Is Clinton's 2012 Campaign Under Way?
We know Hillary Clinton is smart, and we so can assume that for some time she has known, as well as anyone, that it is virtually impossible for her to become the Democratic nominee for President in 2008. So what could explain her continuing to battle, risking her party's approbation?
We fear there is one explanation that fits too well: that Clinton is actually already fighting the 2012 race. We hope we are wrong. But within this frame, her actions do make perfect sense.
Clinton seems to be doing her best to weaken Obama's candidacy and therefore the likelihood that he can win against McCain. With that result, she could say, "I told you so" and offer herself as the 2012 savior of the Democratic Party. Her husband's statement last weekend, that the Democrats were more likely to lose in November if she is not the nominee, fits that pattern.
Here's, sadly, how the strategy looks to us.
First Clinton defends her continued presence in the race against all odds, arguing that the pressure on her to get out is "unprecedented." To make her case, she compares hers with two other supposedly extended campaigns -- her husband's and RKF's. But Bill Clinton was essentially unchallenged from March on. And RFK? He entered the race mid-March, so his campaign lasted less than three months.
Then she continues her campaign as long as possible -- ideally right through the convention -- all the while pressing themes already proven to weaken Obama's. Her methods:
• Play on powerful racism that in America lies barely below the surface by emphasizing Obama's weakness among white working-class voters.
• Stoke anger about her trailing position among her most ardent supporters -- older white women -- by using sweeping claims of sexist treatment instead of attacking specific sexist statements.
• Promote uncertainty about Obama's religious beliefs, but subtly so she doesn't get slammed. For example, when she was asked whether Obama is a Muslim, she equivocated with "No, as far as I know."
• Point out, along with McCain, Obama's lack of military service as evidence that he will be inexperienced and weak in dealing with our enemies -- not as tough as she and McCain would be.
• Make the full counting of the Florida and Michigan votes a moral necessity, increasing anger among those voters. Although these states would not appreciably affect the delegate count, giving them full voting rights would create havoc in the Democratic Party's 2012 campaign schedule.
• Resist as long as possible the inevitable coming together of the two campaigns, depriving Obama of time to consolidate his efforts and giving her more time to deepen resentment against Obama among her supporters.
As a 2008 strategy, when Clinton had a reasonable chance of becoming the nominee, each of these tactics made some sense. Negative campaigning, carefully designed, often works wonders. But now that it is clear to virtually everyone that -- barring some catastrophic event -- she will not be the nominee in 2008, her actions seem to make sense only as a 2012 strategy.
She is taking a big risk, to be sure. If she goes too far, she will be seen as one cause of Obama's failure -- another Ralph Nader. She must take care not to alienate those whose support she will most need in 2012. But if we are right, she will continue to come right up to the line but not cross it too often, fighting on and on through the convention in August.
If we are wrong, and we hope we are, Clinton will graciously withdraw next Tuesday night when all fifty states, Puerto Rico, and the territories have been heard. She can declare whatever victories she wishes. But at that point, she must join Obama, ask all of her supporters to throw their full energies in support of him, and do everything she can to help him become President of these United States.
Whether or not Clinton refuses to concede at this point, the remaining uncommitted superdelegates should declare themselves immediately after the release of Tuesday's results and the leadership of the Democratic Party should publicly declare that the people have decided who their nominee will be.
Richard R. Rowe, Ph.D. has been active in the Democratic party for many years, and served in 2003 as Director of the Internet and Information Services for the Dean for America campaign. He is a Senior Fellow of the Small Planet Institute and recently was Co-chair of the Transition Team on Technology for Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick.
Frances Moore Lappé of the Small Planet Institute in Cambridge, Massachusetts, is the author of sixteen books, most recently Getting a Grip: Clarity, Creativity, and Courage in a World Gone Mad.
Follow Frances Moore Lappe on Twitter: www.twitter.com/fmlappe
Loading comments…
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
My daughter will be 18 in 2012. She was outraged at Hillary tactics. Now, she doesn't want to see or hear anything about Hillary Clinton. There will be a lot more younger voters in 2012. They have watched the 2008 primaries. They will not forget and neither will their parents and grandparents.
