would set up a pretty good “I told you so” campaign for the nomination by Hillary in 2012, with a general election match-up that Bill Clinton already won once circa 1992.
So, Hillary concedes the nomination next Wednesday, and waves good luck to Barack with a promise to see him — in December back in the Senate.
I predict — and bookmark this spot for posterity — that the Clintons will not lift a finger to help Obama in the general election.
I wouldn’t be very shocked if she actually gave assistance to McCain… There have to be dirty little secrets about Obama she’s held in reserve for something like this. She thinks the long game FAR too well for her to not have…
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 2/25/2008 @ 5:57 pmThe only thing about that is that these days no one in either party is inclined to let a loser have another chance. Hillary may well make another try in 2012, but it won’t fly the way her campaign flew this time. “You had your chance. Get out of the way and let someone else have theirs.”
That’s why Kerry and Gore didn’t run this year.
Steven Den Beste (99cfa1) — 2/25/2008 @ 6:02 pmFrom your keyboard to God’s monitor, WLS. Although I doubt that it is the Almighty who has been helping the Clintons.
nk (669aab) — 2/25/2008 @ 6:10 pmIt sure wouldn’t be Satan…
The Dark Lord can’t stand competition…
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 2/25/2008 @ 6:13 pmI hope Steven den Beste is right but the 2008 Clinton-Obama primary race reminds me of the 1976 race between Ford-Reagan. In that race, the loser did get a second chance.
DRJ (3eda28) — 2/25/2008 @ 6:21 pmBut there is no realy candidate in the waiting for the Dems. Look at who dropped out of the race over the past 2 months — a bunch of retread has-beens: Edwards, Biden, Dodd, Kucinich.
Only Richardson can lay claim to being “new” in any real sense.
If Obama loses the general, that is the kind of “loss” that is not overlooked. He won’t be given another chance in 2012 if he can’t knock off an old GOP warhorse in 2008.
Hillary will be led back to the front of the pack by the Clinton Machine in 2010. Who will be there to challenge her? Mark Warner? Evan Bayh?
WLS (68fd1f) — 2/25/2008 @ 6:44 pmReasonable prediction. I had mentioned this in passing in another thread – Hillary will not give him the inside connections to help but will give the lip service that keeps him from whining.
One other twist that could put her in contention — Bill is not the healthiest guy in the world. If nature took its course in the next few years she could wear the ghost of Clinton Camelot for a pretty good run in 2012.
voiceofreason2 (1959eb) — 2/25/2008 @ 6:50 pmWhat might have been. Had Hillary promised to build a sturdy wall along the Mexican border, she would have won 40 states and been the first woman President. Instead, she gets to be “old-what’s her name” junior Senator from New York.
Perfect Sense (b6ec8c) — 2/25/2008 @ 6:54 pmNice theory, but if she doesn’t win this cycle, she is done as a presidential aspirant. She may not know it and act as if, but she will never gain the nomination in 2012, unless she is the incumbent.
If the Dems blow this election, there will be a blood-letting similar to that following Chicago and 1968. HRC cannot lead the new vanguard. One of the reforms will be the end to super-delegates. How in the world can HRC lead this fight?
Ed (a9eba9) — 2/25/2008 @ 7:03 pmDRJ…
“…(76)..the loser did get a second chance.”
Ah, but that was a Primary contest, where RR went on to campaign with some vigor for Ford’s re-election, and the election of Rep’s and Sen’s through-out the country.
Plus, the VRWC knew in their heart-of-hearts that RR would have defeated Jimmah. So, it was pretty easy to steamroller the establishment candidates in 80 (GHWB & others).
Losing in a General though, is a different matter. Remember, the last General loser to go on to win the nomination in the following election was Stevenson in 52-56 (where he lost again to someone who was recovering from a heart-attack).
Another Drew (8018ee) — 2/25/2008 @ 7:03 pmWLS,
I’m not sure if you were responding to my comment or to earlier comments but I agree with you. Republicans and Democrats are generally willing to give losers in the primary a second chance — McCain is a perfect example. However, since Adlai Stevenson, primary winners who go on to lose the general election are usually finished.
I hope that doesn’t come true here. I’m ready to see the last of the Clintons in the political arena.
DRJ (3eda28) — 2/25/2008 @ 7:09 pmAnother Drew,
I thought we were talking about winners/losers in the primary. Isn’t that what WLS’s hypothetical is all about?
DRJ (3eda28) — 2/25/2008 @ 7:10 pmSDB:
Nah, if there’s a “no second chance” rule, it applies only to those who lose the general, not the primary. You do realize who the presumptive Republican nominee is, right? Nor is his case unusual; as others have noted, Reagan lost to Ford before winning in 1980, and Gore lost to Dukakis in 1988, only to run successfully for VP the next two terms, and then almost successfully for President after that. Your other example, John Kerry, didn’t run this time but the guy he beat in the primary, did.
Xrlq (62cad4) — 2/25/2008 @ 7:33 pmI agree that Hillary may do her best to ensure Obama doesn’t win in the fall, not only because she wants to run in 2012, but because she’s a vindictive person, and won’t ever be able to forgive Obama for getting in her way. Nor will she be able to forgive those people who supported Obama because, after all, they should have supported her because she’s Hillary.
