March 17, 2008
Hillary's Plan to Elect McCain and a Right-Wing Supreme Court (Brent Budowsky)
As someone in regular contact with major superdelegates in Congress, let me explain why there is a near-panic among the supers which I predict will lead to a major move to Obama fairly soon.
Setting aside motive for now, there is one mathematically provable and irrefutable impact of the campaign of personal destruction that Hillary Clinton is waging against Barack Obama. It is this: The road of her campaign leads to helping to elect John McCain and hurting every Democrat on every ballot throughout America.
Here is why. What Clinton is doing, which I believe is deliberate but in any event is happening, is to seek to drive many of her supporters to McCain in a general election.
The best example is her false and destructive claim that she and McCain are qualified to be president and Obama is not. There are other spurious and malicious attacks from Hillary that readers are aware of, which need not be repeated here, which all have the same effect.
From the point of view of superdelegates, and especially elected officials and supers who want Democrats elected and not defeated, here is how it looks and why they will make their move for Barack sooner than pundits expect.
Hillary's negative attacks have some short-term impact that does not help her against Barack, but does hurt Barack against McCain. Hillary may be running the only negative campaign in Democratic political history aimed to persuade her own voters to support a Republican in a general against her Democratic opponents.
In Hillary’s scheme, if Barack is nominated, some of her supporters would theoretically support McCain or stay home. Similarly, as Obama’s supporters become (correctly) enraged by Hillary's campaign of personal destruction against the candidate (Barack) with the most elected delegates and popular votes, Obama supporters become so embittered by Hillary that a number of them would stay home with Hillary as nominee.
In Hillary's scheme, no matter who is nominated, there would be Democratic and independent voters who have Democratic-leaning views who would stay home, which hurts all Democratic candidates.
If a Democratic voter or Democratic-leaning independent stays home because of the Hillary onslaught of personal destruction while she is losing the battle of elected delegates and popular vote, aimed against the Democrat who is winning, those stay-home voters by definition do not vote, either, for the member of the House or Senate, or governor or alderman running as a Democrat.
My personal opinion is that Hillary would rather elect a one-term Republican of advanced age than a two-term young Democratic leader as president. Of course, the corollary of the Hillary scheme is that a President McCain would give America the most anti-woman, anti-worker, anti-environment Supreme Court in history. But that is not Hillary's concern in her campaign of personal attack and destruction.
Even if this is not Hillary's intent, this is the inevitable, mathematically irrefutable result of Hillary's campaign as she is running it.
Privately, the superdelegates can do the math, and while many lack the courage of conviction and common sense to stand against this, they know it is true.
For these reasons the supers are in a stone-cold panic and will make their move to end this, and sooner than pundits expect.
Permalink TrackBack EMail This Post
Share this post
What's This 24 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
Brent — How much is the Obama campaigning you to be their media lap dog? That's the most self-serving piece of garbage you've delivered in a long time.
For your information, Clinton and McCain ARE far more qualified than Obama. The very fact that they both have twice as much experience in Congress as Obama is enough proof.
If Obama isn't qualified, it really doesn't matter whether McCain or Clinton point those flaws out, they will still come out. And the public has a right to know about them.
Why do people like you continue to shield Obama from scrutiny? Why don't you talk about his drug use? We brags about how he is such a good decision maker. Where was that trait when he was snorting coke and smoking pot?
Comment by John Simmons — March 17, 2008 @ 9:23 am
Excellent post Brent.
Comment by Lester — March 17, 2008 @ 10:00 am
John Simmons;
For those of us who follow politics, please educate us on McCain's experience. It would well appreciated.
Comment by Mike Coleman — March 17, 2008 @ 11:02 am
Brent,
Normally dig your posts. However, this one reaches too far. Hillary is fighting dirty to advance herself, true. But I don't think it goes beyond her own self-interest - she's fighting for something she thinks was hers and was stolen as she was so close to getting it she could taste it. So now, she's pushing to the limit in a power grab - and it may hurt her politically. In fact, the most intriguing outcome of this election will be the extent to which Hillary's voice maybe become marginalized post-campaign. And I think she knows it. That's why she's fighting to broker some deal. She thinks she should move up the ranks because of her delegate power. We'll have to see on what happens.
Also, I don't get the Supreme Court right wing court packing scheme title either. It's already a right-wing supreme court. See the NY Times Supreme Court Inc. by Jeffrey Rosen from Sunday. You mention this scheme in the title and then don't mention the court at all in the post.
Comment by WM — March 17, 2008 @ 12:19 pm
Mr. Simmons:
By your standards, Calvin Coolidge was more qualified to be president than Abraham Lincoln.
A history of being wrong about major issues, including Iraq and NAFTA, however long, does not qualify Hillary or McCain to serve this country in any capacity.
Comment by Green Eagle — March 17, 2008 @ 12:21 pm
This is one theory of Hillary Clinton's behavior that has been going around. However, regardless of the motive, her actions show that Hillary Clinton would be a thoroughly disastrous de facto leader of the Democratic Party. Thus she would have to be very much better than Barack Obama, as a president, to justify putting someone with such reckless disregard for the health of the party into the general election.
No way would she be that much better than Obama, so she is disqualified, at least for strongly partisan Democrats.
Comment by Barry Schwartz — March 17, 2008 @ 1:00 pm
Obama is qualified to motivate mental midgets for hope and change. This America-hater steeped in hearing his country denigrated for 20 years at the "church" isn't fit to be a dog catcher. Nobody can ever cite one significant achievement of his other than relating to his own elections. Now we can clearly see that his carefully cultivated image is a mirage. This country isn't ready for the South Chicago brand of Marxism yet.
Comment by Igor R. — March 17, 2008 @ 1:32 pm
Wow this seems like a bit of a stretch to me. Hillary is cold and calculating but to do what you think she wants to do would be insanely self-serving and a very questionable in these incredibly unpredictable times.
I think that the more the superdelegates come forward in support of Obama the sooner she cools her jets and returns to do her job as a Senator.
We need inspired, mostly unbaggaged leadership to clean up this mess Bush has made. Obama is the one that can do what is needed.
What we need to do most is get this insane mess in Iraq moving toward exit ASAP. This is dragging down our future in so many ways.
Joseph www.explorelifeblog.com and www.peace-together.com
Comment by Joseph Bernard — March 17, 2008 @ 1:38 pm
And we are now finding out that Hillary has lied about her “experience.”
Not only did Ted Kennedy give us SCHIP, Hillary was at the time defending Bill’s initial attempts at killing it for budgetary reasons.
Comment by Kuni — March 18, 2008 @ 10:58 am
Typical liberals here. They want others to educate them because it takes effort to educate yourself.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — March 18, 2008 @ 11:52 am
"Hillary is cold and calculating but to do what you think she wants to do would be insanely self-serving and a very questionable in these incredibly unpredictable times."
I have no problem believing she is doing this. She's setting herself up for 2012. I do so hope that the supers are indeed preparing to move in favor of Obama, and I really hope they do it before Pennsylvania. They can't do it soon enough for me — and for the good of the party and the country.
Comment by Carrie — March 18, 2008 @ 12:32 pm
Coleman — as usual, I will carry the responsibility of educating you. McCain's 20 years in the Senate, compared to Obama's 3 years experience speaks volumes about his experience. McCain has been the Chairman of numerous Senate committees while Obama has trouble handling the one subcommittee he chairs as proven by the fact that he hasn't had a single hearing since he took over the Chair a year ago. His job is Senator, not Presidential candidate, he should do the job he's getting paid to do. McCain has travelled all over the world meeting more foreign leaders than Obama can name. How many foreign relations trips has Obama been on? Not many since he started running for President? McCain beats Obama in Congressional experience, foreign relations experience and military experience. I will admit, however, that Obama probably beats McCain in experience with community development projects.
Comment by John Simmons — March 18, 2008 @ 12:52 pm
It's worse than that Robert. They really not want to be educated for fear of learning the truth. They thrive on what isn't and not what is. A liberal translation of life on the left.
Comment by John B — March 18, 2008 @ 1:42 pm
I don't think Dems will stay home or vote for McCain just because Hillary won't get the nomination( and she won't) unless they are hardcore racists, which is a Repulican trait not so much with the Dems. Granted Ferarro did her best to get a racist message out and look where that got em. Nowhere. Hillary's campaign looks more and more like a horrible freak show. If you like Bush you would love McCain. Are people forgeting Bush has the lowest approval rating EVER. Let me repeat that… EVER.
Comment by fitz — March 18, 2008 @ 6:56 pm
Typical Rosencramps convoluted say nothing-look wise comment.
For me this Brendt piece is right on. No matter if Hil has intents or not she should have thought out the consequenses which are shown to be obvious and rejected this line of attack. Hil took a variation of the Nader 2000 lines of attack on Gore and Nader's damage became ours–he did not benefit, nor did the Greens and neither will Hil.
Comment by Cole — March 18, 2008 @ 10:06 pm
Mr. Budowsky, you are right on point and to prove it, watch these clips of Sen. Clinton overtly endorsing Sen. John McCain.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMVOT-IH8sg
Is there no shame left in the Clinton legacy? Trumping party alliance for a Republican? Not any Republican, she is selling-out for a Republican that will continue the same disastrous agenda as the last administration.
All I can say is, UNBELIEVABLE!
Comment by blaqsage — March 18, 2008 @ 11:06 pm
I agree with igor r. and robert rosencrans. Mental midgets are they that can hope or change. I do not agree that dog catchers are bad. And they are fit too. igor and robert are good educators.
Comment by Bertoray — March 18, 2008 @ 11:35 pm
clinton only cares that SHE wins. as a very humiliated white woman, how dare america choose a black man over her? she had no plans after super tuesday. she thought it was in the bag. budowsky's view is real. hillary having a hissy fit is attempting to throw the election to mc-bush. if she can't be president, obama wil not be. checkout the speech today babe! you are toast!!
Comment by dihi548 — March 19, 2008 @ 1:14 am
Brent, I see Hillary even worse. I truly believe she will run as an independent to insure McCains win.
She is A self serving power craving Republican in disguise. We all know she was on Goldwaters election commity and worse than that she did NOTHING to help advance workers rights while on the board of Wal-Mart. She is for NAFTA and she approves of the Iraq WAR and the preemptive war policies of buSh. I just can't understand how the voters backing her can just disregard these nasty un "Democratic" facts. It is of paramount importance to change SCOTUS or the people of this country are going to be the slaves of the corporations for decades to come.
Comment by Paul DeMasi — March 19, 2008 @ 8:09 am
All this talk of super delegates, giving the election to hillary? Super delegates! pull up where are hillaries tax returns? Question "why is McCain & hillary the only ones qualified to be president." is it because they are white?
Comment by henry — March 19, 2008 @ 8:21 am
Brent–of course you are correct, but I diaried this weeks ago on DKos, so you are not saying anything new here. The Clintons have already been paid many, many millions of $ to very unsavory people for services to-be-rendered in the White House. This is the true reason why they'll kill the Democratic Party: to save their own skins.
Comment by Zac Garripoli — March 19, 2008 @ 10:45 am
McCain, do you support Bush?
McCain: Yes.
This message approved by McCain
Comment by OH — March 19, 2008 @ 11:09 am
One can only hope the 'Supers' will do as Brent says. There should be no doubt that Hillary is all about Hillary & nothing else. Anyone who'll obviously do ANYTHING to get elected, even to the point of possibly destroying her own party's chance of winning the general election, is not worthy of being in the Senate, let alone the White House. As far as experience goes, I'm sick of the so-called 'experienced' politicians in Washington totally & completely screwing over the American people every chance they get. They screwed up the economy. Foreign policy is a joke. Environment? Hello! I think we should push hard for term limits for the House, Senate AND the courts all the way up to the Supreme Court. 'Experience' in Washington translates into 'Entrenched Power for Special Interests'. And, guess what folks? Those interests are in complete opposition to the average American's interests. Less experience means less corruption & more power for the people. Heck, I'd rather see the paper boy elected President than ANY of the fools we've got now!
Comment by fattkidd — March 19, 2008 @ 12:27 pm
Actually, Factcheck.org confirmed Hillary did play a major role in Children's health insurance SCHIP. Here's the article.
FactCheck.org
Giving Hillary Credit for SCHIP
March 18, 2008
Despite disparagement from political rivals, we find she deserves ample credit for expanding children's health insurance.
Summary
One of Clinton's signature claims has come under fire from political foes, quoted by the Boston Globe, who say she doesn't deserve credit for expanding federal health insurance for millions of children.
We reviewed the record and concluded that she deserves plenty of credit, both for the passage of the SCHIP legislation and for pushing outreach efforts to translate the law into reality.
Analysis
Hillary Clinton has made the claim literally thousands of times, repeating it constantly in her ads, debate appearances and stump speeches. She "got health insurance for six million kids," according to one ad. (The version shown here ran in Texas, but a similar ad also ran heavily in Wisconsin.)
Clinton Ad: "Obligation"
Narrator: She fought for universal health care long before it was popular. Got health insurance for six million kids, and expanded access to health care to the National Guard. Now she’s the only candidate for president with a plan to provide health care for every American. A top economist calls Hillary’s plan the difference between achieving universal health coverage – and falling far short. If you believe health care is America’s moral obligation, join her, Tuesday. Hillary Clinton.
Clinton: I'm Hillary Clinton and I approve this message.
What the Globe Said:
We had not previously had reason to question her role in the creation of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) during her husband's administration, but last week the Boston Globe ran a story with the headline, "Clinton role in health programs disputed."
The Globe said Clinton "had little to do with crafting the landmark legislation or ushering it through Congress, according to several lawmakers, staffers, and healthcare advocates involved in the issue."
This was quickly picked up and amplified in various political blogs accusing her of exaggeration and even "lying."
So, we've reviewed the Globe story, and the record. The newspaper account quotes a political foe, Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, as saying she doesn't deserve credit for the legislation. Hatch cosponsored the legislation and has endorsed the GOP's presumptive nominee, John McCain. The newspaper also said that "privately, some lawmakers and staff members are fuming" over Clinton's claim but didn't name any of them. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, who cosponsored the 1997 legislation that eventually led to the creation of SCHIP, was asked whether Clinton was exaggerating her role. The Globe said he wouldn't criticize Clinton "directly" but said: "Facts are stubborn things … I think we ought to stay with the facts."
What the Record Shows
Kennedy, of course, is now backing Clinton's rival, Barack Obama, for the nomination. But last year, before that endorsement, he was quoted by the Associated Press as saying something quite different, which the Globe did not note in its story:
Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Oct. 6, 2007: "The children's health program wouldn't be in existence today if we didn't have Hillary pushing for it from the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue."
In that same story, The AP's Beth Fouhy concluded, "While Kennedy is widely viewed as the driving force behind the program, by all accounts the former first lady's pressure was crucial." She quoted Nick Littlefield, who had been a senior health adviser to Kennedy, as saying, "we relied on her, worked with her and she was pivotal in encouraging the White House to do it."
