The logic of a Hillary victory—against all the odds and all the conventional wisdom

I forget whether the item was in the New York Sun or the New York Post, but Ed Koch, who is a Hillary supporter, said he expects that the superdelegates will decide that Obama is just too far left and inexperienced to win the general election, and they will choose Hillary.

To me what Koch says makes sense—it completes a new Gestalt that has been taking shape in my mind. What are the superdelegates for, if not to exercise their judgment and cast their vote as they think best for their party? If ever there was a time for a non-democratic element to correct a mistake made by a mass democratic process, this is it. Remember the supreme oddity that the damaging things about Obama only started coming out in the last month or so, after he had virtually clinched the nomination. What is a party supposed to do in such circumstances? Proceed like a robot and nominate someone they realize is fatally flawed? There must be a non-democratical element that can act in such circumstances and correct the democratical mistake.

I’m not predicting this outcome—given the numerical odds against Hillary, that would be nuts. But I do believe now that it’s distinctly possible, in a way I didn’t before. To paraphrase Descartes, since it seems so logical to me, I therefore think it will be!

As for the supposedly fatal obstacle that blacks would rebel over “their” candidate’s being cheated of the nomination, that will be smoothed over. The argument will be persuasively made that Obama is too far left to win the presidency. Blacks will understand this. Again, not a prediction. But something I can see happening.

What I just said is based not just on logic but on desire, though a rational desire. Like Ann Coulter, I really, really want an alternative to McCain. Also, I really, really prefer that the alternative not be Obama. In any case I think it unlikely that Obama will beat McCain. Therefore if someone other than McCain is to be the next president, Hillary must be the the Democratic nominee.

As always, I repeat that I oppose everything about Hillary Clinton. She wants to socialize everything she can see. She stands for instant legalization for all illegals. She’s a dyed-in-the-wool, out of control liar. She has a latent desire to be a dictator. Also, notwithstanding her claim to experience, she has bad judgment. She will be a disaster for the country. But on balance and in the long run she is significantly less problematic for America than the other two, and we can stop her socialist plans if the Republicans maintain sufficient seats in the Congress.

Reflecting my preference for Hillary, I’ve even begun to have a positive reaction to the sewer-like Clintonistas, the lowest creatures ever seen in the White House and in national politics. I watched the Golem-headed James Carville opinionating the other evening on CNN, and I liked what the monster said. Yesterday Lanny Davis declared that if Obama is the nominee, he will lost 49 states (like Mondale and McGovern), and I was cheered by the statement. It showed that the Clinton faction is laying out a strong, brutal case that the former Obama-god can’t win, which will help persuade the superdelegates to vote for Hillary.

We must acknowledge the startling fact that the Clintonite creepy crawlies represent a relatively rational element in today’s Democratic party. They and their leader Hillary are trying to save their party from disaster (and in the process save the conservatives and the country from McCain), if only their party will listen to them.

- end of initial entry -

Paul Nachman writes:

You write, “What are the superdelegates for, if not to exercise their judgment and cast their vote as they think best for their party?”

As I’ve written before, perhaps even to you: Of course that’s what the superdelegates are for. If they were simply to vote in proportion to the popular vote (or to unanimously ratify a lead in the popular vote by convention time), they would literally serve no purpose. They wouldn’t have to be people, since they would be the equivalent of a written-down rule.

It’s amusing that Krauthammer would write this now. He was very impressed by Obama back in the fall of (I think) 2006.

LA replies

Yes, but in fact this power of the superdelegates has never been exercised, because since the 1970s when the current system was set up, there’s never been a neck and neck race like this. The primaries always produced a clear winner. The concern about “taking the nomination away from the leader,” plus the fact that the leader is black, creates this unique dilemma. So this is not a simple situation. The dilemma must be confronted by reminding people of the basics, that the superdelegates exist in order to exercise their best judgment, and that if there is a fatally flawed candidate, the party needs to forestall his nomination. Koch’s statement had that clarifying effect on me.

Mark Jaws writes:

When you say blacks will not rebel against a Hillary coup d’etat and they will come to understand that Obama is far too left to be elected, I believe you are giving this vital Democratic demographic far, far, too much credit. As strange as it may appear to the average VFR reader, I make it a point to listen to D.C. urban radio stations to hear what passes for thinking on the other side. In other words, hostem cogere—or know your adversary. Let me remind you that unhealthy percentages—perhaps even outright majorities—of American blacks out of their bitterness and resentment towards white America cling to the following mythology:

1. The government blew up the levees in New Orleans to drown black people;
2. The government blew up the WTC to launch an all out offensive against the Islamic world;
3. The government engineered the AIDS virus
4. The original Egyptians were black and that Napoleon’s troops intentionally blew off the Negroid noses of the Sphinx to conceal this fact;
5. The Jews of the ancient world were black and that today’s Caucasian Jews are “impostors”

Of course there are more to be listed, but the point I make is that when it comes to politics, we should not overestimate black Americans. More than any other group, they are first and foremost tribal—even to the point of having to defend to the indefensible. To paraphrase from Jane Austen’s Emma, “Ignorance combined with vanity and liberal media bias produce all sorts of mischief and lunacy.”

LA replies:

Ok, valid point. But can’t the same black tribalism be enlisted for the Democratic party? After all, blacks always vote, in tribal fashion, for the Democratic party. Can’t the Democratic party say to them: If you want a Dem president, we’ve got to have Hill?

