I have been reading Hillary Rodham Clinton’s biography by Carl Bernstein entitled “A Woman in Charge.” The book has been very effective in terms of allowing me a more nuanced view of HRC after I started to become disappointed with her campaign tactics. As a result, I tend to ascribe largely positive motives to HRC’s actions. However, I cannot discount ulterior motives which are more self-interested and disturbing.
Hillary Rodham Clinton has been in the race without a prayer of winning for some time now. There are multiple reasons why this could be. Let me outline three alternate scenarios as to why.
Scenario One: Positive Unifier
Quite frankly, HRC has always held firm in the belief that she is the better candidate for President. She believes steadfastly that she is more qualified and has a better resume. She was more of the decision-maker in the Clinton White House and Governor’s mansion than was Clinton himself.
Nevertheless, she realized she was going to lose. However, if she lost, she was going to go out swinging, fighting, as is her way. In the meantime, she would toughen up Barack Obama along the way. She would serve notice to him that he needed to up his game if he wanted in the White House. And if he crumbled and fell, then she would be there to win as she deserved.
As for the VP spot, she believes that she deserves to be President, but would very much appreciate the courtesy of being asked onto the ticket.
This is the scenario I largely believe HRC thinks about.
Scenario Two: Sore Loser
HRC certainly believes she deserves to win the nomination for Presidency for many of the reasons outlined above. But, she also has come to believe she’s entitled to the nomination. She is the inevitable nominee. This is her time, not Obama’s. How dare he intrude and ruin what is rightfully hers.
She realized at some point, his intrusion was going to cost her the nomination. So, she turned mean and ugly. She was spiteful and incredulous. If she wasn’t going to win, she was going to lay into Obama, not because she actually wanted him to lose, but rather because she was angry that he had not waited his turn. She wanted to hurt him as he had hurt her. If her kitchen sink strategy worked and he crumbled, then she would again be there to win as she was entitled.
As for the VP slot, she’s earned it.
Call it sour grapes; This scenario is more selfish, but understandable. I could see a little of this going through HRC’s mind. After all, it’s tough to lose when you’ve worked that hard.
Scenario Three: Who cares about the party; stick the knife in if necessary
HRC felt she was the better candidate, the inevitable candidate and she felt entitled to the nomination. Then along comes this style over substance neophyte and people actually buy his drivel. That made her angry. But, HRC is a thinking woman’s woman and when she get’s angry, she gets even.
First, she threw the kitchen sink at him, impugned his qualifications, rallied women to her side as the victim and did anything, absolutely anything she could to win. If this destroys the party, so be it. If I can’t win, she thought, nobody else should. Oh and if he does win, maybe I should be VP. You know what happened to JFK. Lyndon Johnson was a great president. The man who implemented civil rights. That could be me.
And if he doesn’t want to give me the VP slot that I deserve, I’ll make sure my voters stay home in November.
This scenario is a bit stomach-churning and I’m sure it is in her subconscious. But, politicians who still have some ethics cannot possibly choose this scenario as their raison d’etre.
Or could they?
Related posts:
