McCain in 2008 = Clinton in 2012
Allow me to do a little downbeat and wet-blanket prognosticating here, a bit of bad-boy forecasting in the "worst-case" rather than the "blue-sky" register. So get out your tea leaves and/or chicken entrails and read along with me. Please, I beg you, tell me why the following scenario won't in fact obtain--I'd love to be wrong about this. But my nagging gut, unfortunately, tells me otherwise, rebutting what my heart fancies.
Here goes: Incredibly, John McCain will win in November--despite a tanking economy, a spiraling national deficit, $4.50 summer gas prices, an ongoing "debacle" in Iraq, rampant Republican corruption, eroded civil liberties, and a campaign that promises to extend many of his predecessor's wildly unpopular policies. No matter. The Democrats will blow it. On paper, you would think that they would sail into the executive office. But the old-shoe white guy tortured war hero will defeat the upstart visionary-albeit-angry black man. Don't bet the ranch on the black guy, hoping against hope.
Plain and simple, Barack Obama won't win enough swing states. MoveOn.org can't deliver them to him. Nor can Oprah. The Clinton camp isn't going to oblige him with a sudden surge of gushing enthusiasm. For that matter, a grand post-convention rapprochement and de-embittering reconciliation between the Obama and the Clinton camps won't be happening anytime soon, even though Hillary and Bill will go through the motions, making nice for public purview, paying lip service to wishing Obama well and all that. But significant numbers--just enough where it matters--of Clintonistas, centrist Democrats, moderate Republicans, and fence-sitting Independents will peel away from risky Obama as November nears.
Obama's negatives are already rising. The McCain people and their shady surrogates will certainly compound matters by deploying every form of character assassination imaginable. Much mud will be slung, and some will stick--that's the whole point of mud slinging (memo to the above-board Obama: the technique works, don't be naive). The McCain people will surely be playing the guns, God, and gay cards--and they will be claiming that Obama has some pinko, effete, elitist, defeatist, terrorist-loving, tax-loving, ultra-liberal, anti-Pledge of Allegiance, anti-Flag-lapel-pin cards up his sleeve. Oh yes, then there's the abortion trump card, too.
Whispered insinuations will be quite enough to tip the balance. The McCain strategists will provide plenty of distractions and abundant rationalizations to convince enough white folks not to vote for a black man. Period. End of story. Alas.
Hillary knows the above. She sees the primary handwriting on the wall. She's nobody's fool. She's already looking to 2012. Thus she's now pursuing a scorched earth policy for the Democratic Party. She's denouncing the activists while belittling Obama and reserving her praise for McCain. Her current strategy betrays her clear intentions: She wants McCain to win in November (though she could never admit that publicly). She's looked at the chess board and has repositioned her pieces, plotting two or three moves ahead of the current match: McCain's winning the presidency in 2008 will virtually guarantee Clinton's winning the presidency in 2012--and then again in 2016.
McCain, she reasons, won't be a two-term president. He'll do nothing about Iraq and Afghanistan, except perhaps to dig us in deeper. He might bomb Iran's nuclear facility, or at least look the other way while Israel beats us to the punch. He will continue to support tax breaks for the rich, while doing nothing to rebuild the infrastructure of the U.S. economy. He won't be leading the way into a green future. He won't be spending his limited political capital on fixing our national health policy, our national educational policy, our national retirement policy, or even our national campaign finance policy. He'll likely need to work with a Democratic Congress--but he's not amicably collaborative by nature, and he'll blow up behind the scenes the first time he doesn't get his way.
Besides, McCain just wants to be president once. That's enough to satisfy his ego. He'll be too old and too tired for a second term (one need not be ageist against all older persons in order to conclude that McCain in particular, after a tough first term, will be too decrepit to vie for a second).
Hillary has thought this through. After becoming the Big Loser Who Couldn't Reverse Bush-ism in 2008, Barack Obama will not be the party's nominee in 2012. By then, Hillary will seem as if she deserves vindication and a second chance, and her off-putting airs of entitlement and superiority will have dissipated. For 2012, however, she won't pull an Al Gore and defer graciously to other candidates. Mark my words: She'll be running. We haven't seen the last of her presidential aspirations.
