Here and There

In light of Mark Penn’s quitting as the Clinton campaign’s chief strategist, I’ve decided to lay out some arguments for anyone reading this who may still be a Hillary supporter.

I really want to look at this logically, and if you’re reading this and see any faults, please let me know. By asking for comments, I’m in no way trying to indicate that I think my logic is sound. I of course feel that it is, otherwise I wouldn’t put it forward as my argument.

Okay, let’s play a little game of question-and-answer:

Q: Given the near impossibility of Hillary Clinton’s achieving a lead in pledged delegates going into the DNC convention in August, and the almost total impossibility of Hillary Clinton’s being able to surpass Barack Obama in popular votes, why is she refusing to bow out?

A: She’s either a) hoping that by beating Obama to a bloody pulp over the Wright story, which can be done only by exploiting the racism of whites, Asians, and Latinos, she’ll be able to convince people in the 10 remaining states and territories that haven’t voted yet, by a margin of 4-1, that Obama is a terrible, terrible Manchurian-candidate type of candidate; b) she is the Manchurian Republican candidate, in the race to lure unsuspecting “Democrats” into supporting her, thereby thwarting public will; c) there’s a secret deal among the Democratic leadership and the two candidates that whoever ends up with the nomination, the other will “automatically” be the VP nominee, thereby uniting the party; d) she enjoys the humiliation of losing for a long time, versus graciously bowing out now and helping Obama take on John McCain, who, she has said repeatedly, would make a better president than Obama; e) she’s going to loan her campaign the $95 million Obama raised in February and March in order to catch up with him (hey, the Clintons have been involved in sketchy, stupid investments before; this would in no way break precedent).

Responses, one-by-one:

a) It has been admitted by top Clinton aides and strategists that a major (if not the main) part of their talks with superdelegates involves discussion of Obama’s former pastor, Jeremiah Wright. This is widely reported in liberal blogs. Not sure if the mainstream news runs it, because, frankly, I quit my NYT addiction after March 4. So, in a sense, this is what the campaign is doing: exploiting fear and racism.

But as a strategy, how exactly is this good for Clinton? How is it good for the party, when Clinton has beaten Obama so badly that, as the nominee, the Republicans only have to finish him off?

b) As much as I love reading and hearing about them, I don’t really believe in conspiracy theories. And that’s mostly because I know firsthand how difficult it is to organize any group of people larger than one. So, for there to be some kind of conspiracy of masquerading candidates, to me, is ludicrous.

c) I let myself think about this as a real possibility for about 12 seconds today, especially after Harry Reid’s recent declaration that, as early as July, the party would be united behind its nominee. But then, going back to the nearly impossible math presupposition, why would Clinton drag it out? Why would she have her aides engage in the type of attacks on Obama (see argument a), above) they have been?

I don’t know what exactly is behind Reid’s assertion, but I really don’t see any way that these two will be on the same ticket together, and well they shouldn’t. It’s my firm belief that Obama will be the nominee, and as formidable as some may believe her to be, Clinton is simply not a good choice for second fiddle.

d) This could be true. She entertained many years of humiliation as the wife of a cheating male politician. “Stand by your man” doesn’t mix well with a youth of feminism. Maybe she’s a glutton for punishment?

e) Stranger things have happened, but there’s no proof whatsoever that more money spent by Clinton would lead to her overcoming Obama’s lead in pledged delegates and popular votes.

Oh, and Obama’s catching up to her on superdelegates, too.

PLEASE, for the love of god, if you or someone you know knows of a reason Clinton is staying in the race (and I don’t want to hear “so that the voices of the voters in the remaining states can be heard. Some of those voices will vote for John Edwards, or Chris Dodd, for chrissakes), I want to know. Comment here. Please.