March 6, 2008
Does Hillary Clinton Want John McCain Elected President? (Brent Budowsky)
It is obvious that Hillary Clinton cannot be nominated with a majority of elected delegates and equally obvious that she has embarked on a campaign of personal destruction as her last hope.
I cannot remember a Democratic candidate for president engaging in such totally negative personal attacks against a Democratic opponent, through her comments and through back-channel efforts by her staff, including attempts to play "the Muslim card.”
Hillary Clinton seeks to destroy her opponent to save her nomination, and will only succeed in destroying the party and her own reputation.
This is why I predict a surge of superdelegates to Obama. They understand her tactics, they understand the danger her tactics pose for the party. They do not want to overrule the verdict of the voters. They realize that a desperate personal-destruction campaign against the probable nominee could turn a possible landslide for Democrats into a major Republican triumph.
Could it be that the outcome Hillary Clinton fears the most is a Democratic landslide led by an inspiring two-term Democratic president who truly turns the page?
Could it be that a preferable outcome would be that she engages in a campaign of total personal destruction of her Democratic opponent, in the hope of electing a Republican who would be a one-term president because of considerable age, allowing Hillary to run in 2012?
There are serious people asking these questions behind the scenes. The more she continues her campaign of destruction, the more we will find Democrats, including myself, believing this "Hillary prefers McCain to Obama" scenario could be true.
Permalink TrackBack EMail This Post
Share this post
What's This 37 Comments
»
The Hill welcomes comment from anyone and will almost always post it whether it is favorable or critical, as long as it is substantive and advances debate.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Sometimes, ambition can blind the ambitious. Her campaign, and the campaign of Obama, are based on monosyllabic words like hope and change. It really doesn't mean much. We are headed for an economic crisis of the government's making. The real question is, who will the public trust after that fiasco?
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — March 6, 2008 @ 4:49 pm
Great post Brent.
HRC is proving she is not for change, but she is for the status quo, corporatist governance.
Comment by Lester — March 6, 2008 @ 5:47 pm
I am having a hard time watching this historic battle of the same party unfold. Hillary, by her own words has had 16 years to accomplish something on health care and now she needs another 8? What will she do with 8 more. Its her or nobody. If she cared obout this country as she says, she would have bowed out long before she has made me a republican. I dont see any futere in any candidate that that has as much money as any of these kings and queens.
Comment by Russ Henson — March 6, 2008 @ 6:33 pm
where do you come up with such shite? Let them fight it out.. silly people like you want the easy way out.. it will be better for everyone if this plays out..what is the big hurry? McCain is going anywhere — he is too old to move fast..get real
Comment by Jim — March 6, 2008 @ 6:35 pm
Sure sounds like she endorsed McCain —shameless.
Clinton has traveled extensively on the taxpayers dollar But "WITHOUT PORTFOLIO"!!!! That means no security clearance-no authority and no negoiating ability and she could not attend NSC meetings. She made a speech in China but could do nothing in an offical capacity. Maybe helpful is not authority- in Kosovo the people were already coming back before she traveled there - so she lied about that.
The clintons have lived off the dole all their adult life and only when they carpetbagged it to NY for her senate run did they buy a house—with a very questionable loan.
Comment by bink1 — March 6, 2008 @ 6:51 pm
This can all be explained by "The Iron Law Of Institutions."
***The people who control institutions care first and foremost about their power within the institution rather than the power of the institution itself. Thus, they would rather the institution "fail" while they remain in power within the institution than for the institution to "succeed" if that requires them to lose power within the institution.***–Jonathon Schwarz
This explains, for example, the Democrats' destruction of Jimmy Carter's presidency (even before the Iran fiascos). Obama and McCain too, in fact, are both 'outsiders' who are seen as targets by the regular hacks in both political parties.
Comment by Don Bacon — March 6, 2008 @ 6:56 pm
Hillary is only helping McCain by coments against Obama.
She sounds desparate and grasping at staws in an attempt to win.
She should withdraw.
Comment by Jason Franks — March 6, 2008 @ 7:06 pm
Anyone but the seven years of Republican government that caused the economic crisis in the first place.
Comment by mkochinski — March 6, 2008 @ 7:13 pm
If I remember correctly (and I do) the last Democratic president left us with a surplus.
