10 May 2008

Obama's victory

Obama seems finally to have sealed the deal.

Congratulations are due to him, not just on securing the nomination as it appears he has, but on dealing a blow to Clinton family influence in the nation and in its largest political party.

I have to say that I agree entirely with hawkish blogger Andrew Sullivan on one point: there's been far too much talk about how Hillary's persistence in this campaign constitutes admirable grit or determination or whatever. It constitutes nothing admirable.

"One request at least," Sullivan says, "can we retire from the dicourse the notion that there is anything even faintly admirable about the Clintons' refusal to accept that they have lost the nomination. This isn't tenacity or pluck or spunk. It's vindictive, sore-loser narcissism. And someone senior in the party needs to call it like it is."

She has been saying, in effect, that if she can't have the nomination she will at least render it valueless.

I suggest dropping out of the electoral system. That's the anarcho-capitalist way. Still, I admit that the Clinton crowd turns my stomach in a uniquely knotted manner.


Henry said...

I believe that the reason that Hillary wants to render the Democratic nomination valueless is that she would prefer McCain over Obama to be President; she said, you'll remember, that McCain but not Obama is qualified to be commander-in-chief.

The reason that she would prefer McCain over Obama, however, is not that she thinks that McCain would be a better President than Obama would be; if that were her reason, then she would be deciding on the basis of her (misguided) view of the public interest. But Hillary does not make decisions based on her view of the public interest; she makes them based on her view of her self-interest. The reason that she considers it in her self-interest for McCain rather than Obama to be President is that McCain is likely to serve only one term, enabling her to run in 2012, when it would be unlikely that Obama, having lost to McCain in 2008, could get the nomination again.

Christopher said...


You may be right, buit I'm not sure of it. What you are attributing to HRC is a rational form of calculation. It is self-interested calculation of course but it is rational nonetheless.

I'm not sure that's right because I think her dog-in-the-manger act may have moved beyond that, into psychodrama.

Here's a link that may interest you.

Henry said...

You may be right, and it might be a combination of rational calculation and psychodrama. My reaction to Noonan's article is that maybe the Democratic party does not need saving. After the convention it will unite against McCain, and Hillary will be history, unless Obama is foolish enough to name her as his VP candidate. As someone said, he should not offer her the position unless she agrees to make Chelsea official White House food taster.

Knowledge is warranted belief -- it is the body of belief that we build up because, while living in this world, we've developed good reasons for believing it. What we know, then, is what works -- and it is, necessarily, what has worked for us, each of us individually, as a first approximation. For my other blog, on the struggles for control in the corporate suites, see www.proxypartisans.blogspot.com.