Does Hillary want McCain to win?, ctd.

Yesterday afternoon, I blogged about Maureen Dowd's column in yesterday's New York Times, in which she argued that Hillary Clinton's willingness to out-and-out attack Barack Obama -- even though the resulting damage will probably inure only to John McCain's benefit, not Hillary's, in the end -- might indicate a self-interested preference for a McCain victory in November. The theory, of course, is that an Obama defeat in the general election would open the door for Hillary, The Sequel in 2012. "Some top Democrats are increasingly worried that the Clintons’ divide-and-conquer strategy is nihilistic: Hillary or no democrat," I quoted Dowd as saying.

Silly me, thinking Maureen Dowd had an original thought.

As it turns out, this very topic has been the subject of a raging debate in the center-left blogosphere for almost a week, with various prominent bloggers weighing in both sides of the issue -- creating a dialogue that's much more illuminating and insightful, unsurprisingly, than a Maureen Dowd column. Details after the jump.

It all started with Matthew Yglesias, who wrote on Friday:

Under the circumstances, I find it maddening that the party leadership isn't acting to push her out of the race. Dragging things out 'till the convention stands a much, much, much higher chance of hurting Barack Obama's chances in the general election than it does of securing Clinton the nomination. I understand the calculation from the point of view of the heart of the Clinton campaign -- McCain beating Obama in the general means the Clintons still control the party, so there's no need to worry about helping McCain and you might as well hold on and hope lightning strikes. But the broader mass of unaffiliated elites and Clinton supporters who aren't literally on her payroll are, in my view, acting in a massively irresponsible manner.

That was actually at least the second time Yglesias had advanced the Hillary-wants-Obama-to-lose thesis. He had previously predicted on March 3, two days before Texas and Ohio, that Clinton would continue her fight, "seeing the damage it'll do to the party as a feature, rather than a bug, since a crippled Obama who loses to John McCain could set them up for another run in 2012."

Anyway, Kevin Drum replied on Saturday:

Now, it's true that Hillary has only a minuscule chance of winning the nomination at this point, and it's also true that she probably is hoping that lightning strikes. As in, maybe Tony Rezko will break down on the witness stand Perry Mason style and implicate Obama in a massive influence peddling ring. Or maybe a chunk of red kryptonite will hit Obama in the head and transform him into a gigantic lizardman that destroys Pittsburgh. That would probably cost him a few votes in PA.

So fine: Hillary's chances are slim and maybe it's time to withdraw. But how do we hop from there to an out-of-the-blue factual assertion that Hillary would just as soon see Obama lose in November? That's crazy. There's just no evidence that anyone in the Clinton campaign actually thinks this way.  It's like the 90s all over again and it's driving me nuts.

My fellow Obama supporters need to get a grip. I know that resistance to CDS seems futile these days, but resist anyway! Hillary has a long, long history as a partisan animal. She'd no more root for a McCain victory than she would for another attack by al-Qaeda. What's more, on the level of pure political tactics, she knows perfectly well — and so should we — that if she loses neither she nor Bill will control anything and she'll have no future presidential prospects in 2012 or any other year.  It's either 2008 or nothing for Hillary. ...

Hillary's running a very tough campaign, and she might be making a mistake staying in the race. But she's not rooting for John McCain and she's not secretly plotting Barack Obama's downfall. If anyone has any evidence to the contrary, I'm all ears.

On Sunday, Ezra Klein endorsed the Drum view:

I don't think you need to reach for far-out explanations to explain the continuation and ferocity of the Clinton Campaign. Rather, you just need an old political maxim: All campaigns look winnable to the people inside them. Just ask Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, and Dennis Kucinich. Ask Steve Forbes, Pat Robertson, Elizabeth Dole, and Dan Quayle. And Clinton's star power, and her lead in Pennsylvania, and the videos of Wright, and all the other disparate data points that exist in an election this large mean there's more than enough information for her to construct a plausible internal narrative explaining how she wins this thing. And for a candidate who's come so far and gotten so close, admitting defeat requires a pretty enormous psychological shift.

Now, I think she's wrong. I think Obama's lead in pledged delegates and his lead in the popular vote effectively end her chances. I think that his implosion is unlikely, and if it happens, the delegates will be focused on placating his voters (particularly African-Americans), not fulfilling Clinton's hopes. And that might even lead them towards a third choice. But be that as it may, it's not hard to understand why Clinton thinks she can, and should, keep this fight going. The mystery is why the party's elders, and a critical mass of superdelegates, haven't stepped in to stop it. My hunch is that they're waiting till the end of the primaries, or at least past the next few big ones, but they're the rational players here who need to accurately assess the political landscape. The Clinton campaign is just acting, well, like a campaign. You don't need to think up a nefarious or complex explanation for their behavior.

On Monday, Jonathan Chait weighed in, straddling the fence:

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 will 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. ... 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.

Later Monday, Steve Benen joined the fray:

I think Kevin’s right and Matt’s wrong. I was deeply frustrated when Clinton started praising John McCain’s experience and commander-in-chief qualifications a couple of weeks ago, but it’s a stretch to look at those unhelpful and counter-productive remarks as evidence of her actually wanting a Republican president in 2009.

As far as I can tell, based on all available evidence, Clinton loves her country and loves her party. She’s been playing hardball for a few months against Obama, and has engaged in some campaign tactics I found more than a little troublesome, but I consider this more evidence of her willingness to do what it takes to get the nomination, not evidence of her trying to sabotage U.S. interests by helping McCain’s candidacy.

As for Chait, I think he may be assuming certain motivations that may or may not exist. He argues, “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.” That very well may be — I’m not in a position to say for sure — but here’s a different angle to consider: isn’t it at least possible that Clinton is acting in such a way to help the Democratic Party as she sees it?