Comment by mkochinski — March 6, 2008 @ 7:14 pm
It wouldn't surprise me one bit. Wanna know why? Permanent tax cut for the rich. Why do you think the shrew is refusing to release her income tax records - not just for this year - but for the last 7 or so years. She won't release any of them because the Clinton's are rolling in dough. That's how she was able to take $5 million out of her own wallet to finance her campaign. If she wins - she'll make that tax cut permanent - to line her own pockets. She's knows McCain - Chimpy's little kiss ass - will do the same. But she knows there's no way in hell Obama will. He actually wants the rich to have to pay more taxes. Tearing Obama down and praising McCain helps her either way.
Comment by Julie — March 6, 2008 @ 7:32 pm
Brent,
You are right on this issue.
Hillary is a very selfish and corrupt woman who will do anything for power.We are lucky that America is not a third world country,if not,she would have hijacked the election illegaly from Michigan and Florida,to threatened law suits in Nevada.
Comment by Ndali — March 6, 2008 @ 7:45 pm
It certainly looks that way Mr. Budowsky; it's amazing how she still tries to dismiss him, even as he continues to fend off her AND Sen. McCain, not to mention raising $55 million dollars. It's pretty clear that if she can't win this year, she wants it to be McCain.
There's a rumor floating about that there are 50 superdelegates prepared to endorse Sen. Obama. If she keeps up this crap, it's going to be a lot more than that.
Comment by Derek D. — March 6, 2008 @ 8:09 pm
I found your article very stimulating. It is time that Hillary Clinton exit the race. How do the American people persuade her to do that? I feel she is very destructive, look at what she did with the NAFTA argument, lied. Thank you.
Comment by Richard Bernal — March 6, 2008 @ 9:36 pm
Hillary is in political murder-suicide mode… if she cannot have the Democratic nomination she wants to be sure to try to politically kill off Obama, then perhaps she will try again in 4 years… I don't think it is anything personally against Obama, if she her mother looked like she would get the nomination the compassionate Mrs. Clinton would do the same thing… let's recall how Bubba flew back to AK to make sure a retarded man was put to death so he could look tough, and let's not forget whenever something new about that woman he did not have sex with came out he bombed Iraq or someplace to change the subject.
These are murderous low-life people… no surprise.. she is behaving like Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction.
Comment by indc — March 6, 2008 @ 10:58 pm
So, we have Hillary shilling for McCain more than once in the last few days.
Obama ought to be able to use this to end her.
Let's see if he does.
Comment by dcnataro — March 6, 2008 @ 11:05 pm
Absolutely. Hillary is so much like McCain that she is really McCain-lite. She cannot beat him because the voters will vote for the real McCain. Of course she would rather he win — so she is young enough to run after his single term.
Comment by Denise Brooks — March 6, 2008 @ 11:36 pm
Wow, what a post. Dead on. What is Hillary's purpose? No one is perfect including Obama, but he inspires people for more, isn't that what we want? Or do we want a mudslinger? Sometimes, I think maybe America does not deserve Barack. People are swayed so easily by what they see on TV instead of what they read for themselves. And by the way, hope and change were Barack's words until Hillary started using them.
Comment by Trevor — March 7, 2008 @ 1:41 am
Don't be ridiculous. Hillary is not part of a conspiracy to elect another Republican. You make her out to be totally amoral, willing to do anything under the sun to win.
Come to your senses. She is practicing old time politics. It may defeat her because the country is fed up with old time politics, but, it may also propel her to victory because so many Americans also are vulnerable to old time politics.
It seems to me that the progressives are getting hysterical about her. Threatening to vote for McCain unless Obama gets the nomination. Telling her, time and time and time again that she should just quit.
Would Obama just quit if he was behind in the pledged delegate count for the same number that Hillary is? Well, OF COURSE, he wouldn't and no one in their right minds would suggest it. He would be entitled, and not only that, duty bound to fight to the bitter end in the name of all the millions of Americans who believe in him. Well, so is Hillary.
Obama is going to show Americans that he can get down and dirty too. Well, folks, welcome to the real world where candidates are just like columnists and the rest of us who call one another names and attempt to destroy the other person's character every chance we get. Stupid, of course, but it seems to be the American way. Why else do Americans tune in to television shows where people are regularly humiliated?
Obama's attempt to elevate the political discourse in the country is to be much admired. In fact, it is heroic in it's own way. It represents the best that America can be and that is why he has attracted millions upon millions of people to his side.
Which gets me to my main point: this primary election is really about a change of generations and a battle between the old way of doing things and a new way of doing things.
I would ask people to consider the big picture and think historically and politically and give up trashing either one of these people as human beings. Thanks.
Comment by banjobailey — March 7, 2008 @ 2:35 am
I find all the handwringing over the imminent 'destruction' of the Democratic Party a bit of a stretch. This is part of the nominating process and Clinton is doing what any nominee does; she's campaigning and fighting for her candidacy!
