Speaking the truth is discouraged in Washington DC. For journalists there is the fear that truth telling will mean not being invited back for the next press conference or another exclusive interview. For political insiders the fear is that speaking up will injure their careers by costing them political appointment. This dynamic has helped keep the lid on the curse of the Clintons.
From the start of the 2008 primary campaign many political experts have believed Hillary Clinton would have difficulty winning the general election even if she sailed through the primaries. This is because polls have consistently shown she has exceptionally high negative ratings, which matters enormously as it is very difficult to win-over people holding negative views. The best that can be done is persuading them not to vote.
If winning were difficult before, current conditions make a Clinton general election win even less likely. Her slick assist in letting the race genie out of the bottle has alienated African-Americans, and without their turnout a Democratic win is almost impossible.
Equally importantly, should Senator Clinton manage to wrest the nomination from Senator Obama by insider dealings, she stands to alienate the young and independent voters that he has attracted. These voters will probably not vote for John McCain, but their enthusiastic support is also critical for a Democratic victory.
That begs the question of why Senator Clinton persists in running. One reason is hubris prevents her from acknowledging the political facts, so that she really believes she can win. A second more cynical reason is that Senator Clinton’s political ambition is best served by having a bruised and battered Senator Obama run in November, thereby facilitating a McCain victory. That would allow her to run again in 2012 on an “I told you so†platform.
For Democrats this is a terrible curse. If Clinton persists with her campaign, Obama is weakened in November. And if Clinton actually gets the nomination, Democrats stand to lose the election and also forfeit Senator Obama’s extraordinary political bequest.
In political science one of the best established facts is that the way a person votes the first time is a strong predictor of how they will vote the rest of their lives. Senator Obama has attracted droves of first time voters, setting up the prospect of a generation of Democratic political dominance. Depriving him of the nomination risks so disenchanting these new voters that they may return to political apathy. That would cheat Democrats of a bright future, which is something super-delegates with political futures of their own should ponder.
In the 1990s, when Bill Clinton turned his back on progressive politics, many speculated Hillary was the real progressive among the two. The reality is both are cut from the same cloth, which is marked by unbridled ambition and desire for power for power’s sake.
Bill Clinton lied under oath during the Lewinsky investigation. Senator Clinton lied about being under fire in Bosnia. Bill Clinton abandoned unions and working families with his promotion of NAFTA, free trade with China, and the elimination of the right to welfare assistance in hard times. Senator Clinton initially endorsed this policy legacy, and only changed her tune when John Edwards’ call for real change started gaining traction. Bill Clinton’s middle name is “triangulationâ€. Senator Clinton shamelessly sought to profit from Barack Obama’s casual observations about the link between economic disenfranchisement and “guns and bible†politics. In doing so, she showed a willingness to keep alive right-wing conservatives’ major wedge issue just to damage her rival.
The cruelest irony concerns women and women’s rights. Many women champion Senator Clinton as a defender of women’s rights, including the right to an abortion. However, her ambition is increasingly jeopardizing that right. Mrs. Clinton cannot win in November, and her refusal to bow out has done damage to Senator Obama’s prospects. That sets up the conditions for a McCain victory, the price of which will be the Supreme Court.
Truth telling is difficult in Washington, and the truth is also often stranger than fiction. When it comes to the Clintons, the truth is they have become a curse for Democrats and not an asset.
Copyright Thomas I. Palley
I never post replies on blogs, but this time I have to. You’re absolutely right. Please get this op-ed published in some major newspaper! Nobody else has said what needs to be said so clearly and persuasively.
It is interesting when you say that the “way a person votes the first time is a strong predictor of how they will vote the rest of their lives”. I primarily vote Republican, with the exception of a few local races where the Democrats run better candidates. The only way I will vote for John McCain this year is if Hillary runs. I cannot stand the Bill and Hillary Clinton and their grab for power (or the deterioration of American rights since 9/11). If Barack Hussein Obama runs, I will not vote for him, but neither will I vote for John McCain.
I object to this characterization of Hillary, and for that matter, Bill Clinton.
In the first place, over the last 20 years, there’s only one polititian on the national scene who has proved more popular with black voters than Bill Clinton, and that’s Barack Obama. Not because, you know, he’s spent any time courting them, though.
The Clintons try to point this out, and that’s labeled as racist. I don’t buy it.
Second, Hillary is staying in the race because she doesn’t believe it’s appropriate for her to stand aside for a younger man. He needs to win it. And he needs to learn to take a punch. I think he will win it. And when he does, it will be seen as “he won, fair and square, and everybody got to vote on it” That’s gotta be a good thing.
My personal frustration with Senator Clinton is not that she’s still in the race, but rather that her campaign is increasingly employing Republican attack tactics, which do little more than provide fodder for the general election.. If only she could focus her campaign on policy questions and important issues about personal values, etc, then the debate would truly strengthen Senator Obama and the Democrats’ message in general.. But alas, she is sticking to the destructive route, making me increasingly suspicious that she really is angling for a 2012 run…
To paraphrase that evil man, Bill Clinton, when they tell you to drop out, it’s because they’re afraid you’ll win.
Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com
While I would prefer that Barack Obama (I can’t remember his middle name, unfortunately) wins the Democratic nomination, I will support whoever the Democratic nominee is. Senator McSame is the last thing we need – 4 more years of George W. Bush (or will it be 100 more) will destroy this country.
I’m confused: you say that the black voters and the young voters are energized by Obama and necessary for a Democrat to win. (Let us leave aside the H(a) that eight years of W has convinced the median voter and then some that electing a Republican would be a Bad Idea and pretend, as you appear to, that this is 2000 again.)
Since they will turn out if Obama is the nominee (which appears inevitable), it would seem that queuing up for 2012 on an “I told you so” platform would be a poor strategy, since those blocs are mobilized and the rest of us are similarly unlikely to vote for John McCain, who appears more and more like Bob Dole without the grace and memory.
I’m with Doctor Jay. If Obama can’t take punches from the HRC campaign, he’s got no chance of doing so against the professionals of Ari Fleisher and the RNC. And, as Warren Zevon noted, “If you can’t take the punches, it don’t mean a thing.”
If she were really queuing for 2012, she would have dropped out and let the unseasoned Obama get bashed around in October and November. The campaign was probably telling the truth when they said the reason she stayed in the race is that they didn’t believe he could win.
Paradoxically, by staying in the race–Obama’s sparring partner, as it were–she’s probably ensured that he will win, even if H(a) is incorrect.