Tweety Question: Do the Clintons prefer Obama or McCain to be the next president?

[sfam]

Tweety flat out said that pretty much nobody believes that the Clintons prefer Barack Obama to win two terms vice McCain winning just once. Pretty much everyone on the show agreed that they think Hillary and Bill would far prefer McCain winning once and then leaving a window open to her in 2012 versus Obama winning two terms while becoming the hero of our times. They just didn't think she was that "sacrificial" - that they believe the Clintons are engaging in a scorched earth campaign right now for the purpose of leaving 2012 open.

This is a fairly large indictment, either to MSNBC or to the Clinton campaign. The fact that regular pundits to a person (granted, this is a limited sample) pretty much take as common knowledge that the Clintons would rather drag Obama down to a losing position so they would have a chance again in four years is truly damaging. It really does give credence to the concern many of us have that at this point the democratic race is truly damaging our chances in November. Whether we can recover or not is a point of debate that clearly many of us will differ on, but if we have MSM folks pretty much in agreement that the democratic party is working hard to self-destruct, this can NOT be seen as a good thing.

Regarding the question, I would be interested in hearing from either Obama supporters who don't believe this about Hillary, or Hillary supporters who agree that Hillary would prefer McCain for one term to Obama for two. I'll take a given that a good bit of Obama's supporters believe the worst about her while Hillary supporters believe the best.

[Vinca]

1. It's a valid question. If they mortally wound Obama so he can't

run in 4 years, she would have another opportunity. The Clintons have lost every bit of respect I had for them . . . and it was a considerable amount.

[Tom Rinaldo]

2. Tweety is a shill for Obama, his kid works for Obama's campaign

and he has not made any pretense of his hate for the Clintons. This is a current anti-Clinton talking point and it is BS.

[sfam]

7. Well again, pretty much everyone there agreed with him, so really you're saying all of MSNBC is...

This may be true, but again, its a fairly damming statement, either for MSNBC or to the Clinton campaign. Here are a group of five pundits who flat out believe to a person that Hillary would prefer that Obama lose so that she will get another chance in 4 years.

[Medusa]

20. But it's the truth

and in your heart, you know he's right, to coin a certain phrase from a former flame of Hill's.

[Tom Rinaldo]

27. No I don't, And I have a whole thread already devoted to explaining

exactly why he is wrong and why he is acting like a political hit man hack on this very point.

Here is the link:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5231289

[Cassandra]

24. The problem is...

I begin to see, through the Clintons' words, why Tweety has been so disillusioned with them. I think he dearly wants a liberal candidate to hero-worship and he has reacted to the Clintons' way of politics like a jilted lover. Imagine the race this could have been if both candidates had been competing on the basis of who could better beat up on McCain, instead of each other.

[jakem]

3. McCain

Destroying the party is her only chance to grab power in 2012.

[gaiilonfong]

4. Hillary will NOT be the nominee in 2012 BECAUSE she is doing this

If Obama gets the nom and he loses, which HE WON'T...the Clintons will be run out of the Dem party along with Mr Mary matlin and Penn/Rove/Wolfson


So she better watch what she hopes for....She will ALSO LOSE her senate seat!

[sfam]

12. I don't think she loses her senate seat over this, but I absolutely agree that...

if they perception is that Obama lost in large part to her campaign strategy after the race was pretty much decided, no way does she get the party regulars behind her.

[DevonRex]

43. I agree with you.

She might lose her senate seat as well. The backlash will be huge.

[babylonsister]

5. Glad you asked, and Tweety's not the only one asking this:

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/03/24/does-clinton-want-obama-to-lose.aspx

Does Clinton Want Obama to Lose?



Last week, the Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias suggested that Hillary Clinton may want Barack Obama to lose the general election. The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum, an Obama supporter who often defends Clinton, replies, "she's not rooting for John McCain and she's not secretly plotting Barack Obama's downfall."

