Is Hillary Positioning for 2012?

Posted March 22, 2008 | 05:21 PM (EST)



stumble digg reddit del.ico.us news trust

The Politico laid it out very clearly yesterday - and solidified what we've known for weeks - this race is over. Obama has the nomination.

Even Hillary Clinton's own campaign admits it! Politico reports, "One important Clinton adviser estimated to Politico privately that she has no more than a 10 percent chance of winning her race against Barack Obama, an appraisal that was echoed by other operatives. In other words: The notion of the Democratic contest being a dramatic cliffhanger is a game of make-believe."

It's somewhat hilarious to watch the media eat up the campaign spin on the record, that she's got a great shot to win this and win the Presidency. Of course, the race gets a whole lot more boring with lower ratings when it's Obama vs. McCain, probably with a huge lull in the campaign, where - God forbid - the news media will actually have to go out and find and report news, and not just campaign talking points sent to them.

I've been trying to figure out for weeks why Hillary Clinton is still in this campaign because the math has been obvious for quite some time now. Even Mitt Romney had the - what would you call it, decency, wisdom, common sense - to drop out after he realized it was mathematically impossible (or next to impossible) for him to win.

There is one possibility as to why Senator Clinton might still be in this race, inflicting heavy damage on the presumptive Democratic nominee. That reason is Hillary 2012.

Now that's a heavy charge. I can't read her mind, so I don't know what her true intentions are. We can only judge based on her actions. Her staff understands and agrees that she has a very, very small chance of winning, but she is still willing to go after front-runner of her own party in the strongest possible words.

Look at what she has said about the man she privately believes will be the Democratic nominee for President:

He has not crossed the "Commander in Chief threshold" like John McCain has.

He cannot be trusted to answer the phone at 3am.

His only experience is a speech from 2002.

That he is disenfranchising voters in Michigan and Florida (even though she agreed to the same rules he did when those states stepped out of line in the primary process).

And, as Bill Clinton intimated yesterday, he doesn't love our country, like Hillary and McCain do.

Those are some serious blows against someone in your own party and might seriously hurt his chances of winning the general election. In fact, every day that Senator Clinton stays in the race is another day she spends money damaging Senator Obama. And every dollar she spends is a dollar in John McCain's pocket.

It almost makes you ask - does she want him to lose?

If Obama wins, then Senator Clinton couldn't run again until at least 2016 (unless something goes terribly wrong). At which point, she would be almost as old as John McCain is now. If she's ever going to become president, she has this narrow window.

On the other hand, if Senator Obama sustains serious political wounds going into the general election and winds up losing, then Hillary Clinton is sitting pretty in 2012.

In four years, John McCain will be 209 years old, and coming off a disastrous first term. We will still be in Iraq and the country will be dying for change. If you thought the voters wanted change now, imagine what the situation will be in 2012. Imagine how starved the electorate will be for a Democrat if McCain just spent four years replicating George W. Bush's policies - as he is adamantly promising to do on the campaign trail.

At that point, Senator Clinton would be able to swoop in and say, "See, you went with Obama last time and he lost, just like I told you. Now, nominate me, and I will take this White House back like we should have four years ago!"

Having narrowly lost to Obama in the primary, she would be in a great position to say "It's my turn! Let's get this right!"

Is she that cynical? Does she care that little about her own party or her own principles? Remember, a McCain win signs us up for more years in Iraq, a possible new war with Iran, an untold number of conservative judges on the Supreme Court, a probable overturn of Roe v. Wade, four more years of economic pain for the lower and middle class and ... no healthcare reform for another four years.

Is anyone that politically craven? To risk all that so they have a better chance of winning in 2012? I hope not. I hope she is just being delusional and thrashing about in misguided desperation as she continues to wound Obama going into the general election.

But if she is doing this on purpose - and she wants Obama to lose this time around so she has a better chance of winning in 2012 - she better make damn sure that news doesn't leak. Because that kind of political crime would be unforgivable. Unforgivable.

Watch The Young Turks Here


 
 

Comments
664
Pending Comments
0

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next › Last » (10 pages total)

Here"s an idea: get both Democratic candidates to agree whichever candidate does not get the nomination has to transfer whatever funds are left in their campaign to the DNC to support Democrats in other races.

If Clinton were to agree to that, then it would help dispel rumors that this primary has turned into a warm-up for 2012 and it would also show that Clinton supports the Democratic Party.

If Clinton refuses, then that $20 million sitting in her general election fund is probably already earmarked for the 2012 primary.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:50 PM on 03/26/2008

O hay: Scaree laydee has monees?

I thought she was operating in the red.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:28 PM on 03/26/2008

As I understand it, Clinton is in the red for the primary election, but has around $20 million in the general election fund. Any donation above $2,300 per person is set aside for the general election and can not be used in the primary. Early in the campaign, she had lots of donors send $4,600 ($2,300 for the primary and $2,300 for the general).

