There have been so many theories about why Clinton insists on staying in the race. Obama takes the high road, as usual, and says she's "tenacious." Others have seen a method to the madness and have concluded that she's running to help McCain, so she can win in 2012. Some more cynically believe that she wants to destroy Obama out of jealousy.
Whatever her reasons, as both Kid Oakland and teacherken have observed, her relentless drive to stay in the race has become destructive and immoral.
Personally, I am struck by how the behavior exhibited by Hillary Clinton increasingly resembles that of an addict.
(This diary is by request.)
I have worked in a field where I occasionally come in contact with addicts. Whether they are addicted to drugs, gambling, love, computer games, or some other activity, they all share similar patterns. And, as Carl Jung observed: "Every form of addiction is bad, no matter whether the narcotic be alcohol, morphine or idealism."
Whatever their fix, addicts show similar patterns of behavior.
The two most visible are an exaggerated perception of their own importance and the ability to consistently rationalize the irrational.
The Clintons have shown both of these traits. You certainly have your "exaggerated perceptions of importance." Really, what makes them believe they are such great leaders? Nothing in my history books show that Bill Clinton was anything more than an average Post-Cold War President who just happened to serve during a period of economic prosperity. Moreover, his personal predilections led to an impeachment scandal that has had long-lasting consequences (perhaps even making it harder to use impeachment for more important issues, like pre-emptive war). Then there is Hillary's curriculum vitae, which shows every sign of being self-inflated.
Of course, one need look no further than the present state of the contest to see how they have "rationalized the irrational."
Some other common traits of the addict include a willingness to do anything (legal or illegal) to get their fix and a lack of concern for those who they may hurt in the process--whether it be family or friends, or an entire political party.
The addict will lie (Tuzla, NAFTA, campaign funds) and cheat (Michigan, Florida), manipulate, and even steal from their own grandmothers.
Most of all they lie to themselves. There is no scenario by which Hillary can win the nomination without doing something dastardly and destructive. She should know this, she is an intelligent woman. That she continues to do so reveals that her addiction to power is all-consuming.
Some of you might argue that "all politicians" are addicted to power. There may be some truth to that, but one must also considered that Barack Obama has never been in the White House. On the contrary, both of the Clintons have spent 8-years drinking from the well of the pureist source of power on the planet--the American Presidency. They have had control and influence beyond our wildest imagination.
To me, it looks very much like they've been manipulatively scheming to get back to that source and they are not going to let anyone or anything get in their way. If they have to go to the seedy end of town and deal with nefarious people, so be it. They are more than willing to shake hands with their crazy Uncle McCain if that gets them closer to their goal.
Obama's only problem in all this is that he got in the way of these addicts. Anyone who has tried knows you don't stand in the way of addict without also becoming an innocent bystander in their sticky web of addiction.
Alas, this just shows the sorry truth that addicts don't live their addiction experiences alone. Family members develop their own coping mechanisms. Many of those strategies are now becoming evident in Clinton's supporters. There are those who become "heroes," seeking to stand up for the addict because they feel they are being picked on. There are those who deal with it by looking for scapegoats, by blaming others for their loved ones (or candidates) addictive behaviors. The most common reaction, however, is for people to simply deny that there is even a problem at all.
Yet, anyone who looks back upon the mess of this election without the benefit of the rose colored glasses that the Clintons want us all to wear, can see the detritus of the their quest writ large upon the Democratic party.
If she is so destructive, why is this permitted to go on? Once again, the pattern of addiction holds true. Hillary Clinton's campaign goes on mostly because of those who now enable her. Like all addicts, she has been so exceptionally manipulative that she has been able to gather around her a world-class group of enablers.
Robert Reich, on CNN, pointed to the media as their greatest "enabler." At the same time, the Right-wing has done its best to enable the Clintons for their own reasons. The Limbaughs and the Hannities are like salivating drug dealers giving out free samples. Then there are those who simply benefit from the crumbs that fall from the Clinton addiction like Jim Carville and Ed Rendell.
In the end, it has become obvious to the lucid that Hillary Clinton requires an organized intervention. It seems, looking back, there have been numerous attempts to do so. I think the Kennedy endorsement was one attempt. Bill Richardson's endorsement may have been the most public.
What we all need to understand is that the sad story of addiction rarely ends well. There will be more drama. Hillary has not hit rock bottom. She's still listening to her own music, and it seems to be that Amy Winehouse tune about going to rehab.
Will this end soon?
I say, "no, no, no."