Who's right?

Obviously, it's impossible to know for sure either way, since it's a question of motive. I think Clinton's political interests clearly militate toward a harsh campaign against Obama. Her only chance of winning is to disqualify him as a general election candidate, giving the superdelegates no chance but to contravene the elected delegates, which they are otherwise reluctant to do. This also serves her interests because if Obama loses, she would be the front-runner in 2012. (Drum asserts, "It's either 2008 or nothing for Hillary," but he doesn't say why, and the assertion seems wrong on it's face -- she won't be too old in 2012, her Democratic fanbase wil remain intact, and her interest in the presidency will presumably be undiminished.)

Now, is Clinton actively thinking along these lines? Like I said, you can't know. Even if she's thinking in selfless terms, I'm not certain she would regard a John McCain victory over Obama as a total disaster. Senators tend to be very clubby and place enormous weight on paying dues. Clinton is said to consider Obama unworthy of the presidency, and indeed has said that McCain is ready to be commander-in-chief and he is not. She may not think a McCain presidency would be much worse for the country than an Obama presidency. I definitely suspect her chief strategist, Mark Penn, would prefer a McCain presidency. Penn is right-of-center on foreign policy and economics. His loyalty to liberalism is extremely tenuous.

But this is speculation. An easier question to answer is, How much does Clinton value her own interests versus those of the Democratic Party? And here the answer is very clear: Clinton is acting as if she doesn't care about the Democratic Party's interests at all, except insofar as they coincide with her own. Her continued campaign is significantly damaging Obama's general election prospects, and this would perhaps be defensible if she had a strong chance at the nomination, but she doesn't. As Politico recently reported, "One important Clinton adviser estimated to Politico privately that she has no more than a 10 percent chance of winning her race against Barack Obama, an appraisal that was echoed by other operatives."

To inflict serious damage on the likely nominee in order to pursue a one-in-ten chance of securing the nomination is, ipso facto, an act of extreme selfishness. Whether she sees the damage to Obama's prospects as a feature or a bug is interesting but beside the point.

--Jonathan Chait

[C_U_L8R]

6. Remember how much they supported John Kerry ??

Neither do I.

[Arkansas Granny]

34. If I recall correctly, President Clinton had quadruple bypass surgery

on September 6, 2004. http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/06/clinton.bypass/index.html

I also recall President Clinton campaigning with John Kerry October 26, 2004. http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/25/clinton.monday/

I'm guessing that this might have somewhat curtailed his activities in Kerry's campaign.

I don't recall Senator Clinton actively campaigning for John Kerry but she addressed the Democratic National Convention in support of John Kerry. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16551-2004Jul26.html

[Drachasor]

8. I don't think that's true (Obama Supporter)

I think the Clintons are just so incredibly focused on the primary that they refuse to consider the ramifications of their actions in the GE. It has been repeatedly said by Hillary and Bill that they focus only on the election they are in, and I take them at their word on that. Certainly this has a side effect of trying to undermine Obama in the GE so they can win the primary, but I think the real focus is solely on the primary itself.

Otherwise they'd realize they were alienating more and more voters with their tactics, especially Obama supporters, of course. They'd also realize that giving many sound bites for Republicans to use in the fall is a hideously bad strategy and bad for Democrats as a whole. I can only assume they refuse to consider any of these facts, I don't believe they are so evil that they don't care for the people who will die of McCain is elected instead of Obama.

[sfam]

10. This is a fair interpretation. They could just be living in a vaccuum...

who knows...

[southern_belle]

9. On Hardball yesterday

Eugene Robinson, Nora O'Donnell, Chuck Todd all agreed Hillary would prefer Obama lose to McCain! Link: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/24/183234/958/684/483426

[sfam]

11. That makes 8 MSNBC pundits...

Its starting to look like common knowledge, which, whether true or not, certainly points to the damage this campaign is currently doing to our chances, whomever you support.

