The New Republic

Hillary's entire career has been based on the concept of "she owes it to herself."

That and "everyone else owes it to me, too."

- WoodyBombay

April 11, 2008 at 1:03pm

This is about the Clinton Restoration.  That's it.  The sense of inevitability, the horrified realization that someone might take the election away from them, that somebody would jump the line, etc, etc, is all derived from the thought that this belongs to the Clintons.

This has never been about the people, or the party.  This is about winning.  Beating the nasty Republicans.  Showing that while she may not govern effectively, she is a fighter, one who will stand up the ravening enemies of all that is Clinton.

Bill's latest foolishness about the Bosnia airport story is yet one more piece of evidence that this has nothing to do with the people, or the truth (for that matter), this is about winning.  

They are the best living example of Machiavelli's Prince.  Not immoral - amoral.  They simply will do whatever is necessary to be in power and to stay in power, to hell with anything or anyone else.  

Get them off the stage.  

- kgrant1054

April 11, 2008 at 1:11pm

Thank you Mr. Chait for again calling our attention to the obvious:

1.  Obama will have more pledged delegates.

2.  Obama will have more popular votes.

3.  Obama has better prospects than Hillary in the general.

4.  Obama has demonstrated better campaign skills and fundraising skills.

Therefore, there is zero case on any grounds to make to the super-delegates to over-turn the results of the primary and caucus system, something they would be very strongly disinclined to day anyway, in order to nominate Hillary.

Once PA is behind us (and if PA is not close then after NC), it will be so clear that there is no possibility of Hillary overtaking Obama, I think the super-delegates will declare and the race will be over.  Will Hillary go gracefully or continue to spit and kick because "she owes it to herself?"  I don't know.  It remains to be seen.

- roidubouloi

April 11, 2008 at 1:13pm

Mr. Chait, this has been said over and over -- no, HRC has no chance of winning a majority of pledged delagates.  But she has a slight chance of winning total votes, which is just as good of a rubric for superdelagates to pick as the delagates (I'd argue more given gerrymandering skewering the delagate count).  Once that's over with (maybe even after Pennsylvania) I will call on her to get out, but until then absolutely not.

- Lymon1

April 11, 2008 at 1:20pm

Off topic, but perhaps of interest to those keen to know more about the inner organs of beasts and fowls. Spencer Ackerman is retiring TooHotForTNR this weekend so decided to go out with a bang in a post worth reading. One snippet:

-- Lots of people at TNR are lazy -- The Plank got started because Frank, Crowley and Jason Zengerle figured it would be easier to collect their web-writing bonus by blogging instead of writing twice-monthly columns

toohotfortnr.blogspot.com/.../you-snitchin-where-i-come-from-you.html

- ndmackenzie

April 11, 2008 at 1:22pm

Jonathan,

You just can't use logic with these people. In the same way that the rabid Clinton-haters are beyond the reach of rational arguments, so are the Clinton-sychophants. You've laid out a very smart, reasonable and fairly unassailable explanation of why, short of a twist so bizarre and Spitzerian in its unexpectedness, her candidacy has reached a dead end. Senator Clinton is talented and smart and has a passion for her causes, but she's damaging her credibility badly by pursuing a prize that is clearly outside her reach. Perhaps it's a point of pride for her to stay in it, but the longer she prolongs the inevitable, the less she'll be  thought of as Obama's equal and the more she'll be though of as the Democrat's Mike Huckabee.

- BHLnyc

April 11, 2008 at 1:23pm

Let's face it.  No matter what the arguments, this is going to go on at least through PA.  If she is under double digits there, they chorus for her to quit will grow.  But once NC is over and she has gained virtuallly no net ground, the argument should be over -- and the super-delegates will make it so.

- roidubouloi

April 11, 2008 at 1:50pm

why did you link your own to your own article twice?

My one fear is that the Clintonistas having convinced themselves that because Superdelegates can go for Hillary (even though she is behind in delegates and votes) it means that they should go for her, and that if they don't then the Clintonistas will feel as though they have been cheated of what is rightfully theirs.

And certainly they will have plenty of rationales behind that view ie. Michigan and Florida would have somehow put her over the top, if you add in hypothetical superdelegate support, or only she can win, or that Obama has run such an alienating campaign they have no choice but to vote for McCain, hence Hillary should get the nod to pacify them.

- blackton

April 11, 2008 at 2:07pm

Jonathan--

You manage to anger normally mild-mannered people because you are tendentiously self-interested and arrogantly self-righteous at the same time. It is ort of a college-student tone. It is infuriating for anyone who does not agree with you or who expects a greater capacity for disinterest. Your tone in your repeated denunications of Clinton is an example of this.

And Rothenberg is right--your argument is ridiculous. The supers could end it in a moment if in fact thay had made up their minds. The fact that so many of them are still holding back from Obama, when he is clearly ahead and they could easily give hm the nomination, actually suggests doubts about Obama and support for Clinton among a majority of the holdouts.