The propositions by some Obama supporters that she should bow out are ridiculous. As proven in the popular votes - regardless of the delegate count stands (what an un-Denmocratis that process is!) -there are a hell of a lot of Democrats out there that think she should be the party's candidate. As much as I like Obama I also admire Hillary for being a fighter.
As the old saying goes 'It ain't over till the fat lady sings'. And it looks like she ain't gonna finish singing until the Democratic convention later this year.
Comment by Steve — March 7, 2008 @ 2:48 am
It is difficult to believe what I am seeing Hillary Clinton doing.
She clearly underestimates the level of awareness of much of the electorate…
very many of us have already passed beyond forgiveness.
The issue of the Florida and Michigan primaries is a case in point…we are quite aware that she agreed that those results would NOT be counted.
We are also aware of the game ( and why) that Granholm and Crist are playing).
What I find most difficult to forgive, though, is that the landslide of new Democratic voters will probably fade away…sickened by the vision of
Hillary's mudslinging lust for power.
From both candidates, we wanted hope for a better future…not more of the same.
Can't anyone in the Democratic party stop her?
Comment by Barbara — March 7, 2008 @ 3:02 am
The democrats must end this clinically obssessive and distructive desire of Hillary Clinton to be president or else no one will be left standing from her party to be elected. Absolutely her obscene smears, even with surogates from the beginning, tell us that she is determined to destroy a seemingly good man who has every appearance of being an American story. How democrats excuse her tactics is revolting and hurting so many who for the first time come into the process.
Comment by Rita1 — March 7, 2008 @ 3:47 am
How in the world can you sit there and say hope and change don't work when you in another breath say the current fiasco is the current governments fault..so if they can't use hope for the people and then utilize change to make it happen..What do you suggest? Sounds like you can't get your rhetoric straight.BTW we are already in an economic crisis last time i looked a few minutes ago..
Comment by Jim — March 7, 2008 @ 7:12 am
First let me say that I am an Obama supporter. That being said could you please list the "serious" people who are asking this question. Are they the same "serious" people who thought it was a good idea to invade Iraq? Because we know how that turned out. When someone tells me a "seriuos" person in DC believes this or that, I am less then impressed.
And to believe that Hillary would be that cold and calculating is getting waaaaay out there into tin-foil hat, Rush Limbaugh territory. But when I look at your colleagues listed in the column on the left of this page I suspect that may well be where you're at.
Comment by Henk — March 7, 2008 @ 9:00 am
I agree. I would not have agreed that this was possible until the commander-in-chief threshold comment. Even the NAFTA stuff and the picture from Africa and the gee, I don't think he's a Muslim games and the attempt to paint Obama as a candidate of African-Americans did not convince me that the Clinton campaign was other than a little sleazy. The c-in-c comment put them completely beyond the pale for me and I think your explanation is the only one that makes sense because whatever they are stupid is not it. The comment was not a mistake.
Comment by global citizen — March 7, 2008 @ 9:32 am
THINK THE SHOE FITS….
1mon·ster
Pronunciation: \ˈmän(t)-stər\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English monstre, from Anglo-French, from Latin monstrum omen, monster, from monēre to warn — more at mind
Date: 14th century
1 a: an animal or plant of abnormal form or structure b: one who deviates from normal or acceptable behavior or character
2: a threatening force
Comment by bink1 — March 7, 2008 @ 12:06 pm
I was an uncommitted voter at our Washington caucus last month. I was attracted to both our excellent contenders. But over the past several weeks the Clinton campaign has alienated me, this morning I read in the newspaper that campaign is now equating Obama's plan to examine Clinton's record with the investigations of Ken Starr. This is too much, much too much.
It seems to me the Clinton's are putting private ego over the good of our nation and are jeopardizing a tremendous opportunity for Democrats to regain political power and get on to solving our country's many serious problems.
It seems to me Hillary Clinton prefers only herself today and always over a Democratic victory come November.
Comment by Maureen O'Brien O'Reilly — March 7, 2008 @ 1:28 pm
Freedom has a strange way of triumphing.
Comment by Igor R. — March 7, 2008 @ 2:00 pm
Clinton has posited that only she and McCain have passed the commander and chief test, Obama has not.
1. Who is giving and scoring this test?
2. All those who think Clinton has our nation's best interest take note. She would rather have John McSame-as-Bush be president than a democrat. She'd rather have us at war for 100 years than have Obama elected. She thinks a bigoted old man, who supports torturing the constitution as well as humans, is better for America than her democratic opponent.