[ekwhite]

16. The fact that Eugene Robinson and Chuck Todd agreed is especially troubling

Those two are fairly straight shooters. If they are saying it, it must be fairly common knowledge.

[sfam]

17. Agreed. You have to wonder what the other networks think of this idea...

I wouldn't be too surprised to see CNN take this issue up, or potentially the Sunday morning talk shows. If its become this level of "common knowledge" on MSNBC, chances are pretty high that it becomes a regular MSM conversation point in the next few weeks.

[rusty_parts2001]

21. Robinson has been in the tank for Obama

since Iowa. No news there. Todd maybe another story or he's drunk the MSNBC Koolaid so long now he may have lost his objectivity.

[Tom Rinaldo]

38. I read somewhere else that Todd was the only one who did not go along

I didn't see it personally. Is there a transcript up yet?

[goclark]

44. You are right,Eugene and Chuck usually

are the voices of sanity in that group of Non Inclusive knowitalls.

[Tom Rinaldo]

32. In addition to referring people to my own thread on this topic

which I did in a post above, the entire rational behind this line of attack on Hillary is fatally flawed. If she in fact thinks Obama would lose this election to McCain, and that she did not have a plausible chance of winning the nomination herself, she would be dropping out right now. If she dropped out now, the impact of her doing so would win her a great deal of sympathy and it would inoculate her against accusations that it was her fault that Obama could not defeat McCain.

Sure, there would be some who would continue to blame Hillary if Obama lost, but that would be a much smaller number of Democrats blaming her for his loss than would do so if she kept her campaign going through June.

To explore the conspiracy theory further, if Hillary already knew that she can't win the nomination then her only real chance to have a shot of running again later would be to drop our right now. Democrats don't as a rule throw their support 4 years later to a candidate who was deeply involved in a presidential loss four years earlier. Gore was urged not to run in 2004. Lieberman did run in 2004 after being linked to the failed 2000 election and he got nowhere. Kerry could not get enough support to run again in 2008 . Edwards did run again in 2008 but could not win a single primary. Ted Kennedy never ran again after he challenged Jimmy Carter in 1980. Bill Bradley never got talked up big as a candidate in 2004 after he failed to knock off Al Gore in 2000. There was no "Draft Bradly" movement in 2004.

Hillary Clinton's best chance to win the Presidency is now in 2008, and her only other remote chance to win it say in 2012, would be to drop out now and throw her support to Obama now. The entire conspiracy theory being pushed that she is trying to make Obama lose is a smear against Clinton to help Obama now.

[Voice for Peace]

37. Tom, I'm interested in your thoughts about her campaign tactics and the repercussions

since you do support her and seem always to have a fairminded perspective.

[Tom Rinaldo]

46. That's a tall order

There is a lot of water under the bridge covered under that request. I think Clinton wasn't the first person to intentionally go negative. That is just common sense but it can also be researched. In the Summer of 2007 she had a commanding lead and she was running a classic front runners campaign. She was running against Bush's Republican Party and saying gracious things about her Democratic opponents, not because she is such a sweet person and all but because that is what a classic clear front runner does in a primary if he or she is not simply ignoring their opponents instead. Since there were a series of nationally televised debates going on, the latter was not an option for her. Going negative is what candidates tend to do when they are trailing. Obama supporters have been quick to point that truism out ever since Clinton lost the front runner's status, how she is desperate because she is losing and going negative is her only chance etc. etc. My only point in bringing that up now is to remind people that Clinton was not the one originally with an incentive to go negative, and negative attacks began in this campaign BEFORE the Iowa caucus when Clinton was still the overwhelming favorite.

