The NYT's "Clinton Sees Many Reasons to Stay In," With Annotations

The one profoundly incongruous statement made in last night's victory speeches was Hillary Clinton's pronouncement that her most important objective is to elect a Democratic president in 2008 -- incongruous and profoundly so, of course, since campaigning earnestly for the Democratic Party's nominee rather than opposing him might, just might, be a better way to accomplish that goal.

But, what the hell. No one believes it anyway, least of all Hillary Clinton. So 300 million are left wondering, What's the point?

This morning we should be grateful to Patrick Healy of the New York Times for taking a stab at answering that question, in "Clinton Sees Many Reasons to Stay In." Finally, in one concise article, the nearly unfathomable kitchen sink of political desperation is exposed. And, though perhaps subconsciously, Healy has helpfully listed those reasons in ascending order of believability.

The first and hence least believable is that "in private conversations and in interviews, Mrs. Clinton has begun asserting that she believes sexism, rather than racism, has cast a shadow over the primary fight.... Advisers say that continuing her candidacy is partly a means to show her supporters -- especially young women -- that she is not a quitter and will not be pushed around."

Pushed around by whom, or what? Democracy? And shouldn't that have been, "especially older women," since the younger the woman the more likely she is to dismiss the tired misogyny alibi and support Barack Obama? And wasn't it in West Virginia most recently that an astounding one in five white voters said race -- not gender -- was the determinant in their decision? As for the accusation of being pushed around by the media, which once again is a Clinton favorite on the campaign trail, her supporters and opponents alike are still searching for even one media outlet showing signs that it would like to see this ratings-boosting, readership-increasing drama come to an end.

After that throwaway -- in addition to the one about Mrs. Clinton wanting Obama to adopt her virtually undifferentiated policies among his; even her own aides "discounted [that] notion" -- the reasons begin to alight more realistically, which is to say, they're more politically grounded, which is to say further -- surprise -- it's all about Hillary.

Again, we're early into the list, so we're not yet authentically rooted. But be patient, we'll get there soon.

Next among the last-stand reasons is (was) the twofold hope that things will still swing her way. As in this year. According to Healy, Mrs. Clinton "believes that racking up more victories, delegates and votes will give her and her supporters more leverage this month at a Democratic National Committee rules meeting to advocate for seating the delegates from the unofficial primaries in Florida and Michigan." From what I've read elsewhere, however, the Clintons have privately abandoned this hope, ever since discovering that the rules committee lives on Earth with the rest of us.

Continues Healy, she similarly "wants to increase her popular vote total in the final three primaries in hopes that if a small margin separates her and Mr. Obama, it may be enough to sway some uncommitted superdelegates to support her at the last minute." Yet this hope, too, has been largely abandoned, and for the same reason as the first. After all, these are no longer "uncommitted superdelegates"; they are, rather, undeclared participants simply waiting for the most opportune moment to indeed declare for -- well, duh -- the party's nominee, Barack Obama.

As we approach the conclusion of Healy's piece, we start getting serious.

"While Mrs. Clinton believes that winning the nomination is a long shot at this point," he writes, "she is also staying in the race because, in her experience, electoral politics can be a chaotic and unpredictable enterprise, scandals can emerge from nowhere, and Mr. Obama’s candidacy could still suffer a self-inflicted or unexpected wound." And electoral politics can be especially chaotic when one camp is feverishly digging for those upending scandals, as Hillary's opposition-research team is undoubtedly doing.  

OK. We're getting warmer. Next up: "Amassing a strong popular vote, and going out on some high notes, would help Mrs. Clinton emerge from the long nomination battle on better footing, aides say. And making herself an appealing vice-presidential prospect...."

I once thought that if that's what it took to reunite the party, well, then that's what it took. Just choke it down. But Hillary was her own worst enemy for too long. As long as she remained a true believer in the odds of her own cause, her campaign tactics became more desperately contemptible by the day. Consequently she pushed herself and her v.p. chances over the edge, and now they're almost certainly irretrievable. A Clinton surrogate -- perhaps a Evan Bayh or Wesley Clark -- yes, but the real thing, no. Hillary has made herself radioactive. 

But let's now finish the aborted sentence above and thereby arrive at the most likely reason for Hillary's endless campaign: "Making herself an appealing vice-presidential prospect ... or setting herself up to run again in 2012, if Mr. Obama should lose, or perhaps 2016 -- is not altogether out of the question," reports Healy, sans italics.

Not altogether out of the question? My dear journalistic friend, it is altogether the answer -- the only one that squares with the Clintonian scheming that never says die.

Prepare yourself for the most half-hearted campaigning on behalf of a nominee that you've ever witnessed, complete with the occasional and, I'm sure, entirely accidental, " ... as far as I know." From June through November Hillary's Senate office will be largely occupied by issuing clarifications: "Oops, did I just suggest again that the big, black bogeyman can't ever capture the votes of those who eat dinner without their shirts on? Sorry about that, terribly sorry. Well, on to my next recommendation: He did give that one good speech."

It's coming. Care to bet?