Hillary's Running for President...in 2012.

There can be no doubt about it now. Hillary knows the math as well as anyone. She is unlikely to pass Senator Obama in the pledged delegate count, and is not likely to improve on her performances in Michigan or Florida if there is a revote in those states.

The means by which Hillary is campaigning is, in my view, turning off a lot of superdelegates and party regulars who think she is engaged in a scorched Earth campaign to gain the nomination and then run a 50% plus 1 electoral vote strategy in the Fall.

Hillary must know her odds of winning this year are extremely long. She must also know that the only posisble way to win, would be to go nuclear on Obama (as she is doing), and hope like hell Obama screws up.

She must also know that such a strategy is high risk for the fall campaign and is likely to cost her the general election by alienating Obama supporters - regardless of whether Obama himself joins her ticket.

So, what is she doing?

I think she is running for 2012. I think she knows that if Obama gets the nomination this year without HIllary driving up his negatives and legitimizing GOP atatcks on him, he will probably win in the Fall and be a two term President.

And even if Hillary wanted to run again in 2016, she would not necessarily be the presumptive nominee. That designation would fall -- most likely -- on Obama's Vice President. So Hillary would not have a clear path to the nomination even then.

Hillary, of course, would be 68 years old in 2016. The same age as Ronald Reagan when he ran in 1980 -- and Reagan was the oldest person ever elected President.

Hillary's only real shot at being President is to get the nomination this year -- or sabotage Barack Obama's chances to win the Presidency this year, and run again in 2012.

If Obama loses against McCain, Hillary will be perfectly positioned to run again in four years. She will have the money, the organization, four more years of experience, and the argument that she would have beaten McCain whereas Obama failed.

And, there is a good chance McCain may not run for reelection in 2012 given his age. So Hillary may not even be running against an incumbant President.

And who in the Democratic party would have the ability to challenge her for the nomination in 2012? Obama would have gone down to defeat in a strong Democratic year.

And there are no bright and rising Democratic stars on the horizon who could legitimately give Hillary a challenge. Mark Warner from Virginia? Maybe.

Jim Webb? Kathleen Sebelius?

The only person who really could is Al Gore.

And if he ran again in 2012, that would set up another epic nomination battle. But I think Gore missed his moment.

In any case, I thik Hillary, legitimately, would rather see Obama lose if she cannot be the nominee. Oh, she'll endorse him. She'll work for his candidacy. But she will have poisoned the well so much that (she hopes) he will lose to McCain in the fall.

•  She can still win the primary

  through any number of ugly methods, but it is unlikely that she can win both the primary and general election without an Obama collapse.

  by IhateBush on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:12:05 AM PDT

•  Obama is the strongest natural leader to arise

  in the Democratic Party in a long time - and the Clintons' top priority, clearly evidenced, is to DESTROY OBAMA, no matter the cost this year.

  by SicXitGM on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:14:22 AM PDT

  •  Imagine this story on National Geographic or

    Animal Planet. The Lion King, now technically ineligible for the throne himself, can reascend via his mate. To do so, his male rival must be KILLED.

    What we are seeing is as much about Bill Clinton as Hillary, perhaps more.

    by SicXitGM on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:34:36 AM PDT

    •  Revised remarks

      'Killed' was the wrong word. I meant 'neutraized' or 'driven off,' and regret the error.

      by SicXitGM on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:24:44 PM PDT

•  Not Webb or Sebalius: you are forgetting someone

  Howard Dean is now chairman of the DNC precisely because the promise that other potential candidates (read: HRC) got from him, to not run for president in 2008.  In 2012, he will be free to run again.

  Neutralizing Dean as a pres. candidate in 2008 was probably intended to give clear sailing to HRC.  She didn't forsee someone like Obama coming out of nowhere to contend for the nom, and maybe win it.  I wonder what regrets the dem leadership will have about the Dean situation, if Obama is nominated

  by clyde on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:15:02 AM PDT

  •  Gore was lurking out there too.

    Not just Hillary.

    I also thnk Obam fully did not expect to win the nominatin this year. I think his best case scenario going into thsi campaiogn was being on the ticket with Hillary (or Edwards).

    He was also positioning himself for a run in 2012 or 2016.

