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.

Comments

[SarcastroBO]

Clinton is going to become a pariah if the democratic party loses this election. I think you forgot that fact.

[maggieb]

Yes because if Obama cant close the deal it becomes Hillary's fault. "The dog ate my homework." Surprise, surprise, Clinton has already become the Pariah of the Democratic party, why then would they support a candidate who continously say that the Clinton presidency of the 90's was insignificant. The writer is so correct, the wounds wont heal in time for some Clinton supporters to rally behind, Mr I cant close the deal. He is running around saying that for 45 minutes in the last debate he had to field questions about non-issues, but when he got questions relating to real issues, he couldn't answer those either. Pity they cannot script him answers for the debates he will need to have in the Fall with John McCain, "my friends."

[ATruthBeKnown]

If we lose this election America desires it and that includes maggieb. And yes, it will not be Billary's fault. If we let it happen, shame on us.

Please note we ARE NOT just giving the Whitehouse to Hillary we are re-electing BILLand approving ALL of his behavior. Give that some thought ...More Monica's ... not counting the one's in the past seven year's....­.Give that some thought...­.

[klondiker]

I agree that if Obama loses to McCain, Clinton will be able to play the "See, I told you so" card in 2012. And Dems, having being bitten once will probably be more likely to listen to Clinton's "I can withstand the right wing fire" argument.


But, we should also keep in mind that plans seldom work out so cleanly. We shouldn't be so quick to say that if McCain wins, Clinton is virtually guaranteed to win 2012. Remember, back in 2004, everyone said that the Clintons don't really want Kerry to win because if Bush wins in 2004, then Clinton is guaranteed in 2008. But, out of nowhere, Barack Obama came along. Who knows what 2012 will hold?

[dvdpt]

I agree

[kavehdabashi]

agreed. if obama loses in november, people will all point the finger at hillary and she'll have a tough time in 2012.

and you know what? in 2012 there will be ANOTHER obama. not the same man, but the same type of politician -- young, inspiring, intelligent and composed. he/she will have less baggage than barack, and will carry the election. obama has broken ground for a new kind of democratic candidate.

candidates like hillary are done.

[Herrington]

So what's your point, Democrats are dumb? That necessarily begs the question of what it would take to make Democrats smart. Perhaps acting more like Republicans seems to be the implied answer.

The author seems to say that it is never possible for Democrats to win because we are too idealistic, and the only way for Hillary to win is to be more Republican than the Republicans. This kind of short circuits history.

I know for a fact that there have been real Democratic Presidents in the past. I also know that mud slinging has been around since the Magna Charta. The poster overlooks the simple fact that mud only sticks when nothing else matters.

With 81% disapproving of the direction of the country, there is more than ample material to work with. All that needs to be done is to keep the debate on issues instead of personalities and it’s a blowout. McCain is a sympathetic figure, but then so is Obama, so on personality and personal history, it is an effective tie.

So this leaves the RNC with the problem of coming up with an election changing strategy. The strategy will be, as always, slinging mud to turn off the idealists on the other side while their core voters show up and carry the day. This is all they do, ever. It is not genius.

Obama is consistently winning the knife fight that Clinton started. The polls show it.

[Desiderata]

The press want a fist fight in a caged ring. Obama won't hit a lady. When it's man to man with McCain, Obama will not pull his punches.

[Phaedrus21]

I don't know that it's so much "Obama won't hit a lady" as much as "Obama won't hit a fellow Democrat". He knows that attacking Hillary is bad for the party AND will alienate her supporters (who's votes he needs in November).

I'm hoping that once his opponent is a Republican that he will feel free to alter his tactics.

[loper2008]

Now I can't predict an Obama win, but I think this writer is wrong. He doesn't take into account the incredible enthusiasm that the Obama campaign has channeled nor the incredible amount of anger among progressives and even Independents. When you look at voter turnout for the primaries it is not very likely that any Republican can win. Also, Obama is a money making machine to be reckoned with. McCain will never come close to his numbers.

Your argument that Obama can't win because his negatives are going up is weak, because what about HRC, whose negatives are so high she couldn't win the majority of anything. If John Kerry can have a close race with George W. Bush, Obama can beat McCain. Nobody really liked John Kerry and Bush had the hardcore lovers on his side. Tell me where is the love for John McCain?? Oh yeah, there is none. Even his Mom said Repubs had to hold their noses and pick him.