I don't know exactly what my bottom line here should be. By attending ruthlessly to Obama's obvious weaknesses against McCain in the general election, I'm not suggesting that Democrats should now drop him in favor of Clinton. Nor am I pushing the idea that the specter of a Clinton resurgence in 2012 after a McCain win in 2008 will somehow scare a good number of McCain-leaning Clinton-haters back into Obama's camp for now. I suppose the lesson is simply that the Democrats shouldn't let their wistful idealism overwhelm their savvy intelligence. Hope for the best, prepare for the worst. And if you find yourself forced to choose between cynicism and stupidity, don't be stupid.
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
Obama's campaign had been negative from the start. "No more Bush and Clinton Monarchy." To compare between the Bush and Clinton, Clinton Administration did way better than the Bushes Administration. Hillary Clinton won't run again, that's for sure. It's obvious it's the last of the Clinton's involvement in US government. Chelsea Clinton is not a politician, she didn't choose to. Back in the days, Kennedy family had run a few times for presidential race and wasn't called 'Kennedy Monarchy'. Obama has been twisting his definition of bitter for small town. I bet he's very bitter about Michigan and Florida Primary result. He wouldn't want it counted because his own opponent Hillary Clinton would get the lead and let his supporters say 'Hillary Clinton, drop out of the race.' When Hillary Clinton was leading the race, she didn't say or had her supporters say 'drop out of the race Obama.' The truth is, Obama don't care about the people's vote, he knows using race issue makes only all African-Americans to vote for him since it's been higher than 90% among them. 10% remaining knows that Clinton had helped them than forget. That's only his powerful attack 'you guys are racist because you won't vote for a black person.' So what does that say now about the black community? 90% not racist? Better Hillary 2008 > Obama 2016 (he's not that old, probably more experience, Wright no more.) > McCain 2024 O:)
jeezus, Clinton supporters really are insane, certifiably.
I get it. in the Clinton universe, negative must mean positive, where positive means negative. like the word "is" means "is" in the real universe, but in the Clinton universe it's open to interpretation.
weak attempts at projecting Clinton's weaknesses on Obama have only been backfiring.
it's ok if you don't support Hillary, Obama won't get my second vote unlike the first vote if he was the nominee. He's a disgrace turned bitter because he doesn't win the Big States. the first time i thought Obama was something new and different. Obama and Hillary aren't much of different, her policies has more to offer, except he's new. Since his plagiarism, he could've give credit to his friend's speech, made me think.. he wasn't being genuine. Whether his own speeches or his speechwriters are good at it because of that you question is he for real or a fraud. You don't say someone else works as your own without a quote. Then his own pastor controversy disgusted me. I've been to many churches and always tried to attend universal church because I support the idea of multi-cultural church instead of it's own race or ethnicity support only. Faith/Politics debate, I'm disappointed Obama doesn't know the answer to "When life begins at Conception
Mr. Seery says:
".........
I find it confounding that you have concocted a margin between 'cynicism' and 'stupidity'. I believe when you say the words together it would technically be considered a 'redundancy'.
Cynicism and stupidity.
Liberalism has nothing to do with success or failure. It is a posture borne of the imperative to push against status-quo
here-here. you put it much more kindly that i did below. but spot on!
LOLOL... I guess I over-played my hand... I had no intention to come off as "kindly". LOL
I'll let this quote play a little rougher:
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservati
John Stuart Mill (1806-1873).
that's stupid. Cynicism implicitly means you understand the facts of the matter. Stupidity implicitly means you don't. Trying to put the two together is like, well, putting "President" and "Obama" together.
It ain't working in either case.
well... stupid is as stupid misunderstands.
actually, "cynicism" has very little to do with your inane misdefinit
more accurately, I'll let The American Heritage Dictionary define it for you.......
cyn·i·cismn.