Clinton has been LIVING past that line. There's no way our country would vote for her in 2012. Not just because most of her supporters will be dead, but also because she seems to have foregone all common sense, intelligence, integrity, and electablity. "I won the racist vote!" isn't going to get her far outside of the racist belt.
From what I hear she has lots of probelms with the people of NY and in CA polls Obama is beating McCain with a higher percentage than her. Maybe she needs to recheck with her big state argument.
If I were here and I had plans to run again I would save them for 2016 she'll be 68 by then so she can still run.
Carol
This has been my fear for weeks. Double up your efforts for Obama. We cannot let Hillary's political goals kill another four years worth of soldiers, Iraqis, Iranians, and shed blood of women having basement abortions. Obama 08. Fired UP AND Ready to go!
I came to this same conclusion when I read Jill Iscol's post the other day. For those of you who didn't read it, she made sweeping allegations of sexism with little or no substantiation, and then slammed the Democratic Party for not standing up for Sen. Clinton. Defending Clinton against those from whom the sexist remarks are coming is fine, but to then get women angry at the Democratic Party is counterproductive for a campaign that says it's committed to getting a Democrat elected in November. Iscol also failed to mention that she's a member of the Clinton campaign, which makes me believe that they are deliberately sending out low-level surrogates to divide the party with inflammatory rhetoric, while Sen. Clinton and the top brass avoid responsibility.
I didn't want to believe it either, but sadly, I think it's true.
I also read Jill's article and thought the same. However, I did not know she was a member of the Clinton camp. As much as I was appalled by the article, I found some relief in the readers' comments that challenged practically all aspects of it.
just who does she think will vote for her in 2012? after making such a mess and being such a sore loser in the primaries, if she doesn't jump right out and work HARD for Obama and make sure he's elected, then she doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell in 2012. Obama will be there for 8 years. he's surrounded himself with such smart and capable people that I'm confident a few women will come from his administration that will be far more able to run the country than hil is.
If Barack picks another woman for VP and wins the general, then Hillary will be headed to the icy plains of Antartica. Actually, Hillary destroyed any chance of being seriously considered as presidential material when she began her self-destructive campaign against the Democratic Party itself. No one trusts her anymore. Sadly, her devout followers are so upset, that they may let emotion get in the way of sound judgment and common sense and end up voting Republican or not at all. Then should McCain end up winning, those very same Hillary supporters will find themselves in much worse shape that they are right now. In fact, instead of "Change We Can Believe In", "change" is about all they would have left, give or take a few pennies.
I don't think she has another shot at this.
She has burned all her bridges within the party and her donor base has to be losing faith in her abilities. 2012 isn't an option - not as a Dem.
I think she'll suspend (instead of conceding) her campaign and go to the convention and endorse him half heartedly and then screw him out of anything she can. She HAS to get a cabinet position or something. She can't go back to the Senate.
But I'm not so worried about McCain - he's the GOP's sacrificial goat. They hate him. They've floated him and will cut him loose down the road - if he doesn't sink himself. I don't think the GOP wants the WH this time around...a
Obama has it. If he smashes McCain early enough - he won't need Hillary for diddly. IMO
Well said indeed, albeit a bit harsh on these misguided people! It is more than ironic that these very same "hardworking white Americans" are those who stand to lose most, if they succeed in defeating Obama. They are economically vulnerable, and can use some help from the kind of government that Obama has envisioned. Yet, they are currently so blinded by emotion or prejudice that they don't see their own interests. But I have great hope that Obama and his well-chosen advisers will be able to persuade them, once general election starts. He seems to be particularly good at helping people realize what they always knew deep inside, and convincing them that he's their best chance.
But still, irony irony irony, I can't get over the fact people throw their own interest out of the window readily, when a clever manipulator comes along and pushes the right button. More amazingly, they do this time and again too - Bush in 2000, 2004, the Clintons now! Absolutely breathtaking ...
