Like many Democrats, I've been puzzled of late by Hillary Clinton's seemingly erratic, occasionally desperate, often shrill intemperate approach in the campaign in the last month after starting out the campaign in 2007 on a relatively high road.
Much has been made of the reasons why the Clinton campaign imploded, but in looking forward, many are now asking the question about what she has to gain by helping the Republicans rehearse attack lines on Obama as the presumptive nominee.
Yes, it's possible this is a genuinely-formed strategy about the best way to become President in 2008. But increasingly I'm wondering if Clinton might be tempted by the devil's bargain -- to position herself for 2012 by weakening the Democratic nominee in 2008. More on the flip.
Historically, if your interest is in your own ambition to become President, this is not a bad strategy. Reagan attacked Ford with vigor in 1976, and just as it seemed he might be irretrievably behind, late in the primary season he named Gov. Schweicker of Pennsylvania as his running mate for what is recognized as a brilliant tactical stroke. Ford had to tilt right to deal with the internal party revolts, and as such lost a lot of momentum and talking points for the fall campaign, which he of course lost to Jimmy Carter in the fall.
Reagan's reward for this was to elevate himself as the guy who was "right", heightening differences within the party between Ford's more traditionally moderate approach and an ideological purity that appealed to the base. This propelled him to the nomination in 1980, of course.
John McCain, despite having little in common with the most strident elements of his party, seems to have struck the devil's bargain following the 2000 campaign by embracing the very people (literally) who smeared him repeatedly in that campaign. The parallel to Reagan in 1976 isn't precise, but it still remains that McCain was left as the most widely-recognized contender in 2008, a factor that seems to have been largely responsible for his last-man-standing category this year. Of course, McCain is running as a pseudo-incumbent, embracing the second President Bush's foreign and military policy with the implicit promise that this time it will be pursued competently.
Similar internecine fighting down to the wire has weakened incumbents without necessarily helping the challengers' chances down the road. Senator Kennedy's run in 1980, against an already weakened Carter administration, crippled Carter's ability to coalesce the traditional Democratic base. The McCarthy campaign in 1968 drove LBJ out of the Presidential race. Pat Buchanan's assault on the first President Bush weakened him in his re-election campaign in 1988 1992.
In earlier eras, a nominee who lost in the fall might still regain the nomination in a future election. The nominee was seen as the standard-bearer for the party, not as a loser on the national front. Nixon regained the nomination in 1968 after losing in 1960, Dewey was a repeat candidate, Adlai Stevenson was a two-time nominee for the Democrats in the 1950s. I think this particular era is over, as once a candidate loses in the national election at the head of a ticket, s/he seems to be branded as unelectable permanently (perhaps correctly) - cf. John Kerry, Bob Dole, et alia. Al Gore may have been the exception to this had he chosen to run this time around, of course, but one suspects the very fact he'd gone through the wringer prevented him from throwing his hat in the ring in '04 and '08. Donors don't like backing a horse that didn't cross the finish line in first the last race, either, and that would tend to hurt an attempt to get the nomination again.
All that said, it's looking very clear that in the strangely horrific but possible event McCain is elected in the fall, he'll be a one-term President due to his age and issues surrounding his political base. If that's the case, the country, already well overdue for Democratic executive rule, will be chomping at the bit to get a Democrat back. So one line of thinking might go. Conservatives opposed to John McCain have made this explicit argument, that Democrat or Republican in 2008, candidates are positioning themselves for a 2012 run already.
And of course, conversely, if there's a Democrat in the White House in 2009, either Obama or Clinton, the chances they'll run for re-election in 2012 are quite high, likely unopposed in a meaningful sense from within the party.
If McCain wins, though would the Democrats re-nominate the loser of 2008 again in 2012? Likely not, based on recent practice of the party voters. Somewhat paradoxically, the losing candidate in the nomination process in '08 will be in a perfect position to say "I told you so, I was more electable" to the Democratic base in 2012.
Perennial candidates do lose the lustre of novelty and risk the contempt of familiarity. Yet they also can build off bases of support (cf. John Edwards this year, although I think the "Vice Presidential loser" stigma ultimately scuttled his campaign's chances).
So, here's the speculative part of this diary. In assessing the Clinton campaign as being logical -- not irrational, although possibly not quite competent -- and trying to figure out why they've taken to this sort of high-pitched whining tone -- one has to ask, what's to gain from sniping at Obama?
Explanation one is this is the hail mary pass, the one way they can still get the nomination. But the risk of interception by the opposition, as it were, is very high, as is the risk to Senator Clinton's reputation and ability to work effectively as a Senator in the years ahead.
Explanation two is that there's nothing to lose, personally, by hurting Obama as the potential Democratic candidate in the fall -- if the goal is for Hillary Clinton to become President. If Obama loses, Clinton has a much better chance at becoming President herself in 2012. If Obama wins, and is re-elected in 2012, the next shot Clinton would have at the Presidency is 2016 -- when Clinton will be 68 years old, and quite possibly an Obama two-term Vice President might be lined up as the putative successor.
We have heard the idea that Hillary considers this to be "her turn", which seems to be true at one level. But if you were in her shoes, and personal ambition to the office was your main goal, in a purely Machiavellian sense -- then setting Obama up for a loss in 2008 is the next best, and probably only, Plan "B" for your own chances if you lose yourself in 2008.
I have had enough respect for Senator Clinton that I wanted to believe her every time she has expressed respect for Obama and a sense of honor and that he'd be a better President than John McCain. Yet the message becomes muddied to the point of being lost when she repeats attacks on Obama that seem primarily oriented at driving up his negatives and not her positives. That's the main reason my mind has turned to the horrifying possibility that she might, just might, be more interested in an Obama loss in the fall.
Once upon a time I would have agreed whole-heartedly that Senator Clinton's main goal was to elect a Democrat in 2008. I am now very much worried I have misjudged her character and personal ambition for the Presidency is clouding her judgement about the conduct of her campaign.
I don't fault any candidate for ambition. It takes an enormous about of chutzpah to think you can be President of the United States, and a tremendous ego to withstand a campaign's slings and arrows. But for this, the highest office in the land, ultimately the common good must trump personal ambition.
I'm withholding making a conclusion at this point. But the real test for Senator Clinton is going to be if she doesn't win both Texas and Ohio but has enough delegates (by winning perhaps Ohio) to technically prevent Senator Obama from winning the nomination outright before the convention. I think if she remains in the race under those circumstances, it's clear she's playing her own nuclear option, where she's greatly increasing the party's chances of losing in '08 in order to maximize her personal chances of becoming President.