Abortion is not going to be a huge issue. Plus, a majority of Americans think abortion should be legal. The ones who don't would vote Republican every time, or like some members of my family, don't vote on the issue because they are progressive in every other way. So overall, this writer has a weak argument. If this were any other year maybe these wedge issues would work, but not this year.

[larry278]

Even if Slick Willy really made an effort to support BHO, remember, he's remembered for getting lip service not giving lip service. Willy never has been called Col Lindquist or Phil Otto, yet.
l lynch

[Demosthenes]

I think you drink too much coffee and watch way too many movies. When Sen. Clinton exits the race in the next few weeks, she will then strongly campaign for Sen Obama. With her negatives, she knows 2008 is her last chance to be President. Nevertheless, Sen. Clinton wants to advance her career in the Senate, and will make amends. I know all of us, in the heat of the primary battle may think Sen. Clinton is total unmitigated evil, but she isn't. She's just a flawed person and candidate.

I am not a Clinton supporter, in case you think I'm one. I live in Illinois and have voted for Obama ever time his name has been on the ballot, including in this year's primary.

[DJShay]

You say you're forecasting, but it sounds like your mind is already made up that this, in fact, will be what will happens in November. You also say you're not suggesting that Dems drop Obama in favor of Clinton, but it sounds like that's exactly what you are suggesting. At least be honest about it. I have one thing to add though. This seems to be the same thing that was said about Bill Clinton in regards to the Republican attacks way back when, and he went on to win. There are several long months ahead before the election. Way too early to start reading tea leaves now.

[Countess]

Clinton is a right wing slimy candidate who doesn't merit any serious consideration in 2008 nor in 2012. She has built a coaltion of the most reactionary elements in the democratic party which she wants to transform into a neocon alternative to the republicans. Who in their right mind wants to go from George W. Bush to Hillary Bush.?

[ebbtide]

I hope I never see a Clinton on the ballot in the future. That includes, the liar as prompted by her parents, Chelsea. I hope they will just fade away in ignomy., and that Hillary loses in her next bid for Senator from New York.

[dvdpt]

Hillary Cliton is through she is a liar, and corrupt HillBill Clinton have been indited and will
be going to court in the next few weeks for corruption ! You tell me how she is going to continue
to be a canidate ! she will never get to the White House let alone the senator of New York !

[BadChristian]

Well put, but I don't think that the Clintons are going to take it in 2012.

I think it's a good time to start a party that will work to get the urban archipelago united, restart urban economies, fix urban public schools, and start getting small community based businesses competitve with the giant boxes which are taking over the world.
Generally, let the Democrats go on trying to become the suburbanites riding lawn mower that wants to grow-up to be a farmers tractor...
It started as rural vs urban... With these two parties, it's now suburban vs rural... Or maybe sub-rural vs rural is more accurate.

[tompoe]

Sounds like wishful thinking at its utmost. McCain will be lucky to get 30% of the vote in November. It's time for change, or have you not watched food prices skyrocket (World Bank reports 80% increase in last 3 years). Guess which party/admi­nistration allowed that on their watch.

[BadChristian]

I hope you're right.

But I have been dead shocked at way the Republican Party has been able to sell the suburban communities ever since Reagan.

[argyle73]

Not only do I think you are correct in your prediction, I can't wait to see the Democratic train wreck when it happens. Most moderate Democrats will prefer McCain to Obama, who (as his wife put it) wants to "change our souls" and create a new, just society by redistributing wealth and playing identity politics. Wake up Democrats! When was the last time a quasi-Marxist democrat was elected? When was the last time a liberal Democrat was effective as President? .....(sile­nce).... yes, that is what I thought.
If the party does not make room for those who lean towards libertarianism, then that group of people will eventually split off, leaving the Democrats even weaker. If the party wants to cater towards people who are infatuated with Franz Fanon, liberation theology, Marx, and are concerned that they may look as if they are "sell outs", I suggest the Democratic party stick to college campuses, kids in their 20s, and academics.

This is what everyone gets for acting like teenage girls at a Beatles concert. Next time, maybe people will get to know someone before falling in love with him. Obama should have been out of this race a long time ago. It should have been either Clinton or Edwards.

[KareninSM]

If you would actually bother to learn something about Senator Obama, you might see that he is the closest thing to a libertarian the Democratic Party has had running for a long time. This is one reason why so many Republicans are comfortable with him.

[DJShay]

Thank you Bill Kristol.

[randl1999]

"Quasi-Marxist"?? Is that how you wingnuts refer to anyone not an old white guy neocon? Get a life, a vocabulary, and most of all, a better grasp of what "democracy" means!

