The New Republic

"Hillary is simply and utterly convinced she is the most electable, most qualified candidate. That may be arrogant.. But if it's something she really and truly believes... it must be awfully hard to walk away from."

This is what I find most unsettling about Clinton: her absolutist faith in her own judgment. She never seems to entertain even the possibility that she might be wrong, that her judgment may be fallible or partial, or that her perspective on an issue might not be the only reasonable one. The accounts of how she steam-rolled those supporters of universal health care who sought to modify her specific proposals in the 90's reflects this authoritarian, "fundamentalist" streak in her character.

It's not coincidental that she has so much appeal to older women. She has won their support in part through deploying her experience/status as a mother. Maternalism, though it has a caring face, is completely authoritarian. Motherhood is an identity that has,for many older women, afforded them the only significant form of social power they've experienced in their lives.  "Mothers know best." They are socially licensed to impose their will on those whom they take care of. Clinton's maternalist authoritarian streak is something many older women can identify with; for many of them, the role of motherhood was the only real source of social recognition available to them, and it is central to their self-understanding.

I think this may also be related to the sense of grievance that older women have about Clinton's being supplanted in this race by Obama. Motherhood is a source of social standing; but it's also subtly dissed and not-so-subtly sidelined by society -- this was especially true for older generations. So, when older women see Clinton being overshadowed by a flashier, younger guy, it's not surprising that it taps into a deep-seated sense of grievance and frustration. After all, their own status as mothers gave them absolute power within a limited range of relationships while simultaneously marginalizing them within society more broadly. These women, of course, do not focus on the fact that Obama has legitimately earned frontrunner status, by following all the rules. They just assume it's the same old dynamic: pat the woman approvingly on the back as you push her out of the public spotlight.

Clinton's maternalist authoritarianism is unsettling not just because it would lead to bad policies if she were elected. It is also an amazingly condescending and anti-democratic attitude: it accounts for the view I've heard many Clinton supporters express about Obama's supporters. Her supporters seem unable to entertain the possibility that his supporters like him for substantive, rational, policy-based reasons. They insist, instead, that his supporters are just in love with "the concept" of him. (E.g. Ferraro.) "They are all young and infatuated," her supporters insist, "So we party elders -- we 'wise mothers' -- must step in and do what we know is best for everyone, even if it means overriding their votes and the party's rules."

Maybe I'm pushing the "maternalist" analysis too far here. But I can't help thinking that it explains at least some of what's going on in the camp of Clinton supporters.

- hemlock41

May 14, 2008 at 1:23am

Hemlock41: Ah, it's all clear now. Maternalism is where authoritarianism comes from. That explains the origins of dictatorships. But, wait a minute. The overwhelming number of dictators are men. So, does this mean that paternalism is also a cause of authoritarianism? I am confused. But then, psychobabble always does that to me.

- liberal reformer

May 14, 2008 at 1:42am

Who said maternalism was the source or cause of all authoritarianism? Not me. Read a bit more closely. I merely said that a maternalist attitude -- the belief that you know what is best for those who you are in charge of -- has authoritarian elements to it.

- hemlock41

May 14, 2008 at 1:54am

And yes, paternalism has authoritarian elements in the same way that maternalism does. I'm not talking regime types, here, libref. And I'm also not talking about deep structures of the psyche. I'm simply talking about apparent attitudes expressed by Clinton supporters.

- hemlock41

May 14, 2008 at 1:57am

Libref: Is "psychobabble" (by which I assume you mean any discussion of people's alleged ulterior motivations) only acceptable, then, when it provides you with an opportunity to showcase your own deep and expansive learning?

blogs.tnr.com/.../freud-and-israel.aspx

- hemlock41

May 14, 2008 at 2:07am

Hemlock41: It's a lampoon, an exaggeration for effect. Go back and read your own post. What words pop out? "Authoritarianism", "absolutist", "fundamentalist". Sounds pretty draconian to me.

- liberal reformer

May 14, 2008 at 2:07am

Libref: You're right, they're extreme sounding words. I don't mean that they tell the whole story about Clinton's attitudes or outlook. I was just picking up on Crowley's description of Clinton as being "simply and utterly convinced that she is the most electable" candidate, despite what Democratic primary voters are saying at the polls, and I was pointing to this self-certainty as an element of her thinking that unsettles me. In describing it, I didn't mean to make it sound like the only or even the definitive element of who she is, which is why I acknowledged, at the end of my post, that I may be pushing the analysis too far and admitted that, of course, it's only part of what is going on.