    To a certain extent, I think he's been as surprised by this as anyone.

    by Hesiod on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:19:55 AM PDT

    •  Oh I disagree about Obama

      I find him to be a highly intelligent and intuitive person and a politician with the quickest learning curve we've seen in this generation.  I don't think he would have run this go around if he had not felt he could win this go around.  He may even have surmised that this truly is his best and only shot.  I take him at his word that he will not run again for President (unless it is as the incumbent President).  In fact, if he loses, I'd expect he'll run for Governor of Illinois and be quite happy in that position.

      And I think he also rightly deduced that there is, indeed, "a fierce urgency of now."

      by costello7 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:32:43 AM PDT

      •  there's an old saying:

        "Once you've run for President you are always running for President."

        by deantv on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:34:56 AM PDT

    •  I think Gore is washed up politically

      He will stick with being an elder statesman and global warming evangalist, which is what he does best.  Frankly his credibility as a candidate in 2000 came from his service as VP, i.e. he was trading on his connection with Bill Clinton, putting him in the same boat with Hillary Clinton's 2008 run.

      by clyde on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:40:23 AM PDT

  •  Why would the dem leadership have regrets?

    The 50 state strategy is the right way to run politics in our country.  I thank Dean for that strategy.  And I also want to thank Kerry (or whoever is responsible) for putting Obama in the spotlights at the DNC convention in '04.  He was my newly elected senator then, & I distinctly remember saying, "This man will be president someday."

    That day can't come soon enough.

    by madame defarge on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:23:15 AM PDT

  •  interesting

    I'm still trying to decipher that last sentence of yours about "regrets" (whose regrets, what part of the "leadership" and what would those regrets be?)

    but anyhow, perhaps some of those state organizations would be thankful to Dean later for setting them up and getting them back in the process after years of neglect.

    Still, there's no time to lose. We need to win this thing now for the sake of the country unlike certain types of politicians who would rather lose now to win later while kids die in Iraq and the people continue to get screwed by their own tax dollars.

    by deantv on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:41:53 AM PDT

    •  regrets

      I'm imagining regrets on the part of Hillary's backers who got Dean to promise to not run in 2008, thinking that would clear the way for Hillary.  So instead of Dean, they got Obama, who I'm sure they like even less.   WHOOOOOOPS.

      by clyde on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:45:25 AM PDT

      •  gotchya.

        whoooops is right. well, a promise means nothing in DC, of course, but I'm glad the people-powered movement is growing bigger, wiser, and stronger to force this fight for the soul of the party to be an actual toe to toe fight this time around, this late. I'm still cautious about what the power of corporate television can do when they want though when they have had their fun getting the ratings they are with the continuing battle.

        we'll see...

        by deantv on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:02:10 AM PDT

•  If the PARTY collapses in November

  with Obama at the top of the ticket, Hillary's chances of ever being the nominee decrease. Too many factors can intervene. The country will be in far worse shape, unimaginably bad if McCain becomes president which could play out in a multitude of ways. A Democratic superstar could come from anywhere just the way Obama did, and if the campaign got this ugly and disastrous, I suspect Democratics will want to wash their hands of EVERYONE who participated in it. And insiders will certainly realize that Hillary's gushing public adoration of McCain contributed to the loss and she will be punished for it. This is a risky, 95% chance of losing strategy for Hillary. I keep seeing  people say this over and over (this is far from the first diary proposing it) but I think it's as far-fetched as the once touted Hillary-Condi face off.

  by anastasia p on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:19:19 AM PDT

  •  if hillary kills Obama's chances in the general

    she will be STRONGER in 2012 because the Party will see what the clintons are willing to do to anyone in their way.  Remember, you are talking about politicians here; people who worship money and power.

    by Zacapoet on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:51:37 AM PDT

•  Exactly.

  It's time for the party elders to step in and put an end to this.  It would be better if she stepped aside gracefully, but if she wants to stay in through Pennsylvania, then she should at least run in "Huckabee mode".  Talk about the issues, be positive, attack McBush, not Obama, and prepare for a unified convention.

  She is tearing the party apart for her own personal ambitions.  She really does think "it's her turn" as McAuliffe said.

  Well, it's not.  It's our turn.  It's our turn to take back our nation, and we need a uniting figure to do it.  Not a divisive power hungry politician.

  by landrew on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:21:14 AM PDT

•  And I will do...

