Clinton's New Strategy?
Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 05:52:16 AM PDT
In recent days there have been quite a few comments on Hillary Clinton’s recent behavior. Along with the near universal condemnation of Clinton’s venomous and often groundless attacks against Barack Obama, there has been a fair amount of questioning what, exactly, she is trying to do. Can’t she see that this is out of bounds? Can’t she understand that Democrats are not going to be attracted to her side if she is trashing our party’s frontrunner? Doesn’t she see how she is confirming all of the negative images that people have had of her in the past? Etc., etc.
I too have been giving a lot of thought to what Clinton is trying to achieve and have come to believe that there are two possible explanations for the recent whole-hearted dive into the gutter after what had been, until about two weeks ago, a relatively cordial primary.
The first is that on some level Clinton knows that she has lost but can’t quite accept that and is lashing out at the upstart that has taken what she had always viewed as her rightful position. That seems to be what quite a few people are thinking. I am not sure that they are wrong. However, there is another possibility which is infinitely more disturbing.
The second possible explanation for Clinton’s behavior is that she has made a very cold political calculation and has seen that her best chance to win the nomination lies in convincing the super delegates that she is both capable and willing to destroy the party in her struggle to get the nomination and that her opponent is not.
Clinton’s strategy, so far as I can tell is basically what Bush’s strategy on Iraq has been. Bush has consistently held American forces hostage by refusing to accept any limitations on his discretion or power. When the Democratic congress has not given him the carte blanche he desires, he throws a temper tantrum, demands that he get his way, and blame his opposition for creating the situation for which he himself is responsible. By creating the image of a man who absolutely will not be moved from his position, however unreasonable it may be, he has confronted Democrats with the option of sticking to their guns (and thus appearing to unpatriotically deny support to the men and women on the ground in Iraq) or going along with him in order to serve the higher interests of the country. In essence he has presented them with the option he wants as the lesser of two evils and invariably, they have taken it.
Hillary Clinton is trying that same tack now. By shamelessly and relentlessly attacking Barack Obama, she has presented these same Democrats, the ones who have capitulated every time they have been bullied by Bush, with the problem of how to appease her. Because Obama has not gone crazy against Hillary, he is not to be feared. They honestly fear that Hillary will not hesitate to destroy the party in her quest for the nomination. They see no such signs from Obama. No less a figure than Nancy Pelosi has suggested that Obama will have the responsibility of keeping his supporters united behind the party in the general election. Of course, there would be no difficulty keeping his supporters behind the party in the general election if Obama is the nominee. Why, one wonders, would she be directing such remarks to Obama?
Clinton’s strategy is to convince the super delegates not that she is the best candidate to take on John McCain, but that she is the one person with the power to destroy the party. She is trying to make them fear her more than they fear Obama. In this strategy, it is to her advantage to appear ready to betray the party to satisfy her own ambitions. It is even to her advantage to appear a little unhinged. No one, least of all the leaders of the Democratic party, is going to try to reason with a madwoman.
Clinton’s calculation is fairly straightforward really. She believes that if George Bush can bully the Democratic congress into acquiescing in his war, then she can certainly bully the rest of the party to acquiesce in her nomination. If Democrats won’t stand up to Bush, then who is going to believe that they will stand up to her?
Her overall path to the nomination might look something like this. She and her surrogates will to continue to repeat her nonsense about big states. She will do her best to win those by whatever margin. By getting the narrative into the media she succeeds in giving it a legitimacy that it does not deserve. That legitimacy will provide political cover for those super delegates who want to back her in order to prevent her from destroying the party. Then she makes it clear that there is no solution that will preserve the party that does not have her at the top of the ticket. Then she condescends to offer Barack Obama the VP slot to preserve unity. Party hacks lecture Obama on the need to keep his supporters in the fold, and they prevail upon him to take the number two position for the good of the party. After all, they insist, he’s still a young man and he’s the unchallenged favorite for 2016.
Of course, this strategy would be doomed to failure if Democrats were known for standing up to intransigent bullies. Unfortunately, for both Obama and the country, they are not.
Obama should do his best to quietly convey the idea that he will not accept the number two spot under any circumstances and that he will sit on his hands in the general if the party elders try to steal the nomination from him after he has gotten the most pledged delegates and the plurality of the popular vote.
Cowards make decisions based on fear. When you deal with them, you have to make sure that they fear you more than they fear your opponent. Obama must make them afraid of crossing him if he wants to be sure that Clinton can’t pull something like this off.
Permalink | 17 comments