The New York Times has the details online:

http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/finances/index.html

Click "Clinton" and then click "Details" to see the general election fund. As I understand it, if this money is not used in the general election, it can be transferred to a future election, such as the 2012 primary. I believe that money left over from her Senate campaign was transferred into her 2008 primary campaign instead of being used to help other Democrats.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:00 PM on 03/26/2008

The truth is probably much more simplistic: She and Bill, as are many others in this evil Bush/Clinton cabal, are under investigation for several potential crimes. Presidency = Sovereign Immunity, plus the power to mothball or slowdown these types of investigations. Pardon the pun, but she has no choice but to run.

McCain is a part of this cabal and will keep the secrets of the Shadow Government if elected. That was the deal. That's why the Straightjacket Express, headed to the train station to be mothballed, had to do a quick turnaround on short notice: After Romney dropped out (do you really think the Pope would "allow" a Mormon US President?) the Republican party needed to quick! Find a member of the clique! FAST! to replace him! Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee were the party's only other options, and Paul and Huckabee wanted to represent the PEOPLE. Repugs couldn't allow THAT to happen!

It all makes more sense if you wipe out the Repug/Dem false dichotomy and think populist vs. elitist instead.

If the Clintons can't kneecap themselves into the nomination, and McCain looks like he might lose (near impossible with DIEBOLD), the Clintons will concede from their little hideaway . . . in Ireland, where they can't be extradited.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:15 PM on 03/26/2008

With a 57% negative rating (Bill's now at 50% also), with the Paul v Clinton finally on the docket, and all that baggage..old and new, is it any wonder the GOP salavates at the thought of a Hillary nomination...FOX News, Rush, Buchanan all campaigning for Hillary's nomination. Bill and Hill both stumping for McCain so your premise of 2012 sounds right.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:20 PM on 03/24/2008

What I'd like to know is what exactly was their strategy, the Clinton campaign, they've been through this before, they knew the rules, they know their base, what was the game plan? Spending millions and millions a month, asking people for money every three days. I'd also like to know just how supportive she was to Kerry, did she campaign, did Bill campaign, like they know how to campaign, like Claire McCaskil is for Obama? I though don't think she can run again, I think she's blown her chance, that the powers that be, within the democratic party expected alot more out of her, she's got the name recognition, she started out with the bulk of the money, but she didn't have a message, except for, ready on day one. Everyone knew that she was positioning herself to run for the presidency, when she decided to run for the senate seat in New York. I think it's a feeling of ego, why is it she deserves the nomination, the Clinton presidencey lost the congress, she's never been in the legislature on her own, prior to becoming the senator of New York, because she put up with Bill?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:54 PM on 03/24/2008

Lifelong Democrat here. Never voted for a Republican. In an Obama/McCain matchup, I go with McCain hands down.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:28 PM on 03/24/2008

So you want more Conservatives on the Supreme Court, increased defiicts--junk bond staus of the treasury, more war, and a distinct shortage of persian rugs, before ever voting for the other democrat (i.e. Obama)
I understand what the fable of the Pied Piper is all about now.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:32 PM on 03/25/2008

Never voted Republican either, but in a Clinton/McCain matchup, I"d go with McCain as well.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:26 PM on 03/25/2008

Cenk--you are pompous and delusional. Stop trying to call the game in the fourth quater. Sorry, but no one has the numbers right now--Not even your precious BO. That means he doesn't have the nomination--ya think? You are hating to admit that through no fault of Hillary's that BO is unelectable. I am a lifelong Democrat and a Hillary supporter and I am one of those Dems that will become a McCain Democrat if BO is nominated. Let Democracy do its work.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:15 PM on 03/24/2008

So you're going to elect Bush to a third term? That's essentially what you'd be doing.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:20 PM on 03/24/2008

Short answer: Yes, that's exactly what she's doing. It's no accident that the Clintons and the Bushes are such good buds now. The narcissism runs deep through both families.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:12 PM on 03/24/2008

The fight is certainly not about us, we the people. Its about the Clinton's egomaniacal quest to run the world, again, rather than about the actual policies that will be pursued by the government. Is Hillary sabotaging Obama's campaign? If all she has to do is put the hurt on this country for another four years by helping McCain then she'll be happy to do it if it puts her and Bill back in the WH. God help our party!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:51 PM on 03/24/2008

Cenk, you read my mind. I've been proposing this same theory to friends for the past few weeks.

Hillary destroys Obama's chances by trashing him against McCain. McCain gets elected. Hillary says to the Democratic Party, "See, I told you what would happen if you nominated Obama instead of me." McCain being ancient steps down after 4 years. Voila, Hillary is the front runner again.

