THE SYSTOCRAT PAPERS

A particularly troubling debate has been quietly simmering in the blogoshpere this week.  Apparently, some folks think that Hillary, aware that her 2008 bid for the presidency is likely to end in failure, is now actively and deliberately sabotaging Obama’s chances in November to leave the way open for her to run again in 2012, while others think that she is a “partisan animal” that would never sabotage her own party.  Michael Tomasky of Guardian America summarized this debate yesterday and offered the following editorial commentary: 

“But she will think about her own future as well as the party's? This is the point where others might start talking about Clintonian selfishness and ruthlessness and ambition and so on. But I say, why shouldn't she think of her own future? Who in the same situation wouldn't think of her own future?

To do so would not mark her as especially conniving. I've covered many comparable situations, mostly in New York politics - mayoral and senate elections, say. And I'm here to tell you that in every single case in which I had a frank, off-the-record discussion with either the candidate or key staff, the losing campaign was, how to put it, inclined to see a silver lining in the defeat of his opponent who had won the nomination. “

Mr. Tomasky qualifies these comments by stating that it is okay for Hillary to think about an Obama defeat in November, so long as she doesn’t act on these thoughts.  Read the entire article here: http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/michael_tomasky/2008/03/hillary_2012.html

I offer no opinion here on whether or not these allegations about Hillary are true.  Quite frankly, it wouldn’t surprise me if they were, I suppose, given the tone of Hillary’s campaign as of late.  But there’s really no way to know for sure.

Although Mr. Tomasky is clearly not condoning such selfish behavior, he has nonetheless summed up the fundamental problem with American politics.  Self-interest is an acceptable lodestar for American politicians, the best interests of constituencies and the party be damned.  Special interests rule the roost in Washington for exactly this reason – because politicians are willing, and in some cases eager, to sell out their constituents in favor of some benefit to themselves, be it campaign financing, kickbacks, etc.  Meanwhile, the rest of us look forward to gas prices topping $4 a gallon, increasing levels of unemployment, increasing costs of health care, and to seeing more of our sons and daughters perish overseas in unjustified military conflicts, just to name a few of the issues on the minds of Americans in 2008.

Regardless of what her motivation is, this is exactly what Hillary is doing now – selling out her perspective constituents.  By continuing her destructive campaign against Obama when her chances of victory are slim to none, she is abandoning the interests of the people she claims that she’ll fight for when she’s President in favor of her desire to attain the office for herself at all costs. 

In this regard and in the context of this debate, I find myself agreeing with Jonathan Chait of the New Republic, who had this to say on the issue:

“An easier question to answer is, How much does Clinton value her own interests versus those of the Democratic Party? And here the answer is very clear: Clinton is acting as if she doesn't care about the Democratic Party's interests at all, except insofar as they coincide with her own. Her continued campaign is significantly damaging Obama's general election prospects, and this would perhaps be defensible if she had a strong chance at the nomination, but she doesn't. As Politico recently reported, "One important Clinton advisor estimated to Politico privately that she has no more than a 10 percent chance of winning her race against Barack Obama, an appraisal that was echoed by other operatives."

To inflict serious damage on the likely nominee in order to pursue a one-in-ten chance of securing the nomination is, ipso facto, an act of extreme selfishness. Whether she sees the damage to Obama's prospects as a feature or a bug is interesting but beside the point”

As Hillary has often noted on the campaign trail, the President of the United States is the "most powerful office in the world," with the ability to shape policy decisions that will affect millions, if not billions of people, both in this country and beyond.  Shouldn't a person seeking to assume this office demonstrate, both by words and action, that they are willing to give top priority to the interests of the people?