Ubiquitous
2008-06-05 09:31:24 UTC
The Associated Press reports that Mrs. Clinton "has told congressional
colleagues she would be open to becoming Barack Obama's vice presidential
nominee," and Maureen Dowd speculates on her motives:
Clintonologists know that Hillary is up to something, but
they aren't sure what. Theory No. 1 is that it's the Cassandra
"I told you so" gambit: She believes intensely that he's too
black, too weak and too elitist--with all his salmon and organic
tea and steamed broccoli--to beat her pal John McCain. But she
has to pretend she'll do "whatever it takes," even accept the
vice presidency, a job she's already had and doesn't want again,
so that nobody will blame her when he loses on Nov. 4. Then she
can power on to 2012.
Theory No. 2 is that it's a "Bad stuff happens" maneuver,
exemplified in her gaffe about the R.F.K. assassination,
that she figures that at least if she moves a few blocks
from Embassy Row to the Naval Observatory, she'll be a
heartbeat away from the job she's always wanted.
Actually, though, these are not competing theories, just multiple
contingencies. Mrs. Clinton wants above all to be president. The easiest way
to accomplish that would be for her to get the nomination this year. She has
more or less blown her chances--but any small hope she still has rests in the
possibility of Obama's being so damaged by the time of the convention that
superdelegates, whose votes are decisive, switch back to her. This would be
consistent with planting the Nation of Islam stories, and who knows what else
to come.
If Obama is the nominee, Mrs. Clinton's prospects of becoming president would
be greatly diminished if he won the general election. If Obama loses, then in
2012 Mrs. Clinton will be able to compete in a wide-open field to challenge
President McCain: the oldest major-party presidential nominee in history,
seeking his party's fourth term.
If Obama wins, things look much worse for Mrs. Clinton. In 2012 President
Obama would be sure to seek re-election: The last incumbent president to pass
up a run for a second term was Chester Arthur in 1884. Mrs. Clinton could
mount an intraparty challenge to Obama, but even unpopular incumbents (Gerald
Ford, Jimmy Carter) generally win such fights.
If Obama wins re-election, the field would again be open in 2016. But if past
is prologue, Obama's vice president would be the favorite for the Democratic
nomination. Thus if Obama does win this November, Mrs. Clinton is more likely
to become president if she is on the ticket with him.
What's more Mrs. Clinton's open quest for the No. 2 spot is harmful to Obama
whether it succeeds or not. Whatever he decides, someone is going to be
unhappy about it.
To summarize, Mrs. Clinton maximizes her chances of becoming president if she
(1) does enough damage to Obama to snatch the nomination away from him, (2)
failing that, does enough damage to him to bring about his defeat in November,
and (3) gets herself on the ticket, whether he wins in November or not.
Some will say Mrs. Clinton is being disloyal to her party if she undermines
Obama's chances of winning in November. But maybe she just practices a
different kind of party loyalty. After all, if you can be a patriot while
hoping your country loses a war, why can't you be a loyal Democrat while
hoping your party loses an election?
--
The compulsive war-room mentality of both Clintons is neurosis writ large. The
White House should not be a banging, rocking washer perpetually stuck on spin
cycle. Many Democrats, including myself, have come to doubt whether Hillary
has any core values or even a stable sense of identity. With her outlandish
fibbing and naive self-puffery, her erratic day-to-day changes of tone and
message, her glassy, fixed smiles, and her leaden and embarrassingly
unpresidential jokes about pop culture, she has started to seem like one of
those manic, seductively vampiric patients in trashy old Hollywood hospital
flicks like "The Snake Pit." How anyone could confuse Hillary's sourly
cynical, male-bashing megalomania with authentic feminism is beyond me. --
Camille Paglia
colleagues she would be open to becoming Barack Obama's vice presidential
nominee," and Maureen Dowd speculates on her motives:
Clintonologists know that Hillary is up to something, but
they aren't sure what. Theory No. 1 is that it's the Cassandra
"I told you so" gambit: She believes intensely that he's too
black, too weak and too elitist--with all his salmon and organic
tea and steamed broccoli--to beat her pal John McCain. But she
has to pretend she'll do "whatever it takes," even accept the
vice presidency, a job she's already had and doesn't want again,
so that nobody will blame her when he loses on Nov. 4. Then she
can power on to 2012.
Theory No. 2 is that it's a "Bad stuff happens" maneuver,
exemplified in her gaffe about the R.F.K. assassination,
that she figures that at least if she moves a few blocks
from Embassy Row to the Naval Observatory, she'll be a
heartbeat away from the job she's always wanted.
Actually, though, these are not competing theories, just multiple
contingencies. Mrs. Clinton wants above all to be president. The easiest way
to accomplish that would be for her to get the nomination this year. She has
more or less blown her chances--but any small hope she still has rests in the
possibility of Obama's being so damaged by the time of the convention that
superdelegates, whose votes are decisive, switch back to her. This would be
consistent with planting the Nation of Islam stories, and who knows what else
to come.
If Obama is the nominee, Mrs. Clinton's prospects of becoming president would
be greatly diminished if he won the general election. If Obama loses, then in
2012 Mrs. Clinton will be able to compete in a wide-open field to challenge
President McCain: the oldest major-party presidential nominee in history,
seeking his party's fourth term.
If Obama wins, things look much worse for Mrs. Clinton. In 2012 President
Obama would be sure to seek re-election: The last incumbent president to pass
up a run for a second term was Chester Arthur in 1884. Mrs. Clinton could
mount an intraparty challenge to Obama, but even unpopular incumbents (Gerald
Ford, Jimmy Carter) generally win such fights.
If Obama wins re-election, the field would again be open in 2016. But if past
is prologue, Obama's vice president would be the favorite for the Democratic
nomination. Thus if Obama does win this November, Mrs. Clinton is more likely
to become president if she is on the ticket with him.
What's more Mrs. Clinton's open quest for the No. 2 spot is harmful to Obama
whether it succeeds or not. Whatever he decides, someone is going to be
unhappy about it.
To summarize, Mrs. Clinton maximizes her chances of becoming president if she
(1) does enough damage to Obama to snatch the nomination away from him, (2)
failing that, does enough damage to him to bring about his defeat in November,
and (3) gets herself on the ticket, whether he wins in November or not.
Some will say Mrs. Clinton is being disloyal to her party if she undermines
Obama's chances of winning in November. But maybe she just practices a
different kind of party loyalty. After all, if you can be a patriot while
hoping your country loses a war, why can't you be a loyal Democrat while
hoping your party loses an election?
--
The compulsive war-room mentality of both Clintons is neurosis writ large. The
White House should not be a banging, rocking washer perpetually stuck on spin
cycle. Many Democrats, including myself, have come to doubt whether Hillary
has any core values or even a stable sense of identity. With her outlandish
fibbing and naive self-puffery, her erratic day-to-day changes of tone and
message, her glassy, fixed smiles, and her leaden and embarrassingly
unpresidential jokes about pop culture, she has started to seem like one of
those manic, seductively vampiric patients in trashy old Hollywood hospital
flicks like "The Snake Pit." How anyone could confuse Hillary's sourly
cynical, male-bashing megalomania with authentic feminism is beyond me. --
Camille Paglia