It all in the hands of the superdelegates now. If they have any leadership abilities, they will step up and end this by Wednesday.
Hillary certainly declares herself 'brilliant'--or has her friends do it for her--about every 20 minutes, but objective evidence in support of her claim is much thinner on the ground. Can you think of any 'brilliant' thing Hillary Clinton has ever done, said, or merely thought loudly?
Me neither.
i would never vote for her for anything. the woman is shameless. and her husband is disgusting.
it doesnt really matter, or it wouldnt really matter what clinton's plan is.....its in the superdelegates hands now. they can all come out btw june 3 and june 5 and declare for a candidate. the pattern holds then obama will be the nominee next week no matter how they seat the delegates so if at that point hillary decides to run as an independent believe me she will never hold any elected office in this country. and democrats wont have any reason to tread carefully around the clintons cos they wont be democrats.
if the supers dont come out next weekand they drag their yellow feet then they are to blame cos its not up to clinton at this point, its up to the superdelegates.
nonetheless i remain hopeful that i will lose my voice sometime next week; i'll be screaming so loud when obama becomes the nominee!!! yay!!
I won't vote for her now, I won't vote for her in 2012 or any other year! She has lost any respect I might have had for her. She's proven herself to be dishonest and has run a wonderful republican karl rove campaign, she's NOT what this country needs, she represents business as usual and I think this country has suffered through enough of that. She's no better than bush, she can't admit mistakes or apologize either. NO THANKS TO HILLARY ANYTIME! She has no class or she would bow out gracefully before making more horrible, nasty comments.
i think you are absolutely right on the money here. the only way hrc can prove this to be wrong will be for her to exit around june 3rd otherwise her gameplan is clear. lay the groundwork for 2012.
of course if she doesn't resign, it's only a matter of time before the general media start to report on this as well, which will kill her support in the black community. that support is one she would need big time if she plans on succeeding in 2012.
so let's see what happens.
"WILL kill her support in the black community"?
Darlin', that support is ON support already! A failure to concede on the 4th or 5th, whenever she can get her thoughts together, will pull the plug.
What Party does she think she'll get the 2012 nomination from?
I don't see Democrats giving it to her, after her behavior this time around.
And even with an enormous head start in superdelegates going into the primary season, she still couldn't win this year. By 2012, there will be a lot of "fresher" Democrats that are stronger presidential candidates.
2008 is Hillary last best chance, and she knows it. That's why she won't let go.
Why wait til 2012 when she could win as an Independent in 2008? If the Dems push her out of the party as you suggest, they will be in for a rude Independent awakening.
Well, she could run as an independent in 2008, but she'll only get protest votes. Ron Paul, Huckabee, and Bob Barr will be draining protest votes from McCain. Clinton and Nader would drain protest votes from Obama. The remainder of Americans would be voting on McCain vs. Obama over who could best lead the country and congress. I must say, McCain doesn't seem like a break from the past in a time when people want it.
Sure hope she won't be looking for Independent votes, they despise her. She will get angry white working class women over 50. She can't even count on the Racists, McCain has a lock on that vote. So, unless she wants to further humiliate herself, she needs to do the right thing.
No one is pushing her out. She just lost. Why do some people seem to be having so much trouble seeing the difference between these two results?
she cant even win the bloody nomination. wat makes u think she will win an election?
The deadline to get on the ballot as an indie is long gone; the presidential election has 'sore loser' rules for exactly this situation.
In my opinion, this 2012 scenario is the only tolerable justification. I hope you're right.
My actual fear is that she's an ideological neocon as her voting record suggests, and is working to stop Obama as her donors want, rather than help herself.
If that is the case, crossing lines doesn't matter, and she can do far more damage than she already has.
If stopping Obama is the goal now that winning is impossible, both Clinton's may have resigned themselves to retiring on their millions, and aren't even hoping for another chance in 2012.
I would argue the damage they've done to themselves is beyond repair... calling into question the 2012 hypothesis.
I believe Senator Clinton will have a hard time having any political career at this point, never mind 2012...
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