- hemlock41

May 14, 2008 at 2:27am

What hemlock41 said.  LR:  you seem like an intelligent person, but there is something truly and scarily weird to your (deliberate?) misreading of hemlock's original post.  If people do something in a political context, it's not "psychobabble" to try and understand their motivation -- I doubt sincerely that any of the campaigns are dispensing with such in-close analysis right as we speak.

- ironyroad

May 14, 2008 at 2:33am

She may actually be the "strongest" candidate in terms of being able to win, but either will likely win in November if for no other reason that Democrats are on the rise, and Republicans are falling, Bush fatigue, and it looks more and more like McCain will be Bush's 3rd term.  The difference between her and Obama, is that while she could win a Bush like 51% to 49% victory through her base, Obama is likely to have broader coalition.  She would get more votes in narrow constituencies, he would get fewer over a broader spectrum.

In reality she is not the "strongest" candidate, since she is losing the nomination.  Strong to her was big wins in big states that would wrap up the nomination on Super Tuesday, or at least give her a big enough lead that she would wrap it up after TX and OH, or PA at the latest.

Stong to me is understanding the math involved in winning the nomination and how to win without FL and MI, in caucus states and TX two step.  Obama's victory will be due to the Super Delegates recognizing that he new how to run a real campain and understand the ins and outs of the various contests, as well as broading the Democratic Party.

Personally, I am not looking for a president who declares they are strong (what ever that means), the most qualified (what exactly are the qualifications for the office?), or the most experience (what exactly is her experience again?).  I want someone with good judgement who picks people to get a job done right.

p.s.  I see that now that Hillary has won a big victory in a small state (where the demographics overwhelmingly favored her) small states actually matter.

- bmalin

May 14, 2008 at 8:07am

Obviously none of you responding to him have incurred the wrath of an older, maternal woman....geezz...get out a little, please...

- tkozal

May 14, 2008 at 9:20am

Sorry Michael, but I think the reason she is staying in th race is to a) punish Obama for "crossing" her by turning what was supposed to be a "political debut" first run into a successful campaign and b) to bloody him up as much as possible so that McCain will win one term and she can run against him in 2012.  There may even be an unspoken agreement to that effect between the two campaigns.

Hence the "he can't win" story line to give the cover for her acting as a spoiler.  "He can't win" really means "I won't let him win."  Of course she still needs to leave her options open (NY Governer perhaps?) because Obama will very likely still win in spite of all her back-biting and her base of power still remains very mush within the Democratic Party.  So she can't go nuclear or make an independent run.  

According to this rendering Hillary comes out very intelligent, completely rational, politically cunning and vindictive.  And of course she puts her own political priorities before those of the party.  Need I say more?

- Gavriel Meir-Levi

May 14, 2008 at 9:33am

Bmalin: "strategic thinking" is what one needs in a President.  The Clintons are, however, about tactics (what is triangulation but tactical manoeuvering?).  And of course so is W.  This is precisely what has led the US into a three trillion dollar debt owed mostly to China, incompetence and cronyism domestically, a disaster in Iraq and Afghanistan and the of the Permanent Republican Majority.

- icarusr

May 14, 2008 at 9:59am

I find this account of Hillary's behavior completely implausible.  I assume that she believes utterly that she would be the better president and the stronger candidate in the general election.  But, how exactly does that belief produce the observed behavior?  Surely she knows that he has won the nomination barring some freak disaster.  But even in the freak disaster case, she is as or more likely to be the candidate to whom the party would turn if she had withdrawn gracefully a while ago and demonstrated her concern for the party.  The continued knife play makes it more likely that an Obama melt-down would produce a draft Gore response.

So, how does staying in the "race" connect with what you think is her own high opinion of herself if it does not in any way bring her closer to being the nominee and may, in some circumstances, put it further away?  Answer:  It doesn't.

I find it far more plausible that Hillary knows this is likely her last hurrah in presidential politics and cannot bear to let the moment pass, to cease being center-stage, combined with a strong vindictive streak that wants to punish Obama, perhaps even sink him, for ruining her fairy tale.  It doesn't even have to be with 2012 in mind.  I doubt she can think that far ahead at the moment.  Spite is enough.