Comment by Wray — March 7, 2008 @ 2:26 pm
Thank you so much for this post, Clinton is getting such a pass right now from the media for this and the NAFTA flap, it is very frustrating.
Comment by Christian B. — March 7, 2008 @ 3:35 pm
Remind me why a vote for Obama is better than a vote for Clinton is better than a vote for McCain. All are votes for the precisely the same investors and their agenda. This obsession with personalities and the inane rhetoric of campaigns ('He's for Change!!') is as distracting and as significant as sports. These websites are sports pages, and Air America has become sports radio. In a political context where Kucinich is unthinkable, the Democratic Party the hero, exactly where do you folks get the gall to be passionate?
Comment by j caton — March 7, 2008 @ 4:02 pm
J caton, can you please name these investors?
Comment by Igor R. — March 7, 2008 @ 4:25 pm
Please check the Bureau of Public Debt and you will discover that the National Debt almost doubled under Bill Clinton. What surplus? There never was any, and it's a big lie.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — March 7, 2008 @ 6:56 pm
How a woman like Hillary could get away with all the things she's done is amazing. Who are these people voting for her? I don't get it. She says she has more experience than Obama.She does,but her real experience is standing by her cheating husband,hiding her tax returns from the public,making illegal campain funds disapear,lying when it suits her and whining when things don't go her way. Wake up people you're being bamboozled by this woman and her husband.
Comment by Ginna — March 7, 2008 @ 11:58 pm
Brent, you are far from objective on this topic. Neither candidate will have enough delegates to win, so there is no need for the more qualified candidate to step down now. Do we want another quiter like Gore/Kerry? Obama's delegate lead came about because the mainstream media, trashed Clinton early on in the primaries while Obama was treated as a rock star. This has also been the MO of most of the progressive web sites. Watch how the media will MSM will change in the general election. They will suddenly begin to echo all the GOP echo machine's talking points.
Then you have the possibility of the Rezco connection and other rookie mistakes that lead to him loosing Texas and Ohio.
Most importantly, she is MORE QUALIFIED. Many people in have these commented on the Red Phone ad.They have said that Hillary Clinton has not had foreign policy experience but here are the views of someone who knows. Larry Johnson was the CIA agent who briefed Clinton. From No Quarter.net - "Hillary is quite ready to answer the 3am phone call. As someone who has been directly involved with such calls during the Reagan, Bush, and Clinton administrations, I do know what I am talking about. As I have said before, I have had the opportunity to brief Senator Clinton on terrorism and Iraq during the last three years. During the course of my career at the CIA, State Department, and as a consultant, I have briefed in one form or fashion more than 60 members of Congress, a Vice President, and a President. I have participated in briefings for the Joint Chiefs of Staff and other senior military commanders. I entered my first meeting with Hillary with strong reservations about her competence (based entirely on what I had heard and read in the media). I walked out of that meeting very impressed. Hands down, I found her to be the most impressive person I had had the privilege to brief. Why was I impressed? First and foremost, she listened. I have briefed folks who get the 1000-yard stare–they drift off and start thinking about something else. I also have briefed folks who get the panicked look from not understanding what I am talking about. Hillary was different. She listened intently, but she also grasped the substance and nuance of the issues we were discussing. Second, she asked tough questions that showed me she was genuinely searching for viable policy options. I had a similar experience with Senator Joe Biden, only that was during a hearing. But unlike many members of Congress who rely on some aide sitting at their side to pump them with questions and information, Hillary could think on her own. She did not need “Foreign Policy for Dummies.” Hillary also is one of the few members of Congress who understood the difference between Special Forces and and Special Operations Forces. You would be shocked at the number of Senators and Representatives who are supposed to exercise oversight of the military and do not understand this basic point. When we talk about the “3 a.m.” call we are talking about crisis response operations. Back in July of 1990, the United States was involved in a covert effort to resolve peacefully a coup that involved Libyan-backed terrorists. We had quietly inserted U.S. personnel into the country, the situation was settled without further loss of life, and we were trying to figure out how to withdraw our personnel without exposing them publicly. Our concern about how to cover their withdrawal was made moot when word came that Saddam had just invaded Kuwait. We were taking down one crisis communications task force in the State Department Ops Center as a new one, dedicated to Iraq/Kuwait, was being formed. What is not well known is that President Bush (senior), Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, and James Baker had been briefed two days earlier in the White House situation room on the impending invasion of Iraq. They were warned that Saddam would likely invade unless the United States made a public declaration to warn him away. The President and