In other words, at Clinton HQ right now, a team of advisors are likely thinking, “If Obama’s the nominee, Democrats lose. We may be the only ones who realize it, and we may only have a 10% shot, but we need to keep fighting, keep tearing Obama down, and keep this damaging process going in order to save the party and protect the party’s interests.”

This isn’t to say this perspective is right — indeed, I’m pretty sure it’s ridiculous — but it’s also likely a mistake to assume nefarious motives. Clinton thinks she’s the only candidate standing between us and a third term of Bush policies. From her perspective, her interests and the party’s interests are one and the same.

Given the landscape, I’m fairly certain she’s mistaken. But if there’s solid evidence that she’s actively working towards helping Republicans, I haven’t seen it. The Clinton campaign is probably working under faulty assumptions, not disloyal ones.

On Tuesday, the debate leapt out of the blogosphere into the pages of a newspaper that's slightly more explicitly liberal than the New York Times, namely The Guardian, whose columnist Michael Tomasky wrote:

Let's just agree for this column to forge ahead into the hypothetical and examine a fascinating question that's popped up in the blogosphere in recent days.

The question is: Does Hillary Clinton, aware deep-down that she probably won't be the Democratic nominee, secretly want Barack Obama to lose to John McCain so that she can run again in 2012? ...

I'll weigh in with a finger on the scale in Yglesias's direction, but while making something clear: I think it's only natural and human for a part of someone in Clinton's position to feel this way, provided she only thinks it and doesn't act on it. ...

[H]ere's where things get dicey for Hillary 2012. If she were seen by a significant portion of Democrats as not having done all she could for Obama in 2008, she'd face massive hostility in 2010 when she started making noises about running again. So she has to be active in helping him, which of course creates a sort of double paradox: she has to work hard for the very outcome that works against her own future interests, knowing that said work is the only thing that will in fact help her future interests! Got it?

There are many who say she's already done terrible damage to Obama, and that every day she stays in the race is a day that she only does more damage to him. She and her husband have indeed hurt Obama, but not yet in a way that's irreversible. If Obama is the nominee, both Clintons need to give strong convention speeches and campaign for Obama in a way that seems more genuine than grudging (I 'spect it'll be pretty easy to tell!).

Like I said: it's OK for her to think about an Obama loss, but she can't act like she wants an Obama loss. It's a fair moral distinction that society accepts in most realms. No one ever got thrown in prison for thinking about robbing a bank.

Finally, later Tuesday, Kevin Drum weighed in again, repeating his assertion that "it's 2008 or nothing for Hillary":

The Clinton machine obviously has its admirers, but I think it's held together mainly by its reputation for winning, not by any widespread warmth for Hillary. If she loses, that reputation vanishes. What's more, if she's already under suspicion of sabotaging the party merely because she's continuing to run her primary campaign, what are the odds she can escape unscathed if Obama actually goes on to lose? No matter what kind of support she gives him, I'd say slim and none.

Anything can happen in four years. But Democrats have never been very kindly disposed toward primary losers, and Hillary sure doesn't seem likely to be an exception. I'm putting my money on her being smart enough to know this. In fact, Occam's razor suggests that this is why she's waging such a tough campaign. Not because she thinks it will set her up for 2012, but because she knows perfectly well this is her last chance.

Then on Wednesday, Dowd's column his newsstands, rehashing the point without any of the intriguing nuance.

Blogosphere 1, New York Times 0. :)

Comments

[Gardner]

Who is the party leadership? Isn't this what the primary is all about. To see who should be the party leader? It's clear the Democrats are fairly evenly split. Obama clearly has the edge, but not by enough to secure the nomination per party rules.

If Hillary wins, then the Clinton's are again secured the leadership role. Obama can't say he's the standard bearer because he hasn't been there long enough. There are major Dems supporting both candidates. It's a big cluster and only Al Gore can save the day.

[Aaron]

Yeah, I thought about giving you shit for linking to Dowd, but thought better of it. ;)

Incidentally, this post reminds me of an idea I had a while back... that some enterprising college student could probably write a term paper titled "Blogger Set-Theory." It might define a blog-set as a group of bloggers - usually but not necessarily of similar ideology - who frequently link each other with obvious mutual respect. Your series of links above are all to bloggers in the same blog-set, which I would describe as centered on The American Prospect (Tomasky used to be the editor) but also including Yglesias, Chait, and quite a few others. The Kos-Atrios empire anchors another blog-set. The Hewitt-Malkin-Redstate-Powerline axis another. The Reason libertarians another... and so on. There's overlap between some sets - for example between the Prospect liberals and the Reasonoids - and literally zero overlap between others. Someone with time on their hands could probably categorize the entire blogosphere. What fun... ;)

[Alasdair]

But, Aaron - Venn could someone get the time to diagram those sets ?

[Alasdair]

Brendan - and you are surprised by Senator Clinton's "The Democratic Party, c'est Moi !" philosophy why, exactly ?

A lot of us have been wondering only how FAR Senator Clinton will go, not at all wondering whether or not Senator Clinton will go places that will not be to the advantage of her political party ...

[JD]

“If Obama’s the nominee, Democrats lose. We may be the only ones who realize it, and we may only have a 10% shot, but we need to keep fighting, keep tearing Obama down, and keep this damaging process going in order to save the party and protect the party’s interests.”

We must destroy the party in order to save it.

[MHiggo]

I don't know. Brendan's buddies at the Daily Kos seem to think she's trying to win:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/26/104555/955/7/484087

[Peter Evans]

Hmm. Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush, Clinton? Ahh, America. The land where 'anybody can become President'. :)

[Aaron]

Alasdair, as your late countryman John Dennis is said to have said, "A man who could make so vile a pun would not scruple to pick a pocket."

;)