After all, is there any reason at all to suspect anything other than the worst possible motives from someone who, although not herself a racist hater, is perfectly willing to exploit racism for political gain?  It is a heavy burden for us here in the NYS Democratic party who owe it to the country to dump Hillary in 2012.

- roidubouloi

May 14, 2008 at 10:58am

roidubouloi: you don't seriously think the Democratic Party would skip over Clinton and go straight to GORE if Obama had a meltdown, do you? I mean, Gore and Clinton don't exactly have a warm and rosy history. Sure, he'd get Obama's supporters in a flash, but the Clintonites would vote for McCain before Gore.

But maybe you meant to say, "The continued knife play makes it more likely that an Obama melt-down would produce a draft gore response." Which makes much more sense.

- ZACummings

May 14, 2008 at 11:19am

Hillary will stay in until the last vote, then suspend campaigning and throw her support to Obama. But she'll be lurking in the wings should Obama stumble at all between June and the convention. She'll be waiting for an opportunity (i.e., Wright part III) to jump back in. By staying close she narrows the number of SDs she'll need to flip. This is why no compromise on MI and FL are likely until the convention, b/c he simply doesn't trust her not to try to take the nomination.

- aschindler

May 14, 2008 at 11:32am

ZA,

The whole thing is implausible because it supposes some truly bizarre scandal involving Obama, or his plane crashes.  But, yes, I don think it somewhat more likely that Gore would be the nominee than Clinton if something like that did happen between the end of the primaries and the convention.  Despite Hillary's claims about her electability, I don't think political professionals find that very plausible.  People who have a 54% negative rating in the target electorate do not get elected, no matter how many which ways they parse the demographics.  I happen to think that there are a lot of Hillary super-delegates who supported her only because it was the path of least resistance when it seemed as though she had the power but don't actually like her any more than the rest of the country does.

Now for the arithmetic lesson of the day:

First, let us take note that, following Hillary's victory in WV, Obama currently has a 155 pledged delegate lead and that Hillary's net gain since just prior to TX-OH-RI-VT is 7 pledged delegates (offset many times over by his gain in super-delegates). I think the most likely case for the combination of OR-KY-MT-SD is zero, with a slight bias toward Obama if races tighten.  Best case for Hillary in PR is an 11 delegate pick-up. Obama ends up with a lead of about 145 pledged delegates, or more, when the races are over.  If they seat MI with the margin of 10 that he has offered and FL with half of the margin of 31 that the vote would get her, he ends up with a pledged delegate lead of 120.  All Hiillary has to do is convince about 180 out of about 230 uncommitted supers (exluding therefrom the Pelosi club). That's only 78%. Shouldn't be too tough for a fighter like Hillary who's in it to win it.

Over on the popular vote side, Obama leads by 704,000.  The upside for Hillary is about 150,000 net votes coming out of PR.  That gets her to 550,000.  Give her her margin over "uncommitted" in MI and her 294,000 in FL, Hillary still loses the popular vote by 200,000.  This will be a key selling point with the remaining uncommitted supers.  The fact that she lost the popular vote by only 200,000 despite Obama's advantage of being black, the insurgent, etc. should convince many that she is the stronger candidate for the general.

In this regard, we can take note that the polls vs McCain, which briefly gave Hillary an edge over Obama immediately following Wright II now have them dead even, with both of them rising but Obama rising more.  Another selling point with the super delegates.

The national polls for the Democratic nominee, that crossed over in Obama's favor on 2/13, got oh so close again after PA and Wright II, although Obama never lost the lead.  Now his margin has opened to 7.2% again.  More ammunition for Hillary with the supers.

All predictions that Hillary will "withdraw," "concede," "suspend" or anything else prior to the convention, even if Obama has secured the support of more than the necessary 2,025 delegates, are ridiculous.  Hillary will "stay in it to win it" until long after Obama is nominated.  She will continue to do whatever she can to stay in the limelight for no better reason than she likes the attention.  It makes her feel important.

I enjoyed Camille Paglia's take on this in Salon.  She pretty well eviscerates Hillary.