[mbshults]

Yeah, you are right! Everybody should be scared. But you got the source wrong. Everybody should be afraid of wingnuts like you that got Bush elected. You wouldn't know a Marxist if it bit you. But that is OK, keep selling fear, snake oil pedder.

[Fabienne]

When was the last time anyone was effective as President?

[ckemp]

I'm sure you're right about Clinton's plans for 2012; in fact, the "fight to the convention" is likely to extend into the "fight to the inauguration,", which will then re-platform as the '12 campaign--whether Obama wins or not. For people who think that she won't try a 2012 run even if Obama wins, think again. However, for those who think the democratic party is going to let her come this close to the nomination again, no matter who wins in 08, again, think again. The "dissipation" scenario is a fantasy, and Bill is a clear liability in any circumstances.

The case for a McCain win over Obama is the same one against Obama that people have been making for more than a year now. The case for the implausibility of his success even *he* makes, on the stump. This has not stopped him, or, more accurately, us. The big implausibility in all this, past and future, is the potential of the American electorate. It's surprised us so far, and we'll see how it goes. But the scenario you paint is our loss, a real one, just like the ones we took over the Iraq invasion, the torture, the detainment, the Bush v. Gore decision, the uninsured in this country. We'll be the people who are properly represented by McCain and not Obama. If that's who we really are, we'll find out soon enough.

[mbshults]

I also agree that this is likely Hillary's plan. It makes too much sense. I have really been wondering why she spends so much time praising McCain and have wondered this same thought myself. She isn't trying to beat Obama, she is trying to destroy him. Sad that she would put her own personal ambition ahead of the needs of this country.

[Fabienne]

The Clinton campaign has already decided singlehandedly that 2200 in now the amount of delegates needed to win the election rather than 2025, because that's the amount that would be needed were Florida and Michigan seated. This leads me to believe that they are clueless enough to take this all the way to the convention, being too narcissistic to know that this will destroy their legacy.

[tomcj]

I agree with the scenario for 2008. However, I think Hillary is badly over-estimating how many of us who voted for The Clinton's (I did twice) now despise her

In 2012, McCain will have appointed at least two very right wing SCOTUS Justices, probably younger and more right wing than Roberts and Alito.

A majority of the Democratic Party will remember all of her endorsements of McCain.

For Hillary, it is this year or never. The Way of The Clinton's is to destroy, equivocate, and lie.

Karma willforce everyone to see Hillary and Bill for what they are:

The Clinton's, a money-making corrupt pair of poseurs whose minimal accomplishment per lie and compromise make me ashamed I ever voted for either of them one time, much less both twice each.

[BillZBubb]

That is a very likely scenario--at least the part where Obama loses to McCain. His poor showing against a very weak Clinton campaign in the big states should trouble any thinking Democrat. If Obama loses the Pennsylvania primary to Clinton at this late date, his chances in the general election are zero. For reasons beyond Obama's control, he'll lose to McCain.

But, your second part, where Hillary Clinton wins in 2012, is a stretch. She will have to learn from her terrible performance in this year's primaries--and the reasons for it. She can't be a senator who votes for more right wing crap like the Iraq War Resolution or Kyl-Lieberman and still have a shot in 2012.

If she returns to the senate and becomes a real leader against neocon imperialism and folly, fights for the Democratic base on economic issues, and repairs her image with the left, then maybe. That's a lot of iffy stuff from Hillary.

[RAND7044]

Big state weakness, thats crazy. How about running against a formerly popular former ex-president in machine states. Regardless what happens in november, to do what he has done is nothing short of remarkable. Lets assume that he losses to Clinton in Pa BIG. If he is the nominee, is it your arguement that he wont retain at least half her voters in the general. Thats crazy. Your tell me women in Pa, are going to vote for a anti-abortion war monger. WTF? That doesn't even com close to making sense. Also she burned far to many bridges to have a remote shot at the nomination in 2012. Caucus states, African Americans, young voters, Latte liberals, small states, and now MOVEON activist, did i leave out anyone that she didn't insult. No way in hell her opponent in 2012 will ever let her live those insults down. They will be on constant loop on you tube as well.

[Fabienne]

I would prefer her not to be Senate Majority Leader. How can she fight against neocon imperialism when she is a neohun herself? Did you not take account of her "nuclear umbrella" and "massive retaliation" remarks in the last debate? This outBushes Bush.