Hillary Clinton Downs the Political Hemlock

Like nearly everything else in politics, one's outward reaction to Hillary's latest lollapalooza will largely depend on which side of the partisan partition one stands.

Her defenders will again rail against the biased, sinister forces who plot disingenuously for her political demise, blah, blah, blah; her detractors will launch a fresher and higher intensity of outrage, such as Keith Olbermann's last night which damn near achieved orbit, blah, blah, blah.

But inner reactions, I suspect, are far more closely aligned, even to the point of superimposition. Her detractors would privately confess the mitigation of exhaustion and sleep deprivation having undoubtedly scrambled Hillary's brain; her defenders would privately confess that her comment was, nevertheless and sure enough, unmitigated evidence of a calculating, cold-hearted mind.

Both sides would agree that what she said was a damn stupid and inexcusable thing to say. Period.

Excluding Mr. Olbermann's, initial reaction from the universe of cable punditry, which presented a mixture of the above, was a fascinating thing to watch. They were the Astaires of commentary, dancing with unprecedented grace around the obvious.

From Chris Matthews to E.J. Dionne to John Harwood to Rachel Maddow, cable's voices of authorized observation intoned, one after another, that they just couldn't bring themselves to believe that Hillary had in mind the happy prospect of triumph through elimination, rather than the chronological lethargy of past primary seasons.

Only the Washington Post's Eugene Robinson -- based, that is, on my circumscribed viewing -- finally encountered reality in a rousing flurry of disgust and disbelief.

To paraphrase Robinson: What in God's name are you people talking about? She said it. It's right there on tape. "Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June." What other interpretation or spin could one possibly put on it? She was saying, point blank and in plain English, that it's not nearly too late. Stuff happens, dear troops, so don't give up hope.

A few years ago, when I was engaged in research for a historical manuscript on American demagoguery and the rise of the New Right, a wise rhetorical studies professor offered me this advice: Don't assign motive when none is clearly stated. Don't play psychiatrist or psychohistorian.

Or, at least I, said the professor, can tell you that we rhetorical studies professionals have stopped doing so. All we can know is what a politician says. Why he or she said it is beyond our scope. Only what is said can be competently analyzed.

And that is all Mr. Robinson was doing.

The professor's advice, in the world of partisan politics, is exceedingly difficult to follow with any real consistency -- especially against one's enemies. When we strike the assignment of rhetorical motive from our arsenal of analytical weaponry, we also sit by and watch all the fun slowly drain from the possibilities of assault or counterattack.

We have known for years why George W. Bush said what he said and now know why John McCain says what he says, even if what we have known or presently know doesn't always square with what's recorded in print. In the absence of such unshakable knowledge, political commentary and partisan firepower would evaporate overnight.

Still, there are always those fortuitous occasions upon which we claim, with considerable justification, the purest of objectivity. Yesterday's was one of them.

Hillary said what she said, just as Eugene Robinson said what she said, and there simply aren't any two ways about it. It transcended mere stupidity. It exceeded the forgivable boundaries of the effects of sleep deprivation. It soared far above and beyond mere historical, chronological analysis.

It was, rather, quite simply a chilling public admission of what swims in any desperate politician's mind: "My opponent might die, so there remains hope."

That is, indisputably, what she said. It's on tape. No interpretation is required, no creative assignment of motive is necessary -- not when it's right there, in printed black and white or video color, right in front of you.

It would be the height of naivete to claim that "normal" politicians don't think such things. Of course they do, all of them, just as any of us would if we were in their racket and, in this case, in Hillary's shoes.

But there's an insurmountable problem with that as an excuse: such a thing is simply not said in public. For countless reasons that rule is perhaps the last, absolutely inviolable rule in the political book. You violate it and you're out. There is no appeal.

The only question remaining: Will Hillary finally have the personal class to concede the obvious -- that she's got to go, now, for having transgressed that one unalterable law of political life.