- roidubouloi

May 14, 2008 at 12:12pm

Although it is beating a dead Norwegian Blue parrot, a couple more points:

Hillary likes to tout the results of the latter part of the campaign as evidence of her strength as a candidate (well, okay, she has to say something).  But to the eye of any experienced pol, it is actually evidence of her weakness.  Hillary's strength is in the Rust Belt/Appalachia and the Southwest.  Yet, in a series of races that included TX, IN, OH, PA, WV and, soon, KY, plus states in Obama's core of course, he will have fought her to a draw.  If you cannot win when the deck is stacked about as well for you as it ever gets, that is evidence of how weak you are, not how strong.

Finally, although Obama only needs about 50 more super-delegates to clinch and that will happen soon, by the time the convention comes, at least 500 supers, maybe more, will be voting for Obama.  The professional pols are not going to want to be on the wrong side of the next president.  Obama will end up with a margin at the convention of 600 or more delegates.  It will be forgotten how close the race was.

- roidubouloi

May 14, 2008 at 12:49pm

Want to chime in to say that superdelegates aren't supposed to thwart the will of the pledged delegates.  They are only people who are guaranteed an invitation to the Democratic National Convention.

Also a question: Has anyone run the numbers on a 3-way race between HRC, Obama and McCain?  

That's what we've been debating all day in my increasingly politics-obsessed office.  Some people say that she could win a 3-way race.  I say that they would split the vote similar to what happens with the Heisman.  Of course Bush and Leinart won despite each other.

- Sirhc

May 14, 2008 at 5:29pm

The only possible winner of a 3-way race would be John McCain.

- roidubouloi

May 14, 2008 at 6:55pm

aschindler writes:

"Hillary will stay in until the last vote, then suspend campaigning and throw her support to Obama. But she'll be lurking in the wings should Obama stumble at all between June and the convention. She'll be waiting for an opportunity (i.e., Wright part III) to jump back in. By staying close she narrows the number of SDs she'll need to flip. This is why no compromise on MI and FL are likely until the convention, b/c he simply doesn't trust her not to try to take the nomination."

I like your idea. (Well, I don't really *like it* but it fits the specifications of the Clintons' politics.) I expect a suspension of overt hostilities at a time of Hillary's choosing so that it will maximally reflect well on her and minimize the political importance to Obama. Then there will be a cold war while she tries privately to persuade supers to flip back to her when another damaging revelation emerges to weaken Obama. According to some political hounds, her - their - operatives are furiously looking for still undiscovered dirt on him. There will be a tense peace between the end of the primaries and the convention.

But that's just me.

- tomeg

May 14, 2008 at 8:43pm

First of all, I'd like to say this this thread is the perfect example of what the TalkBack is the only board worth reading on the web, and why we get so upset when CanWest screws with it.  I get more good facts from the posts than from most professional blog/media sites.  Now let's end the primary and partisan nut-job posts and get back to normal.

Second, I think Obama would win the three-way contest.  His personality (and many of his policies) are very centrist and reasonable, and could split the difference between Clinton and McCain.  This is why the extended primary is damaging - our (Democratic) candidate needs to start emphasizing the centrist aspects of policy NOW in order to be in position for November.

And third, I think Clinton MUST have a specific goal in mind in order to keep campaigning.  There is no way anyone works that hard without a reason.  Whether this is a long shot chance at the presidency or something else, I have no idea.

- maxzig1

May 14, 2008 at 9:59pm

The pundits notwithstanding, this grueling primary election marathon is very close. Two candiates have been battling for 4 months over 50+ separate elections and caucuses and they are about even. No one has locked up the nomination. Given the delegate arithmetic it seems that Obama will pull out a victory, but it is still not a certainty. With the doubts that still remain as to the outcome, why would Hillary Clinton pull out? According to the delegate count in RealClearPoliics.com, Obama needs 136 delegates to clinch the nomination, but there are only 189 delegates available in the remaining contests. Neither will clinch the nomination with elected delegates, while the superdelegate count is not certain. Individual superdelegates may and have switched positions over the course of the primary season. Hillary is staying in because Obama has not clinched the nomination and it really is as simple as that. It may be interesting to speculate on other psychic motivations. Of course she thinks that she is the better candidate; she may even have a sense of entitlement (although I think she has certainly been disabused of that notion), but she is staying in because there is no clear victor- no matter what the prognostications of pollsters, pundits, and bloggers.

- johnchen1

May 15, 2008 at 12:27pm

First, there was West Virginia. Michael Crowley parsed Hillary's thinking going into the primary

- Anonymous

May 16, 2008 at 8:01pm