A. Zarkov writes:

I had similar thoughts a few days ago. The very purpose of super delegates is to override the voters should they produce an unelectable extremist nominee. However Obama is no ordinary candidate because I fear there’s a black thuggery behind him. A few months ago I heard the black mayor of Richmond Virginia, Douglas Wilder, make a remarkable statement that has gotten little publicity. His statement went beyond a mere warning about chaos at the convention to an implied threat of civil violence should the super delegates deny Obama the nomination. For this reason I believe that Obama will be the nominee unless through some miracle Hillary should get enough votes.

Thus we need to concentrate on the question: is Obama electable? Under ordinary circumstances I would say no. But the wild card here is the US economy. I fear it’s going off the cliff. If that happens, I think the voters really will elect Obama in the way they elected FDR in 1932. McCain comes across as an enfeebled old man completely out of touch with reality who knows little about economics. He and his party can’t seem to go beyond tax cuts as an economic policy. Look at his recent proposal for more tax cuts coupled with unrealistic spending reductions. He’s a loser. Like 1932 the Republicans will suffer drastic defeats in Congress if the US economy goes off the tracks this year.

Now we can talk about the economy as a separate issue some other time. You might think I’m being unnecessarily pessimistic, but I can assure you that I have good reasons for believing there’s a potential for very serious economic hard times ahead. Not a certainty at this point, but a looming danger.

Gary M. writes:

Even though I have been a 30 year plus member of the GOP, I cannot vote for McCain. If you look up the word “maverick” in Webster’s, you’ll see that it’s defined as “an independent individual who refuses to conform with his group.” No thanks.

Obama, I would agree is too far to the left. Clinton’s dishonesty would ordinarily disqualify her from the job, but McCain’s “maverick” tendencies make him the worst of all. He would be unpredictable, and that is dangerous.

Think of it this way: the boards of large, publicly traded companies don’t put “mavericks” in as CEO, at least not intentionally. The employees and shareholders of these companies want people in charge who will be responsible stewards, or at least people who will not screw things up. They don’t want a guy who’s going to free-lance.

Clinton would be the most predictable of the three in office, and therefore probably the least dangerous.

Jim N. writes:

You said the Clintonistas are trying to save their party from disaster. I doubt that. They’re just trying to win, for their own selfish reasons, and in order to win they will say and do whatever’s necessary. For this reason I also would deny them the description “rational,” unless rational means “utilitarian” or “Machiavellian.” They may seem rational relative to the other chuckleheads in the game, but a) that’s all smoke designed to woo frightened voters, and b) in any case, it’s not saying much.

In short, you seem tempted to ascribe more sympathetic motives to these people than they deserve, due to your desire to avoid a McCain presidency.

LA replies:

As I always say, the inner personal motives of people are impossible to discern and are not relevant politically. What is relevant politically is the public stand people take. And right now the Clintonistas represent a relative degree of rationality within the Dem party.

Further, politics is always a combination of personal and public motive. All politicians are seeking their own advancement. So the difference is between self-seeking politicians taking rational positions, and self-seeking politicians taking irrational positions.

LA writes:

To those who think it’s out of the question for the superdelegates to vote for Hillary because that will create black outrage and sink the party, I reply that blacks, who have a tribal loyalty to the Democratic party, can be persuaded about the necessity of rejecting Obama. It simply needs to be explained to them that Obama now has known fatal weaknesses that will destroy him in the general election.

Consider this passage from Charles Krauthammer’s article today at NRO:

Take Ayers. Obama makes it sound as if the relationship consists of having run into each other at the DMV. In fact, Obama’s political career was launched in a 1995 meeting at Ayers’ home. Obama’s own campaign says that they maintain “friendly” relations.

Obama’s defense is that he was eight years old when Ayers and his Weather Underground comrades were planting bombs at the Pentagon, the U.S. Capitol, and other buildings. True. But Obama was 40 when Ayers said publicly that he doesn’t regret setting bombs. Indeed, he said, “I feel we didn’t do enough.”

Would you maintain friendly relations with an unrepentant terrorist? Would you even shake his hand? To ask why Obama does is perfectly legitimate and perfectly relevant to understanding what manner of man he is.

The Democratic leaders simply need to say to blacks, “Obama is toast. Reporters at the presidential debate will ask him why he has maintained friendly relations with an unrepentant terrorist, and he will be finished. You’ve got to face reality here. If you want a Democrat to win, you’ve got to accept the reasons why the superdelegates are voting for Hillary.”

Spencer Warren writes:

You write:

“Reporters at the presidential debate will ask him why he has maintained friendly relations with an unrepentant terrorist, and he will be finished.”

I’m not sure I would bet on this, Larry!

Nor may Obama be finished if McCain continues to alienate his “base.” McCain might lose more votes than Obama.

LA replies:

My scenario is not that reporters actually ask this question of Obama. My scenario is that Democratic leaders use this likelihood to demonstrate to blacks that Obama cannot win.

Paul Henri writes from New Orleans:

I agree the superdelegates just might vote for Hillary, because Obama is a raving leftist. In any event, I intend to vote for Hillary if she is the nominee. McCain will drag the Republican Party into oblivion. There is just no reason to believe McCain will bolster the Republican Party. He takes every opportunity to denounce conservatives. As an example, he denounced the North Carolina Republican Party for running an ad that showed the connection between Obama and his America-hating pastor. Sean Hannity is whistling pass the graveyard with his HOPE that McCain will not destroy the Republican Party. For now, I am with Ann Coulter, who believes we need an awful Democratic dictatorship to energize conservatives and Reagan democrats.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at April 25, 2008 02:11 AM | Send