There's also the outside chance that she can convince the superdelegates to go her direction now and Voila, she's the candidate in 08. Since it's all about Hillary, why not go for broke? She must see it as a win-win.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:18 PM on 03/24/2008

Nominee Hillary will be so mortally wounded in her no holds barred quest to get the nomination that it'll be a third term for W. for sure.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:53 PM on 03/24/2008

It has been my view for some time now that Hilary"s slander based attacks on Obama serve both a short and long term objective. The short term but long shot hope is that they will swing the super delegates in her direction. The long term and more realistic objective is they will contribute to McCain"s victory in November. Given McCain"s age, the Democrats will have another real chance in the 2012 elections. Obama will have been discredited with the Democratic establishment and Hilary will have a clear shot at the nomination. Given the magnitude of her selfishness and ambition, she would be quite happy with an Obama defeat in November. Four years of delayed gratification would be worth the ultimate realization of her ambition. I suspect, however, that no one inside the campaign will disclose the fact of this long term strategy.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:51 PM on 03/24/2008

At this point, if Obama gets the nomination, should the Clinton campaign keep up with their current destructive and divisive tactics, he will have been so bloodied by the Clinton camp that McCain will be quite difficult to beat.

On the other hand, should Hilary persuade enough super delegates to vote for her at the convention, it will be based upon her claim of experience. The problem with this is that it will have set the stage for the Republicans to file in court that she cannot run based on the 22nd amendment to the constitution. In addition, she will appear to have all the negative qualities of being manipulative, self serving, power hungry and part of the machine that her opponents claim she has. These characteristics " perceived or real " are the biggest reasons that many folks are so turned off by Hillary.

There was a point not long ago when I would have been very pleased to see Obama in White House, but would have been satisfied with Hillary. However, the fact that she is willing to throw Obama under the train by placing McCain on a pedestal has completely soured me on her. More and more, she appears to be part of the political machine, the industrial-military-congressional complex that Eisenhower warned us of, and it is becoming harder and harder to tell the difference between her and the neocon cartel that holds the reigns now.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:46 PM on 03/24/2008

For every day Sen. Clinton stays in the race...we get closer to President McCain. Plus, Clinton must be out of her mind to think we are going to go down the road with her again. If Obama loses, the most likely contenders for 2012 would be Deval Patrick (Gov. Mass.),; Carcetti (for the Wire watchers), I mean O'malley (Gov. Md.), Corizine (Gov. NJ), Tester (Sen. Wyoming) or maybe Al Gore. No way Clinton gets another shot if Dems are dumb enough not to rally around Obama.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:31 PM on 03/24/2008

Claire McCaskell also.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:20 PM on 03/24/2008

Deval Patrick ?!?!?

Are you nuts?

Even the Moonbats that voted him in here in Massachusetts are coming around to understanding that the guy is a joke.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:51 PM on 03/24/2008

The only thing that is really unforgivable is putting a chauvinist like Obama at the top of the Democratic ticket. He will lose and it will be because of the guys at MSNBC who have been lusting after Obama for months. They have skewed the coverage of this campaign to make him look like a winner when most of us know he doesn"t have a snowballs' chance in hell of being President.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:22 PM on 03/24/2008

I'm a woman and I don't want Hillary. I'd love to vote for a woman to be president, I'm just not willing to compromise the good of the country and my self interest to vote for this woman.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:14 PM on 03/24/2008

Chauvinist? Grow up - not everyone that opposes Hillary is a chauvinist. We're just smart...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:55 PM on 03/24/2008

Yeah and not everyone who opposes Obama is a racist. Especially not Hillary, Bill, Geraldine or anyone else the Obama team has accused of being racists.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:36 PM on 03/24/2008

Take a look at this news and add your vote. The people are deciding not the media.

http://news. aol. com/political-machine/2008/01/28/aol-straw-poll-jan-28-feb-4/?ncid=NWS00010000000001

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:05 PM on 03/24/2008

All those voting for McCain must either be rich, idiots, or both. Who else, given the state and expense of healthcare, would vote so dramatically against their own self-interests?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:59 PM on 03/24/2008

you'll be surprised how many folks will vote for McCain. we have a largely racist country. very unlikely that BO will be Pres.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:12 PM on 03/24/2008

The Clinton's do have experience, at damaging the Dem Party.

And they're putting it to good use.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:38 PM on 03/24/2008

No where in your post do you address the 12 million people who want her to be the next President. I would say that's why she is still in the race. Also, it's not just about the math. Every time someone supposes that argument they leave out the fact that anything could happen between now and June or between now and August. Math doesn't account for life.