I can't take the time now to write a full essay or whatever, so I am going to point you to some other things I have written. My bottom line position is that both campaigns have used a lot of hard ball negative tactics in this campaign, but for a number of reasoms, including the role played by the national media, it is easier to focus on where Clinton's campaign has gone negative. My thread about Obama's race speech touches on some of the dynamics that I think have caused some of the poison in this campaign to inevitably emerge. I will link you first though to a post I made on my own thread that is partially an answer to your question, but you should read the OP also if you haven't:

"I have at times in the past made an analogy about a specific aspect of Obama's political skills"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5205335

You should also read this thread of mine if you haven't already:

Obama openly used past unfair attacks on Hillary to advocate for himself
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5173756

And probably my initial commentary about the undertones to this race was this piece:

The Negative of Being Hillary
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3832806


Earlier in this primary campaign I started arguing that a prolonged campaign had upsides for Democrats, and if I had to choose between it essentially having ended after Iowa (had Clinton won there) or after NH (had Obama won there) as compared to the current marathon, I would still pick the current marathon, though it does also pose real risks to the Democratic Party depending on how ugly it gets. Here is a piece where I made that case:

The continuing Clinton campaign against Obama does not work to weaken him
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4683526

And here is another similar piece I wrote from a slightly more partisan angle:

Some Obama supporters may think this has been a dirty Primary race
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4548882



But it is getting ugly from BOTH sides. Hillary being called "a Monster" and Bill getting compared to Joe McCarthy, and Monica's dress being brought into this were both overreaches that Obama's campaign rightfully retracted. I presume as an Obama supporter that you are up to speed on Clinton campaign excesses. I spend more time on DU defending Hillary against attacks that she is being so outlandishly evil than because the public narritive is so slanted toward blaiming her for all that goes wrong in this contest while holding up the Obama campaign as a paradign of progressive positivity, and I think that is seriously skewed. They both are fighting hard for the nomination and hard fights are never gentle ones. If the candidate wants to or can get away with posing as the "Good Cop" you can bet your life that some "Bad Cop" supporters will handle the dirty workd for him or her. I don't mind when Obama supporters beleive that most of the negativity comes from Hillary, but it goes way beyond that around here, such as the current theory being pushed that she wants McCain to win. I mostly write in opposition to that skewed perception. I don't think Hillary is a saint.

[Voice for Peace]

47. Thanks for taking the time for that response.. took me a while go to back and read.

I appreciate much of what you've said, and disagree here and there but won't drag this out -- have a bad case of sore hands from being on the computer too much and a little crazybrainitis from being in GD-p too long.

I hope it's true that this nasty primary is making Obama stronger, not destroying his chances. I've seen it both ways.

May the candidate who will TRULY be the best for this country be the winner, now and in November.

[sfam]

48. You analysis has a problem: If Hillary drops out before Obama is...

damaged goods than there is no chance of her running in 2012, because Obama will win this year. Your assessment assumes that Hillary would drop out now if she wanted to run in 2012 - This doesn't hold if she is afraid Obama still wins this year.

Yes, it damages her chances in 2012 if she's seen as damaging Obama, but it seems to me she could envision repairing the damage. So I don't really buy your assessment, especially considering her own people say she has less than a 10% chance of winning this year. It seems to me that if Obama loses this year, her chances are far greater than 10% in 2012.

[aquarius dawning]

13. Hillary can't do shit without contributors and supporters. Whose really dragging him down here?

[meow mix]

14. K&R

[City Lights]

15. If Hillary wants McCain, she must not give a damn about the USSC and

a woman's right to choose.

A brave reporter needs to ask her about the judges McCain will put on the USSC and whether she'd be okay with it.

[sfam]

18. She would never admit this in a straight question, and in fact, she has said...

numerous times that she will support the Democratic candidate. The question of course is whether the numerous side comments give a realistic commentary. That she insinuated that McCain would make a better commander in chief, that Bill wants a patriot in office, and so on - those kinds of comments make people wonder. They clearly agree on most of the issues, so I can't see Hillary siding with McCain on much, other than some of her more right of center foreign policy positions.