The AP's assessment is backed up by others we consulted. Adam Clymer, former chief Washington correspondent for the New York Times, covered the legislative maneuvering and also wrote about it in a 1999 book, "Edward M. Kennedy: A Biography." Clymer wrote that Kennedy "worked with" Hillary Clinton to get White House support for a Senate measure to grant $24 billion for the new program, rather than the $16 billion approved by the House. "With strong administration support, the $24 billion stayed in," he wrote. Then, when the bill finally passed, Kennedy "credited the President, the First Lady, [Senate Democratic Leader Tom] Daschle, Marian Wright Edelman, head of the Children's Defense Fun, and Hatch. …"
Clymer, in an exchange of e-mails, told FactCheck.org:
Adam Clymer: On balance, I would say of course Kennedy and Hatch deserve most of the credit, but Hillary helped by making sure the Administration stuck with the $24 billion in [the Senate-House] conference. She didn't write the legislation but she played a significant role in getting it passed.
Other accounts at the time the legislation was passed and since give Clinton substantial credit. The pro-Republican Washington Times newspaper credited (or perhaps more accurately, blamed) Hillary Clinton for the program in a 1997 article. The paper said it had obtained documents from 1993 showing that the White House "plotted" to push a "Kids First" insurance program if Mrs. Clinton's universal health care proposal failed.
Washington Times, Aug. 6, 1997: The plan signed into law yesterday by Mr. Clinton and pushed by the first lady is a duplicate of the 4-year-old health care task force idea, except that it is paid for by a 15-cent tax on cigarettes.
One of the co-authors of the plan, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat, credited Mrs. Clinton for her "invaluable help, both in the fashioning and the shaping of the program."
Years later, when Clinton was first running for the Senate, Kennedy's aide Littlefield was still giving her credit. The New York Times quoted him as saying, ''She was a one-woman army inside the White House to get this done.'' He said that when President Clinton himself was showing reluctance to back the new legislation out of fear it would upset a budget deal with Republicans, "We went to Mrs. Clinton and said, 'You've got to get the president to come around on this thing,' " and she did.
More Than Just Legislating
Moreover, Hillary Clinton took a major role in translating the new law into action. The program leaves to the states the job of setting up coverage and getting children enrolled, a task that continues to be a struggle to this day. In February 1999, after 47 states had set up SCHIP programs, the Clintons launched a drive to "Insure Kids Now." Hillary took the lead, speaking first before her husband in an East Room event at the White House.
Hillary Clinton, Feb. 23, 1999: At least half of all uninsured children are eligible for federal-state health insurance programs, but too often their parents don't know or don't believe they qualify. As successful, for example, as Medicaid has been, an estimated 4 million eligible children are still not enrolled.
In April that year the first lady gave a speech saying nearly 1 million children had been enrolled during the previous year, but that increasing the figure was "one of the highest priorities" of her husband's administration. She said the president would seek $1 billion to fund a five-year "outreach" effort, with a goal of increasing enrollment to 5 million by 2000.
Our conclusion: Clinton is right on this one.
– by Brooks Jackson
Sources
Milligan, Susan. "Clinton role in health program disputed." The Boston Globe, 14 March 2008.
Gray, Jerry. "Through Senate Alchemy, Tobacco Is Turned Into Gold for Children's Health." The New York Times, 11 Aug. 1997.
Bedard, Paul. "Budget a back door to 'Clintoncare'; Children's health insurance is similar to coverage pushed by Hillary in '93. Washington Times, 6 Aug. 1997.
Fouhy, Beth. "Clinton claims credit for child program." The Associated Press, 6 Oct. 2007.
Bumiller, Elisabeth. "In Shift, Mrs. Clinton Stresses Behind-the-Scenes Influence." The New York Times, 11 Aug. 2000.
The White House. "President Clinton and First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton launch the Insure Kids Now campaign promoting children's health insurance outreach." news release, 23 Feb. 1999.
The White House. "Remarks by the President and the First Lady at children's health outreach event." transcript, 23 Feb. 1999.
The White House. "First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton announces that almost one million children are enrolled in the children's health insurance program." news release, 20 April 1999.
Comment by Ron Mayes — March 29, 2008 @ 10:29 pm