An attitude of scornful or jaded negativity, especially a general distrust of the integrity or professed motives of others: A scornfully or jadedly negative comment or act:
I noticed that you used the term "implicitly" to describe the definition you pulled-out of your ass... LOL... but sadly, such periphrastic vocabulation doesn't validate a failed invention of mindlessness.
LOL... better check your dictionary next time you try to pull an "implicit" definition out of your butt.
LOLOL... next time you try to pull an "implicit" definition out of your backside..
cynicism..
as for "stupid"..
If voters elect mccain, they will get what they deserve.
Here we go again. One more learned demographer pointing out how stupid and scared Americans are. Bending over backwards to salvage some semblance of relevance in a campaign were the conventional wisdom has almost always been wrong. Is it some revelation that Hillary is positioning her self for 2012? No. Do we know that the 80 IQ having, flag loving, NASCAR worshipers wont vote for the man of color? Yes. If I am getting this post correct it seems to be saying that we should nominate the candidate that dumb angry white people like. What an epiphany! It has worked so well for us in the past. What it doesnt take into account is that McCain is a lousy candidate in spite of what his worshipful press has to say about him. In fact the medias love of him is his greatest weakness. The MSM is as untrusted as Hillary herself. Once Hillary is out of the race the vast majority of those who have voted for her will vote for Obama. Also I would take issue with the characterization that centrists and independents are Hillary voters. That is classic Clintonista BS. The majority of crossover in this primary has swung to Obama. What we have here is the look at Ohio and ignore Wisconsin syndrome. The national trends are clear and contrary to the data that is offered in this post.
at this point that's her plan, but I don't see how it can happen.
if mccain wins, clinton will most likely not have a net gain of supporters between now and 2012. her old-age base will die off and she certainly has trouble inspiring the youth. in contrast, obama will most likely have a net gain in supporters by 2012. chalk that up to demographics and hillary's nasty campaign tactics. and in 2012, we will have to live through the same presidential race that we are living through this year - mccain, clinton, & obama.
obama came from behind this year and got more support than she did - a no-name against the most known name in american politics - and the same thing will happen in 2012, if mccain wins this year.
Hillary can not win. Accept it. I'm originally from a southern state and most of the conservatives HATE the Clintons. She won't win now; she won't win in 2012. All the dems have to do is tell people who McCain is, the only one from the Hanoi Hilton to confess, part of the Keating Five that bought you the S&L swindle, the guy obstructing justice by holding all the paperwork from the Abrahamoff scandal, A guy who can't tell the difference between Shia and Sunni (the key to understanding the culture of the middle east), a war profiteer, and filanderer. There's a lot more and this is just the start.
I am huge fan of Obama but if Nash McCabe and her unbelievable vetting process for prez are who Barack needs to relate to I just don't see how it is possible for him to win.
It is sad really. Reminds me of Churchill who said something like if you want to prove democracy is not good, talk with the average voter for 5 minutes.
I don't mean to sound elitiest, I just didn't think there were people who thought that way these days.
Good grief....B
The problem with Churchill's observation is that without democracy we'd be stuck with the average voter's "beer buddy" [final] choice forever.
That's the Clintons' strategy for sure, with the assumption that she is NOT a Democrat candidate but she runs for her OWN party with her fanatic supporters who will not vote for a Dem, then the Clintons' new party is being born.
If the Clintons running again in 2012, she will have to rely on the same group of supporters as now, but it has proved that is not enough to push her across the line. Also, who says Obama won't try again in 2012?
On the other hand if they, his supporters and Clintons', support the party's nominee then they have to trust whoever won the nomination and not vote for McCain.
Also, if voters want politicians to play dirty politics as the Republican is famous for, so be it. Voters have control over what to believe and make their own judgement or they will get what they deserve. This election is unlike others in that the movement for change is from the bottom up, not from the top down.
Correct John. That is indeed HER strategy at this point. She's already lost the 2008 primary and is working on the 2012 GE.
But, it just means that we have to try harder to get Obama elected. 40% of the electorate historically do not vote. They are the largest block of potential votes in America. If Obama can bring 20% of those people to the polls in Nov he will trounce McCain and rewrite the governing coalition. And that is HIS strategy.
Our nation is at a cross-roads. We've been here before. YES WE CAN. But will we?
Everyone is so scared of the Republican attack machine. All this worrying about what the Republicans will do makes Democrats seem weak. What did you think that the Republicans were just going to hand the WH over to the dems without a fight? There is plenty to go after McCain with and not just substantive issues. McCain will be about ready to flip out in response to the ads that will be run against him by the first debate. Its going to be a battle one I think Obama or even Hillary can win. This has less to do with polls and everyting to do with turn out, and clearly the energy is on the democrats side by far.
I think Obama has already given us a sign of how he would handle the Republican attack machine in his response to the debate. Basically he laughed at it while brushing the detritus from his shoulders. I'm beginning to think that's the silver bullet for Republican hate mongers like Rove and O'Reilly. Call them out for what they are and what they're trying to do and have a good belly laugh doing it.
C'mon now try it everyone! It'll drive them nuts.
The views expressed by this author are not entirely misplaced but his assumptions are premised on cause and effect, as if human behavior is always rational and linear and devoid of indeterminate and unforeseen circumstances. First, Hilary would rather prefer to campaign until the convention in August but she is going to be overtaken by events beyond her control such as cash-flow problems, self-interests of diverse stakeholders within Democratic Party and the uproar that will follow, even among her inner-circle of friends and strategists. Her campaign is going to end sooner than most expected and cannot exceed first week in July.
Furthermore, Senator Obama is highly under-estimated and under-rated politician but such beliefs are due to errors of the intellect. Republican campaign against Obama is going to be based centrally on drivers of patriotism. After Obama’s nomination, his first port of call will be well-reasoned, well-crafted and well-delivered nationally televised speech on patriotism and how it has been used and perverted for political gains with the outcrop of divisions and polarizations within the polity that has rendered political and economic progress a nullity. Think about this for a moment. How many politicians living or dead could have survived Rev. Wright’s boilerplate issues? That will show you how rare a politician Senator Obama is. Enough said but time will tell. It is regrettable that the Clintons are on a self-destructive political mission that will be beyond repair.
All Obama has to say is that he's one of the few in today's modern culture to live The American Dream, and he thinks others should have the chance. Among the three candidates he has the most reason to be patriotic, he wasn't born with a silver spoon in his ass like the others. All those lapel pins are from China, anyway.
The depth of reasoning from "pundits" here like you and Mayhill is similar to that found in a kiddie pool. You exclude inconvenient facts so you can be more "inciteful" than "insightful".
Democratic turnout during the primaries has been dwarfing Republican 2-1. In some cases, Obama has received more votes than all the Repubs combined.
Since you skipped over this trivial fact, elections are won by the one who gets the most votes per state. If more voters turn out for Obama than McCain in a state, Obama wins that state.
Please provide data on any of the primaries where the total Repub vote in a swing state was greater than the total Dem vote (BTW, you would have to make such numbers up since it never happened).
Lastly, you are so out of touch if you think the majority of Dems are not through with Hillary and The Clintons. You also are oblivious to the huge flaw in your argument, if I was to suspend my disbelief in mathematics and imagine that McCain was to be elected and fail as you describe, ANY solid Dem could beat such a disastrous president, bringing back the Hillary minefield would be totally unnecessary.
Even if Clinton comes back in 2012 she still won't win that race. This may be their idea of what is going to happen but I doubt very seriously anyone who has lost their home, paying high prices for gas and food are going to forget her methods this time around. Any democrat would win against her in 2012......
I think Hillary Clinton's reservoir of good will end in 2008. She may wound Obama, I have no doubt about that, but she will not have the support of the democratic base to run in 2012. She's no Al Gore. The party base will not see her as a victim i.e. Bush v. Gore. I surely would never vote for her under any circumstances.
"......And if you find yourself forced to choose between cynicism and stupidity, don't be stupid....
... and "you" think that cynicism and stupidity aren't the same thing? I beg to differ....
Stupid is as cynics do.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