And the Democratic Party won’t have her in 2012, because she’ll be soon as the person responsible for Obama’s defeat–not because of anything she actually will do to help him lose, but because she was his opponent in the primaries and she tried to let loose the dogs of faction to beat him. (No, I don’t think she’ll go quietly off the stage after Tuesday. They’ll have to drag her kicking and screaming off the convention floor.) And there’ll be new aspirants to the prize by the time 2012 rolls around, even if we can’t predict who they’ll be now.
Actually, the best thing for the Democratic Party would be for her to pull out a win over Obama, and then be defeated in November. That will exorcise the demon of Clinton thoroughly.
kishnevi (03a14b) — 2/25/2008 @ 7:37 pmshe’ll be soon as the person
….she’ll be seen as the person…
I did almost flunk typing back in high school.
kishnevi (03a14b) — 2/25/2008 @ 7:40 pmDRJ — I was responding to #2, not you. I think we agree on this point.
Its only a prediction, but I’m just thinking about what the Dem. party will look like on Nov. 10 if Obama loses the general. Who will take the party and lead it?
Well, I think the party will be in a tremendous funk, and it will be an open door for Bill Clinton to step through and say “I told you so.”
There isn’t another figure in the party to challenge him.
WLS (68fd1f) — 2/25/2008 @ 7:53 pmIt’ll be the fault of the vast right wing conspiracy.
Gerald A (0cf74e) — 2/25/2008 @ 8:20 pmExactly.
The idea that Hillary cannot run again is absurd. That only applies to those who lose the GENERAL election. Mccain lost the primary, etc. Hillary will overtly support and covertly cripple Obama. Or maybe not. I think she knows she is playing with fire now. People suspect she is going to play this game, so she cannot give the impression that she’s sabotaging the great HOPE.
Mccain truly isn’t that bad of a deal for the GOP, considering that he has at least a shred of a chance that most others would not have.
Jem (4cdfb7) — 2/25/2008 @ 8:43 pmI heard Romney was going to help defeat McCain so that he could run against Obama in 2012.
Well, I didn’t here it, because no one in the reality-based community would dream up such a story.
Andrew J. Lazarus (dda3e0) — 2/25/2008 @ 9:26 pmIf the race keeps going, I’m still hoping Obama can shame the Clinton’s into making some of the financial disclosures they’ve promised to make if Hillary gets the nomination. Why do we have to wait for the good stuff until then? Can’t we also squeeze some more documents out of the Clinton Library regarding Hillary? If she drops out, all the good disclosure opportunities disappear for years and possibly forever unless there’s another investigation or she runs again.
daleyrocks (906622) — 2/25/2008 @ 9:35 pmSo, Hillary concedes the nomination next Wednesday, and waves good luck to Barack with a promise to see him — in December back in the Senate.
It’s a tough call, indeed. So I’ll just say Hillary will pull out all the stops to try to wrest the nomination from Obama, despite the damage: Malignant Narcissism rules!
J. Peden (1318ad) — 2/25/2008 @ 9:36 pmThe Clintons will not help Obama because he’s a negro. I can’t really blame Hillary for the pants she wears, too much Helen Reddy will do that to a woman. But hey, this still is America, and I can tell you who’s not coming to supper with the Clintons.
Yessum! JM
Manson48 (f19dd6) — 2/25/2008 @ 9:47 pmintroducing for the first time…
this isn’t the first time. there were one or two previous times, but you didn’t remember them because bill clinton put a roofie in your cocktail. i’m not very happy about these choices, every quadrennium they seem to get worse, as if challenging me to stay home and use my ballot to kindle my woodburning stove.
assistant devil's advocate (840b51) — 2/25/2008 @ 11:02 pmGore doesn’t fit the scenario because of his two terms as VP – just as Nixon had AuH2O’s defeat to insulate him from his losses in 60 and 62 (CA Gov).
McCain can be attributed to the “his turn” history of the GOP – but that doesn’t neccessarily result in a win either.
It is my feeling that absent the nomination, the Clintons’ control over the party machinery will be greatly diminished. What we will see if the Dems nominate Obama, and he loses in Nov, will be a blood-letting paralleling the changes in the party after 68 and 72. The always interesting thing is as the more changes are made by the Dems to ensure “fairness”, the worse the system becomes, and the more cries there are of groups being dis-enfranchised.
The party of big government is one of inveterate tinkerers, who have no real concept of what they are doing, and no bed-rock philosophy to work from except it must be “fair”.
Another Drew (f9dd2c) — 2/26/2008 @ 8:23 amFighting to block out votes comes to mind. Al Sharpton and Florida.
Vermont Neighbor (c6313b) — 2/26/2008 @ 9:02 amI didn’t intend to say that they weren’t butt-heads. What I meant was that they advance programs that make themselves feel good because their intentions are so honorable.
Another Drew (f9dd2c) — 2/26/2008 @ 12:30 pmTheir actions?
That’s an entirely different case.
If I were Bill I would not be flying without Hillary anytime before the convention, or election day if she gets the nod. Just for the sympathy votes it would generate, and the potential problems it would solve.
That’s Machiavellian!
Gbear (12ab84) — 2/26/2008 @ 1:03 pm