- pccostello

April 11, 2008 at 2:37pm

Clinton said something a few weeks ago that sent a bit of a chill down my spine (not because what she said was necessarily out-of-bounds. I'm not sure.) In response to questions about the length of the primary, she noted that, by historical standards, this hasn't been a long primary and then said (not exact quote): "In 1992 my husband didn't wrap up the nomination till June; and everyone remembers what happened in LA in 1968, when Robert Kennedy got shot in June." I thought she was indirectly invoking the possibility of something like that happening in this campaign. The reason it sent a chill down my spine was because of all  the conspicuous security Obama has at his events, which seems to indicate that he's received more threats than other candidates. This is something the press hasn't talked about much, understandably (except for the odd print story here and there.) Anyway, I realize Clinton has many motives/reasons for staying in the race, and many are self-interested. But do we have to assume her reasons are exclusively self-interested and at the expense of the party? If something awful were to happen to Obama (god forbid), wouldn't it be in the party's interest to have a clear alternative on hand to step in and steady things? This "lightning could strike any time" argument isn't one she can make directly in public -- does this mean it's a bad argument?

- hemlock41

April 11, 2008 at 2:45pm

I agree with Stu: Mitt Romney. Fred Thompson, Joe Biden, the little weasel from Ohio, Hanna Montana and everyone else that wants to president owes it to themselves to be running, common sense and math be damned. They owe to their fans, their voters, themselves.

Hanna Montana 2008!!

Don't laugh, it's about as likely as Hillary being elected.

- mpatrickhendri

April 11, 2008 at 2:48pm

The superdelegates that are holding back are doing so because they can.  They're mostly pols and want to get the most they can out of their status, just as pols anywhere would in that circumstance.  There's no way HRC is going to get enough of them to beat Barak - she's only got a 24 vote lead among them today, and it's shrinking fast.  There's no way she'll get enough regular delegates from the primarys left either.  Even if she were to get her way and Michigan and Florida were counted, she still won't have enough - but if somehow she did manage to win, everyone can take it to the bank that our next pres. will be an old Republican.

- WaltB

April 11, 2008 at 3:03pm

pccostello,

Since you seem to be TNR's most strident Hillary partisan, let ask you a serious question: At this late stage, what chance do you give HRC? If it's more than 5 percent, I'll be surprised.

- mpatrickhendri

April 11, 2008 at 3:21pm

I think lymon has it right, and his endgame criterion will probably come into play after PA, or within a couple of weeks after that at most. Pccostello is, I think, engaged in wishful thinking. If the supers had so many doubts about Obama and decided they wanted Hillary, they would be declaring for Hillary and shifting the momentum her way. Not happening.

- JEFF FREY

April 11, 2008 at 3:28pm

NDMac

Thanks for the interesting link--a look behind the TNR Magic Curtain. As a daily reader but a mere bystander amidst the churning here, I enjoy much of the insightful writing here. Still, I second your link:

toohotfortnr.blogspot.com/.../you-snitchin-where-i-come-from-you.html

What happened to Peter B? He was so interesting in his "dialogues" with Jonah Goldberg, who was a pompous time and attention hog, most of whose words were mere ideological sputtering and baiting and cheap one-upsmanship. I was amazed that Peter could sit there as if listening, without getting angry.

- sabatia

April 11, 2008 at 3:33pm

pccostello,

I second mpatrickhendri...casting aside the debilitating Obama animus for just a moment, if Clinton should lose PA, do you really think that Clinton has a rationale for continuing, other than merely to destroy Obama?  Also, do you think that the loser in this race, be it Clinton or Obama, has an obligation to campaign vigorously for the nominee?

Oh yes, if you should respond, please avoid using bullshit pretentious words like 'tendentious". Yeah, yeah, we know you're smart.  In plain english please...

- thejauntyboulevardier

April 11, 2008 at 3:40pm

jaunty,

If she loses PA, then I think it would be over.  If she wins PA (where SurveyUSA has her up 18)and Indiana, stays closer than she is in North Carolina, and does well in the other states where she has an edge--then I think she has a compelling case to make.

Two questions: Why are the Obama folks so desperate to get her to quit (e.g Chait's "fratricidal maniac" and "stop thief") Is it just entitlement, ir is it fear?

And--the great unexamined question--why haven't the superdelegates flooded to Obama, who is ahead and to whom they could easily give the nomination.

- pccostello

April 11, 2008 at 4:27pm

the first link to rothenberg is broken

- bendreyfuss

April 11, 2008 at 4:29pm

the first link to rothenberg is broken

- bendreyfuss

April 11, 2008 at 4:29pm

pccostello,

Fair enough. If she wins PA convincingly and captures Indiana, then she will have indeed established her case to continue, perhaps even to be the nominee.

I cannot speak for others but I do know that the reason I wish she would drop out is because really, the longer she continues, Obama continues to get hammered from three opponents, her, her husband and McCain. No general election candidate can withstand that kind of continued assault.

I truly hope that Obama can beat her in PA. I do think that will end the debate, for all intents and purposes.

I just read that superdelegates have been trickling towards Obama. If he wins PA, that will turn into a steady stream...

