Plan B -- Clinton's "Scorched Earth" strategy

I'm certainly not the first to make this point, and there are diaries that might make the point more thoroughly than I, but I wanted to add my voice to the chorus of boos for Hillary Clinton. Even though I supported John Edwards until his withdrawal, and even though I voted for Barack Obama, I've tried to defend Clinton over the last months from attacks that I did not feel were warranted or did not bear a fair resemblance to truth. I'm through defending her, because she's crossed a line, indefensibly.

{I apologize for earlier diary title -- I meant levity -- there was no offense intended}

I see Hillary's "McCain" ploy as being like a scorched Earth policy -- a deliberate strategy to weaken Obama as much as possible. It is not without regard to the consequences. Quite the contrary -- this strategy is being employed in full consideration of the possible consequences. I think she has one eye on the 2008 nomination, but another on the 2012 nomination.

Team Clinton has decided that if they do not to their level best to knock down Obama, a terrible thing will result: He will be elected President, and they have decided that they cannot suffer that outcome.

Instead, they have chosen a plan to attack Obama -- a plan which they hope will create one of two outcomes: Either (a) the attacks are so effective that Clinton succeeds in wresting the nomination away from Obama, or (b) even if the attacks do not derail Obama's nomination train, they do knock the steam out of his engine and weaken him so much that he will fail in the general election.

Now, most Democrats would believe that (b) is the worst possible alternative, because it would ensure 4 more years of Republican rule in the White House. Apparently, team Clinton is lees troubled by that prospect than they are by the prospect of an Obama Presidency.

Why would they be so troubled by an Obama Presidency? Do they truly prefer a President McCain to a President Obama? Or, is she looking to the next four years -- to the 2012 election. That would make this a scorched Earth strategy.

The scorched Earth strategy works like this: The goal for Clinton, apparently, is the Democratic nomination. She feels she needs to win it this time, or in 2012, or the goal will be lost. So, she chooses a strategy that she hopes will produce either of two results -- either she wins the nomination, or Obama wins the nomination, but loses the general election.

If Obama wins the election, Clinton has little chance of ever running a successful campaign for the Democratic nomination, but if Obama loses the general election, she can assume some sort of lead role in attacking the GOP, and then running again in four years to take on McCain's GOP successor.

So, she chooses a scorched Earth strategy -- one that she hopes will result in her winning the nomination, or so devalues the nomination that Obama is permanently crippled. She knows John McCain would run ads with her comments questioning Obama's readiness to lead, and accepting McCain's readiness. She says "we know that national security will be the issue in the campaign". Well, it might not have been, but Hillary Clinton is doing her level best to ensure it will be, to ensure Obama's defeat.

Any truly committed Democrat would be more concerned for the fate of this country, and the success of the Party -- so,  we can only conclude that Senator Clinton is more concerned and more committed to her own election than to the success of the Party. That is the only rational explanation I can offer that makes any sense of the latest pronouncements from the Senator.

The only other explanation is the irrational -- that she is suffering from some mental disease or defect that blinds her to the significance of her actions. Perhaps, this is also a possibility. How else can we reconcile two statements within 24 hours? On Wednesday, Senator Clinton drops hints about a joint ticket. The next day she openly questions whether Obama has crossed the "Commander-in-Chief threshold".  

Are we supposed to seriously believe that she would name someone to be her running mate, even if she wasn't personally convinced he was ready to be President? Is she so politically crass as to do something like that, possibly leaving us with someone who isn't ready - a Democratic version of Dan Quayle? Why would she make Obama her running mate, if she thinks so little of his qualifications?

More to the point, how would she defend such a choice during the general election campaign? She declares that this will be an election about national security, yet suggests that she'd consider a running mate that she isn't sure is up to the job of "Commander-in-Chief"? That would be political suicide, no?

So, we're down to two possibilities: The first is that she is behaving terribly irrationally. The second is that Senator Clinton has decided that she has little chance of winning this time around and she would rather work to help McCain beat Obama, than the other way around. It would seem the last thing she wants to do is to help Obama beat McCain.

Plan A is winning the nomination for herself this year -- but she must realize that's virtually impossible now. So, she's gone to Plan B -- {I had originally titled the diary with ""B" as in rhymes with "rich"" -- I apologize for offense given -- none was intended I think it's important that I apologize, but I also leave this note here, so that the comments below make sense to latecomers}.

Bravo, Hillary. Bravo.

There is of course, the possibilty that she genuinely would prefer to live under President McCain, and she's acting to save the country from a President Obama disaster. Does anyone seriously believe that's her motivation? If so, I guess we can expect her to formally endorse McCain, at some point...

Another Kossack, rugbymom, suggests there might be a Plan C. This Plan C would be that she takes a slot on a ticket with McCain -- putting her one heartbeat from the Presidency, and imagining that this would put her in position to win in 2012. I'm not sure what Party would have her in 2012. Under those circumstances, the Democrats would not want her, and the GOP will never want her. So, I'm guessing she's not looking seriously at Plan "C".

I’m through defending her. In fact, if her Plan B succeeds, I will dedicate myself to working towards her defeat in 4 years – even if it means another GOP Presidency. After all, turnabout is fair play, right? If Obama wins this year, that will be a powerful positive symbol for our country’s youth. If Clinton wins in 4 years, per Plan "B", that will be the worst possible symbol for our young people. I don’t want to be in a country where someone is rewarded for such crass, selfish behavior.