With that said, would someone please explain to me why Obama's 13,281,132 votes/people are more important than Hillary's 12,577,409 votes/people. I realize he has more, but not that much more, and the race is not over yet. Not only that, but she is leading in the polls, so this race could possibly take a drastic turn. Please tell me why we don't deserve to be heard.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:14 PM on 03/24/2008

Um. Explain why his votes count more than hers? Well, dear, it's an election, you see, and the person with the most votes actually wins. That's how an election works. Also, remember that if Obama were in Clinton's position this race would be over. He would have been forced to step down. It is only the privilege of her family name that is keeping her in the race.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:14 PM on 03/24/2008

Clinton is down by ~700,000. There are 4 million votes up for grabs in Pennsylvania. Why should she quit?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:54 PM on 03/24/2008

Good point. If the shoe was on the other foot, no Obama supporter would want him out.

Also, since nobody will have the magic number without the Supers, sometimes a losing candidate can extract a deal Eg the way the primaries are happening (J. Jackson paved the way for Obama) or on a program (I'll give you my delegates if you agree to xyz on healthcare) or even an administrative position.

Yes, it's possible -even likely - that Hillary may run in 2012 if BO loses in November. But that doesn't mean that she caused the damage or even worse, as the article seems to imply, that she damaged him on puprose so he will lose (even though probably many of his supporters will blame her for that). The "experience" issue would have been raised for sure by McCain anyways, he may be old but he is not stupid. Rev. Wright's statements would also been known by November as well. Would Obama's campaign have preferred the "3:00 am" ad to hit the airwaves a week before the election, and Wright's comments to come out just a few days before Nov 4? . I seriously doudt that.

I personally think that the "attacks" or "vetting" at this stage is good for either candidate and the party.
HOWEVER, what I think it's potentially VERY bad, is an uncalled-for polarization that may make one candidate's supporters stay home if the other wins the nomination. And there are indications that it may happen.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:02 PM on 03/24/2008

Here is the "why" you requested: because the nomination process is decided by who gets the most votes. Yes, the gap between the two candidates is not that huge, but it is significant, and more importantly it can't be bridged by Clinton.

To wit: Clinton cannot make up the difference in votes. Obama will continue to return the percentages we've already seen, and that will end up with Obama winning the nomination.

The "10% chance" thing is really down to whether some magical dirt can be found that will destroy Obama, like maybe a good hooker scandal or something. Barring that type of implosion, Obama will coast to a victory.

It's not that your votes are not being "heard," it's that your votes are fewer than the votes going to Obama, and therefore, your candidate will not win.

For Clinton to remain in the campaign when this is obvious, is disingenuous and one has to question why she would continue to attack the person who will lead the Democratic Party into the election in 2008. Clearly a Democrat of any stripe is a better option than John McCain, no?

What Clinton has already accomplished, as the first viable female candidate, is truly remarkable and she's already made history. As a Democrat, I am proud of my Party that we have offered up the first female contender. But in this race, she has lost. It is time for her to admit this and to seek to help Obama and Democrats win in November.

One Geraldine Ferraro is already too many.

Cheers.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:02 PM on 03/24/2008

I can't believe Obama supporters are so sure. Yes he has the most votes now, but it's not over yet. In fact the polls indicate that the election is turning in her favor. If you are going to blame her, you have to blame her supporters too.

Actually, I am mystified when I hear Obama supporters say she is being negative. She really isn't saying a thing. The Reverend Wright thing is what they are going to use on him. Besides, I don't think the republicans need her help.

I think saying that Obama has won the nomination is like saying McCain has won the presidency. For which there is a good argument. Since McCain will be getting a lot of votes from democrats.

Anyway I appreciate your response.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:55 PM on 03/24/2008

The polls indicate that the election is turning in her favor.

You're a week old, honey, the polls have reversed themselves. Obama picked up 10 points nation wide last week. He went from 7 down to 3 up. Update your material. The Wright thing is just about over. Besides, some people might actually view the whole sermon and realize the selective editing done by the media hit team was a total misrepresentation of the Reverend's actual sermon which was about replacing the religion of vengeance and hate with a religion of love. It was easy for them to snip the section where he was illustrating the attitudes of hate and portray that as the sermon. Goopy fools believe the media. The rest of us investigate and then send the truth to others via the web.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:28 PM on 03/24/2008

Reading the comments to this column is all the proof I need that Hillary is tearing the Democratic party apart. By continuing to run a quixotic race, Hillary is only creating deeper divisions within the party and she is destroying the chance for progressives to take the White House this year. If Hillary does have ambitions for 2012 or 2016, she needs to find a way to exit soon, otherwise there will be many Democrats, like myself , who will never support her in the future. Bill should also realize that he is doing irreparable harm to his legacy.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:09 PM on 03/24/2008

And for every "progressive" (i.e., Nader herder) there are 2 actual real dem voters who won't vote for Obama in November.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:49 PM on 03/24/2008

Based... on a dream you had...?