[City Lights]

19. I know she'd never admit it outright, but I still think the topic should

be brought up. If nothing else, it would (hopefully) make her squirm a bit.

[John Q. Citizen]

45. The topic is being brought up and will continue to be. What the Clintons have done is wrong

on so many levels that it will forever change the party.

Repeatedly implying that the Repo nominee is qualified and patriotic and that our frontrunner Democrat isn't, is like political suicide bombing of the Democratic Party .

It's intentionally applied chaos. It's the Neo-con shock and awe in a way, because it's so morally rehensible in a political sense.

It's worse than Nader. He said there 'wasn't a dimes worth of difference,' The Clinton are saying there is a world of difference.

At this point, I think Nader is right and Clinton is wrong.

There isn't a dimes worth of difference between Clinton and the Repos, and the poor national experience with people like Clinton and McCain is why this country is in such a world of pain. We need Obama because he isn't McCain and he isn't Clinton. He's better than they are.

[RaleighNCDUer]

35. Truth be told, the only place were she and McCain would differ

on SC appointments would be on abortion rights. She would choose people just as conservative, pro-business, anti-civil liberties - IOW, all in line with the precepts of the DLC.

[Coexist]

22. since they think McCain is such a great man,

they won't mind if I vote for him in the GE if she gets the nod, right?

[Bullet1987]

23. I saw this coming about two weeks ago...

Looking at her dire slim chances or winning the nomination without blowing up the other half of the Party...why is her campaign REALLY waging this scorched earth policy? Clinton supporters will claim "conspiracy theory" because they don't want to believe it. Well, prove to me she's NOT thinking in those terms.

[angie_love]

25. I don't know what rational person would think otherwise.

[peaches2003]

26. What Dems are praising McCain already? Only 2-

Bill and Hill are already building up McCain as a great potential President just in case she doesn't get the nomination. Her worst case scenario is Obama winning the GE and she's doing all she can already to see him elected rather than Obama. It's not an anti-Hillary opinion to say this. Just open your ears and listen to both of them everyday.

[kentuck]

28. Think about it.

It's the perfect "triangulation" policy that the Clintons are famous for.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

29. I think this has been their strategy since Super Tuesday

If Obama wins the nomination and the General Election, Hillary will never be President.

At the end of a two-term Obama Administration, Hillary would be 68 years old, putting her very near the point where she would be considered "too old" to run. What's more, certainly her luster from the memory of the Clinton White House (I'll give her that) would have been dimmed after sixteen years out of office. How many members of the first Bush Administration are still considered "players" in the Republican Party? What's more, there would be a whole new cast of characters from the Obama Administration (VP, Cabinet Members, Ambassadorss) who might emerge as the "New Face" of the Democratic Party.

If McCain wins the General Election, there's almost no chance that he would serve a second term and, not to be the Grim Reaper here, I wouldn't bet against his ability to serve out a single term. Note to the Secret Service people who monitor this board -- I'm talking about his age and his general health.

[book_worm]

30. She still hasn't said that Obama can be commander in chief but McCain can

that proves it to me. She would rather have McCain than Obama which makes her, not Richardson, a Judas of the Democratic party.

[crankychatter]

31. McCain forfeited his hero pass when he flip flopped on TORTURE

he's the same as all of them now

[closeupready]

33. I do believe this is true, and have long believed it.

n/t

[Tom Rinaldo]

36. Anyone have a response to post number 32? n/t

[Voice for Peace]

40. hmm.. I don't see any post number 32. curious. nt

[Tom Rinaldo]

41. It starts with: "In addition to referring people to my own thread on this topic"

It's there. Honest.

[Voice for Peace]

42. LOL.. ok yes I read it, don't know why I missed it.

I thought maybe it was an imaginary post.

[LWolf]

39. Obviously, they prefer neither.

They prefer that Hillary be president.

Just as I prefer neither HRC nor Obama. I prefer that a good left-liberal with integrity win the nomination.