his advisors declined at the time to issue such a warning because they believed that if they did so and Saddam invaded, the U.S. would have no choice but to respond militarily. With hindsight we now know that Bush, Cheney, Powell, and Baker screwed up that phone call. When the phone rings and the President is alerted to the problem, you will want a President whose first instinct is to understand the implication of the threat for U.S. national interests. I know that Hillary understands that point. Barack, by contrast, did not even understand the importance of holding a hearing on NATO’s role in Afghanistan even though he had the full authority to do so. Once you hang up the phone you need a leader who understands the bureaucratic tools and resources that are available to be brought to bear on the problem. On this point in particular Hillary is light years ahead of Barack. Barack would be hard pressed to explain the difference between DIA, CIA, and NSA. Hillary knows that Washington machinery intimately. And finally there is the issue of advisors. Let me state again for the record: I am not trying out for a spot on Hillary’s foreign policy team. I am not seeking a job in her administration. I do not want to make the personal sacrifice required to go back into government service–I would have to take a pay cut and work too many long hours. But Hillary is surrounded with a better group of foreign policy advisors. Barack has the likes of Susan Rice and Tony Lake–two of the key folks who failed to respond in a timely matter to the disaster in Rwanda. Hillary, by contrast, has Dick Holbrooke, who helped bring an end to the killing in the Balkans." Larry Johnson
» reply
Comment by CJbushwacker — March 9, 2008 @ 6:42 am
Did Hillary really have a major win in Texas? We know that she lost the caucuses. Tom Hartman on his Friday Radio America broadcast cited information that leads to the conclusion that around 700,000 Republicans, urged on by Rush Limbo, voted for Hillary. The basis of this conclusion is the number of usually red counties where there were an unusual high number of Democratic votes but not even one GOP vote (i.e. 0). Then there were many undervotes for Hillary, where people voted for Hillary alone and ignored the rest of the ballot list. Hartman was very convincing.
If I'm not wrong, Republicans can vote the Democratic ticket in Pennsylvania - and why shouldn't they, there is no longer any need to vote for McCain? The idiot media will tout Hillary's GOP-fueled win as a momentum-busting, narrative-changing rout.
What a banana republic the US has become!
Comment by B. Blogman — March 9, 2008 @ 10:34 pm
To which I respond "Does Barack Obama want John McCain elected president?!"
Good to see all the irrational Hillary hate alive and well (because Obama is sooo much different than she is…) Lord help the Democrats.
Comment by Jim — March 10, 2008 @ 7:38 am
You must be joking. You never remember a candidate being so negative? Before I counter the so-called "negative" title you have given Hillary, I would like to point out that this campaign has been incredibly benign compared to most in history. Don't believe me? Check this out http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/10/the_american_way_of_campaignin.html
or this
http://www.journalismethics.ca/book_reviews/going_dirty.htm
Now back to Hillary being negative…since when is it bad to point out how you think you are better than your opponent? Since a woman is running? Just asking, because as a student of political science I don't remember ever reading or studying about another candidate that has been vilified to the extent Hillary has been over the last few weeks for pointing out her opponent's weaknesses.
I certainly hope that you when you speak of negative that you aren't referring to that darkened photo of Obama, which was never proved to be a tactic from Hillary and has been determined today to be both unintentional (by graphics experts) and not from the Hillary camp on the Lionel Show by the independent group he uses as a fact checker (can't remember the name but you can listen to today's show if you don't believe me.)
I also hope it's not the middle name thing or the Canadian thing either because none of those have been proved to be from the Clinton camp, and the person that the person who sent that email with Obama dressed in the native garb was fired, just like the person who said Hillary was a monster. Clearly candidates can't be totally responsible for all things their camp do except refute and fire them which BOTH candidates have done.
Finally, as far as this whole suggestion that Hillary prefer McCain to Obama thing…..WOW—you really need to take a break from commenting on politics because your view is so skewed at this point. I don't think that "serious people asking these questions behind the scenes" is evidence, especially since you don't site them and even if you did–who says they know whata they are talking about. How about good old fashion reporting on actually FACTS and quotes and misinterpreting them. Hillary has been hinting at a joint ticket for some time and that she should be on top. THAT is what her quote below is saying
“I think that I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/04/clinton-mccain-has-more-_n_89758.html
She is saying SHE stacks up better against McCain and preparing people for her next goal to share a ticket and be on the top. She NEVER said that she prefers McCain. Suggesting that is borderline slander and you should apologize to her campaign for spreading this hateful, paranoid and unsubstantiated suggestion.
Comment by Michael — March 10, 2008 @ 11:10 am