  ...whatever I can, in my admittely miniscule power, to prevent her from succeeding in 2012.

  by FishBiscuit on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:22:18 AM PDT

  •  If she wants any future in politics...

    she will bow out gracefully at the right time.

    However, given her tenacity, I don't expect that to happen anytime soon.  And that's a shame, IMHO.  If she'd mellow just a bit, she might be a great candidate for the Supreme Court (which we'll most definitely need very soon -- Stevens can't hold on forever).

    by madame defarge on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:26:54 AM PDT

    •  No HRC on SCOTUS

      Not after the disgraceful way she's been acting.

      And why oh why would we want to go through the confirmation hearings with a Clinton and bring up all the dramarama and scandals YET AGAIN.

      They should both leave politics and go off and make their millions and leave the country alone.

      by Paolo on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:14:46 AM PDT

•  Nice tin foil hat

  Looks lovely on you.

  by DFWmom on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:25:20 AM PDT

  •  The days

    of passing off doubts about the Clintons' intentions and trying to convince people that we have two good candidates are over.  

    If she leaves soon, as she should, she would be doing the only thing that can salvage her reputation and his legacy in the party.

    by huckleberry on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:29:12 AM PDT

•  I agree with this analysis.

  I think starting really with this past week's election, Hillary knew the math and is playing to destroy any chance that Obama will win.  She'll be too old in 2016,  she know she cant win in 2008.  So 2012 is where she's going for the rest of this one.

  I do suspect that after North Carolina and Indiana Clinton will end it, because the number of remaining Delegates after May 6 will probably be less than Obama's Delegate lead.

  by ScrewySquirrel on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:26:40 AM PDT

•  Exactly.

  Destroy Obama now and reap the benefits in 4 years.

  by boran2 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:31:23 AM PDT

•  it would be in keeping with her past behavior

  Hillary thought she wasn't ready to run yet in 2004, having only gotten to the Senate in 2000 with no prior elected experience, so she had her eye on 2008.  yeah, she 'endorsed' Kerry, but then when things were as heated as could be, and Kerry made that 'botched joke' about how "you get stuck in Iraq" if you aren't educated enough.  it was clearly a shot at Bush, but she went out and totally stuck a knife in his back, publicly admonishing him for attacking the troops.  she directly participated in the narrative which undermined Kerry's credibility on national security.

  so check it out folks, she's already done this once.  she's also already said, in public now, that she thinks McCain is more qualified, and by her own metric, she's already said he's more qualified than her as well.  bizarre strategy there, but when you're flailing around in this manner, all kinds of self-contradictory stuff will come out.  if she can't get the nomination, this is someone with no compunction about weakening the Dem candidate to pave the way for her own rise to power.  if she can damage Obama so much that he loses ala Kerry, then she runs again on a "told you so" platform.  in her own mind, anyways.  of course its all subjective, but its difficult to interpret her actions as having the best interests of Dems at heart.

  by itsbenj on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:35:48 AM PDT

•  I wish I could disagree with this diary

  by jfern on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:35:52 AM PDT

•  Half the story

  It ain't just Obama she's hunting.  Look in the mirror folks.  She's gunning for us.  This started with Howard Dean allowing people like you and me, smaller state party reps, common Dems to have a say in their party.  When we echoed his "We want our party back," who do you think we wanted it back from?  

  By destroying Obama's candidacy, she also undermines us, those who have taken the Clintocrats out of control of the party.  If the Democrats lose, they don't care, they are perfectly happy to be the minority as long as they regain their place as The Establishment.  

  Scorched earth and she wins whether she wins or not.

  by SteveG on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:44:19 AM PDT

  •  there are rumors that Clinton people

    helped tear down Dean in Iowa because they feared he might win and shut Hillary out until 2012.

    Now they are facing Dean 2.0 in Obama and their attempts to tear him down are not as effective.

    by TrueBlueMajority on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:36:11 AM PDT

•  Tina Fey was right

  Bitches are mean and will get things done. But bitches will also stab you in the back to get what they want. The Clintons have shown that party means nothing. They have always put their own interests first and foremost. Funny thing is I never saw that until this campaign. Like many of you I defended them. But I see now the errors of my ways. Bill and Hillary have never had anyone's best interests at heart but their own. And if the country has to suffer through four years of McCain to ensure them another shot in 2012, then so be it.

  by DWKING on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:46:46 AM PDT

•  I came to the same conclusion

  a couple weeks ago.