- thejauntyboulevardier

April 11, 2008 at 4:48pm

Oh pc, please, spare us all the nonsense.

1.  The fact that the supers have not declared is ZERO indication that they support Hillary.  What it indicates is that they do not want to be perceived as calling the thing over before the voters have voted.  When it is clear, as it will be after PA and NC, that Hillary cannot overcome Obama's lead, they will declare.  What this indicates is the exact opposite of what you wish -- that the supers are going to follow the pledged delegates.  Bye bye Hillary.

2.  Even if everything you say were to come true in the remaining races, it doesn't make a "compelling" case for Hillary.  It makes no case at all for Hillary unless you have some argument that the voters in all the primaries and caucuses that have already been held ought to count less than the last few where Hillary happens to have a demographic edge.  There is no such argument, compelling or otherwise.

So, answer this:  It, after PA and NC, it is clear that Hillary will never achieve either a majority of pledged delegates or popular votes and Obama is doing as well or better than Hillary in the poll match-ups with McCain, whom should the undeclared supers support, Obama or Hillary?  Are you still going to be making some kind of screwy argument that EVEN THEN the supers should support Hillary (which isn't going to happen)?  If, as appears to be the case, your argument for Hillary simply adjusts at each instant to reflect the most recent of her losses or failures to win anything by even the margin she held in the polls, how do you expect anyone to take you seriously?  You define tendentious, my friend.  You are the living embodiment thereof

- roidubouloi

April 11, 2008 at 4:50pm

roid--

What don't you understand? I prefer Hillary for president. Ultimately, that is my case for her. I think the supers should support her. I have often preferred candidates who lost, but they were still my choice. And your argument about the supers not wanting to declare becasue they don't want to give the impression of prejudging is obviously wrong, given all the delegates who have declared.

jaunty--

The same argument that a three way race hurts Obama applies to Hillary as well. 26% of Democrats want Obama to quit; 32% want Hillary to quit. Pretty close, considering Obama's (and Alter's and Chait's and Vanderhei's and Sullivan's) campaign to pressure her out.

- pccostello

April 11, 2008 at 5:59pm

mpatrick--

Hard to out this in terms of odds. Rasmussen markets (which has moved slightly toward Hillary in the last week) has it at 84-16, last I looked. I would say that is slightly underestimating her chances.

- pccostello

April 11, 2008 at 6:01pm

Yes, pc, I understand perfectly well that you prefer Hillary and will make whatever absurd argument you can given her increasingly desperate situation to attempt to justify the choice of Hillary.

But that doesn't mean that your arguments make any sense.  If you want to argue that Hillary would make a better president, have at it.  That's purely a matter of opinion.  But if you want to argue that the nominating process as it has been conducted makes Hillary the choice of Democrats when she isn't, you just look silly -- and tendentious.  If you want to argue that the super-delegates should ignore the choice of party members,  or that some party members' choice of Obama should be ignored in favor of other party members' choice of Hillary, you have to justify it.  I have yet the hear anything sensible in that regard.  One argument might be that Hilllary is more electable, except that there is no indication of that.  The polls go the other way.

I think you are out of arguments.  Might be better just to say that you prefer Hillary and call it a day.

- roidubouloi

April 11, 2008 at 6:49pm

I put her chances at 5% and have for quite some time.  The pundits are moving my way on this, for what that is worth.

- roidubouloi

April 11, 2008 at 6:50pm

Why do they want her out? To state the obvious, because she already lost and it's time to turn our attention to McCain. Unless an assassin's bullet takes him or Obama getting caught with a small boy, this primary is over. Get on board.

- mpatrickhendri

April 11, 2008 at 7:36pm

Jon Chait never seems to learn anything at all! Since he'd declared 'Hillary=toast'  just before NH on the basis of a similar rationale (that she could not possibly beat the odds and win but he had to eat crow when she proved him wrong with her NH Houdini act), he's been pushing for her to quit the race every chance he got. However, the rationale for Hillary not to quit the race is plain enough for some of us who support her and believe that she would make a better GE candidate and POTUS: Obama has not yet won the nomination, and as long as the superdelegates still seem to want to perpetuate this thing by not putting him over the top, Hillary cannot and will not quit. In fact, the strongest rationale for her to forge on has just been provided by none other than Obama himself: His ill-conceived and ill-timed "bitter" remarks [see 12 reasons as to why at 'politico.com']. In my view, those remarks make an Obama GE win almost impossible. Long odds have just gotten longer and the superdelegates have every right to take that fact into account in deciding who they believe would help the Dems avoid a third lock out of the White House in as many presidential election cycles. Would another "speech" bail him out this jam? And how about out of the next jam? You get the point...As long as Obama has not secured the nomination, there is a chance for something "unflattering" about him to be exposed, which might further expose what some of us have always felt was a weak candidacy that was elevated, hyped and driven by pundits [e.g., TNR], who praised Obama at every turn while pillorying Hillary.

- dcshungu

April 12, 2008 at 11:04pm