Hillary Clinton

The Democrats’ Worst Enemy

A couple weeks ago I heard Dick Morris (a former top adviser to Bill Clinton) opine that Hillary Clinton’s continued presence in the Democratic presidential race was no longer about winning the nomination but was rather aimed at weakening Barack Obama so much that he loses the general election, thereby giving Clinton a chance to take on an aging John McCain in 2012. At the time, I didn’t give much credence to this argument. It just seemed too cynical, even for someone as unprincipled as Hillary Clinton. But in light of recent developments, I am no longer so sure that this is not exactly what she has in mind.

It was quite disturbing to hear Clinton play the race card recently and claim that Obama cannot win the support of “hard-working, white Americans”. While Bill Clinton has injected the issue of race into the campaign on a number of occasions, Hillary had avoided doing so until recently. One must wonder why she has chosen this point, when her chances of winning the nomination are virtually nil, to make such a divisive, race-baiting statement.

Likewise, Clinton’s continued efforts to compare the “disenfranchisement” of Florida and Michigan to the disputed election of 2000 seem to make no sense except if Morris’ theory is correct. By all accounts, Clinton would not be able to secure the nomination even if the delegates from Florida and Michigan are seated, so why would she make an argument which is unlikely to have any effect other than to further fracture the divided Democratic Party?

While the Democratic Party certainly did create an unfair mess by penalizing Florida and Michigan, to compare the current situation to the debacle of 2000 is not only absurd, it threatens to undermine Obama’s chances of carrying these two vital states in the general election.

The Clinton campaign agreed to the rules established by the party and only chose to make an issue of Florida and Michigan when it realized that doing so would help her make up her deficit in both pledged delegates and popular vote. While it would be unfortunate to deny these states a say in selecting the Democratic nominee, Clinton’s proposed solution would be even more unfair. The Obama campaign played by the rules and didn’t campaign in Florida and removed his name from the ballot in Michigan.

For Clinton to now claim that the results in these states accurately reflect the “will of the people” is patently absurd. To compare the current situation to the “stolen” election of 2000 is likely to have no other effect than to increase the anger of voters in Florida and Michigan and to alienate them from the Democratic Party. And since even if she got her way she still would not win the nomination, one must ask why she would do something that could very well hand the presidency to John McCain.

For anyone who doesn’t think that Clinton is capable of such treachery, I challenge you to offer an alternative explanation for her recent actions.