  Hillary is playing a dangerous game. There are no guarantees that she would win a primary in 2012. I'd certainly back the opponent, whoever it will.

  That presumes that the Democratic Party will be around at that time. If we blow this election, given all the damage Bush has done. we don't deserve to exist as a political party. It would mean starting all over.

  by CocoaLove on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:47:01 AM PDT

  •  that's kind of what we are doing anyhow

    isn't it?

    Trying to start over by winning this fight? Who cares what the party is called--the idea is that it's the "people's party." Not K Street's

    glad to be with ya!

    by deantv on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:05:47 AM PDT

  •  I'll run myself if I have to :-D n/t

    by TrueBlueMajority on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:36:37 AM PDT

•  I never thought it that way, and I tend to agree.

  HRC had her chance to 'Huck' it after Tx and OH by being humbled and greatful to still be in the mix without denigrating her opponent. Instead she upped her attack on Obama's integrety. There can be no mistake, she wants it all or else no one gets it.  I think it's intelligent to surmise that a McCain victory in 08 can be a second, or a much better, chance for her.

  by elbamash on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:17:18 AM PDT

  •  but how can she run again McCain in 2012

    after spending so much time talking about how qualified he is in 2008?

    some people are saying McCain will only serve one term and will pick Romney for his VP to set him up for 2012.  Romney is the one the Bushies wanted--they don't like Huckabee.  That's why Romney bowed out so gracefully and so early.

    what a thoroughly depressing week this has been...

    by TrueBlueMajority on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:40:46 AM PDT

    •  She can't in 2012 and she can't now.

      She doesn't know it yet. Even polls are telling her she can't beat McCain. However, if McCain doesn't run again in 2012, she has a much better chance to be president than now.

      by elbamash on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:15:13 AM PDT

•  Biggest danger of Hillary forcing herself as VP

  As a failed primary candidate, she will have little ability to hurt Obama.  Yes she and Bill may have wanted Kerry to lose in 2004 so they could run in 2008, but really had little impact (negative impact that is.  Of course had they really tried to help, maybe they could have had a positive one).  

  I think Obama will recover from a bitter and divisive primary, and come out as the Dragon-slayer for defeating Hillary, while the democrats sucked up all the oxygen and attention in the campaign for a few months. Remember even if this goes until June or August, it leaves a lot of time left for the general campaign, especially in terms of the short media cycle.

  The danger here is that as the VP candidate in 2008, she and Bill will have the visibility to seriously hurt the obama ticket this year in the general, while putting her in the pole position to run in 2012.  Think about it:  would Hillary and Bill rather win in 2008 and wait 8 years to get back to the White House, or do something to help tank Obama and give themselves a chance to get back there in 2012, where they would not have to compete with him?  I really don't like the way these incentives would work for them.

  by Blue Sea on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:17:49 AM PDT

  •  exactly, Blue Sea

    I fear that with her on the ticket she and Bill would work their sabotage from within.  It would only take a couple of well-timed gaffes to bring the whole ticket down.

    I don't want HRC as VP.  I don't want HRC at the top of the ticket.  I don't want HRC at all.

    by TrueBlueMajority on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:38:47 AM PDT

•  damn

  I've been thinking the same thing ever since the "Shame on You" rant, and the true role of HRC's campaign in talking to Canadians about NAFTA sealed the deal.

  She figures that is she's going down, he wants to drag Obama with her, so that even if O gets the nomination McCain can win in November and she can run again in 2012.

  If O picks a good Veep and wins, HRC will never have another chance to run for president.

  Clearly she expected to lose Texas and thought things were close in Ohio.  I would bet that her campaign was taken by surprise at how well the negative campaigning worked.  They were just trying to poison the well for Obama, and accidentally ended up giving themselves a few more weeks of viability.

  Just more "me above party" tactics from the Clintons.  I am ashamed that I defended them so vigorously in the 90s.  I am embarrassed that my R friends turned out to be right about them.

  by TrueBlueMajority on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:31:55 AM PDT