Sunday, May 4, 2008

Andrew Sullivan is not cynical enough about Hillary

For possibly the first time ever, I find myself surprised that I am more cynical about Hillary than Andrew Sullivan. At the Times (of London, not NY or LA), he suggests, apparently because he hasn't received enough inflammatory email in the last few days, an Obama-Clinton ticket. I disagree, and find myself in the odd position of finding a hole in his argument because he doesn't go as far as I do in attributing unfortunate power-hungry motives to Clinton. He wonders why she is still in the race:

There are three main theories behind Clinton's refusal to acquiesce to mathematics: she simply cannot tolerate losing a nomination she believes she has a dynastic right to; she is trying to ensure that Obama loses in 2008 in order to run again herself in 2012; or she wants to be offered the vice-presidential spot on an Obama-led ticket.

I can think of a fourth, which is in line with Sullivan's usual reasoning about the Clintons. If she doesn't win this time, it's all over for her. The people who are loyal to Hillary have many reasons for being so. Many people genuinely admire her. Many people find her inspiring. But within the Democrat party, there are many people who are loyal to her out of fear. They are afraid that if she wins the nomination and the general election, and they do not support her, she will be in a position to exact revenge. Obama is an unknown quantity; it's still risky to support him. He might very well lose Indiana and/or even North Carolina. And they can wait until the last minute to support Obama; he's not in a position to exact revenge on anyone for not supporting him, and that's not his style.

But if Hillary does lose the nomination, many of the people who have supported her out of fear of retribution will jump ship very quickly. And once they're gone, they are gone forever. If Hillary loses this time around, she will just be the junior Senator from New York. Many, many people will suddenly decide that maybe they don't really want to invite her over for dinner. Or they have some problem co-sponsoring some piece of legislation she's introducing. Or maybe they have something else to do when Bill is giving a speech in their hometown. She will not have any ability to exact revenge, other than whatever power she has as one of 100 Senators. Which is nowhere nearly what she would have as President.

So Hillary has to run as hard as she can, because this is an all-or-nothing proposition for her. If Obama gets the nomination, she has to campaign for him as hard as she can. First of all, if he does win, then he owes her. But if he loses, then many people will blame her for damaging him during the primary campaign. All of the people who were loyal or supportive out of fear will be very reluctant to have anything to do with her. Bill will keep giving speeches and writing books and giving away money, and she will keep plugging away in the Senate. What will she do as junior Senator from New York? She'll propose some legislation, she'll work for her constituents, she'll engage in fundraising for herself and her fellow Democrats. She might move up to chairing a committee, but not for at least another election cycle, if ever. She might become majority leader, but at this point, I'm not sure many people would go for that. She'll never be able to run for President again. She started out this time with a huge advantage in superdelegates. That won't happen again.

Sullivan thinks that Obama should choose Hillary as his running mate because she will be dangerous as long as she's around, period. I disagree. He writes that "what we've seen in this campaign is how resilient the Clintons are and how dangerous they will be to any Democratic president who isn't beholden to them." But people are beholden to Clintons only as long as they are capable of threatening them. If Obama is the nominee, that threat dissipates into the aether.

Many people also supported Hillary because they thot that she would be a great candidate: smart, competent, ridiculously well-connected, and blessed with a husband who is a strategic and tactical political genius. But most of those qualities have been called into question. She's smart, yes, but competent? Not as much as we thot. Her baggage, meanwhile, has proven to be much more problematic than even her opponents suspected. Those who doubted her ability to connect with voters have been proven right; she has connected with some people, but she has also alienated many people, including quite a few who, like me, were big fans of Bill. And those on the left who considered Bill to be a Republican-lite have seen their arguments validated. She has done an immense amount of damage to herself in this campaign. Far more than anyone anticipated. Lots of people are going to breathe a big sigh of relief when Obama clinches it.

If she loses, she loses all the way. Most of her power will evaporate in a matter of days, if not hours. She may still have a great deal of influence on some of the people who voted for her in these primaries, but very little in the Democratic party. Then most of the rest of her power will be gone on a Wednesday morning in November, regardless of what happens on the Tuesday after the first Monday. Worst case scenario? If Obama loses, he's still in a great position to run in 2012. The biggest criticism of him is that he's inexperienced. That will be less of an issue in another four years. Hillary has done too much damage to her own reputation to be able to run again.

As for Vice President? I don't think she would want it. Again, it's an all-or-nothing proposition for her. Even if she is Vice President, she would not have an essential part of the power that she wants, which is to exact revenge on those who have crossed her. Obama would not allow it. Which would be frustrating for her. So being VP does nothing for her. As for offering her the health care portfolio? That would be exactly the wrong message for Obama to send. He wants to move beyond the old divisions - giving Hillary health care would be the worst possible way to do that. Talk about opening old wounds. The absolutely last thing anyone - on either side - wants is to relive the disaster of Hillarycare.

Sullivan argues that she brings her constituents, particularly women, and working class voters. But Obama will lose many, many people by bringing her on board. African American voters in particular will be disappointed. Sullivan suggests that if Obama makes Hillary his VP, "It would even help heal the gulf that has opened up between the Clintons and black voters in this campaign." That's highly doubtful. It almost sounds like wishful thinking. On this point, I think Sullivan is rather naive. A black woman in my office explained to me that Hillary has disrespected the black community, and that is essentially unforgiveable. Her response to the idea that Hillary might win the nomination? "I've got my passport ready." The African American community supported Bill Clinton through thick and thin for many years. They feel that he has stabbed them in the back. They will not accept either of the Clintons back. As long as there is another viable option, many, many black people will be happy to see the Clintons fade into the sunset. As will many people in the Democratic party. Particularly those who hold elected office.

No comments: