58% of Democrats don’t consider Hillary Clinton “honest and trustworthy”. In politics, that’s a death knell. Politicians can use clever advertising to overcome many hurdles – to impart false emotions, false religious faith and false patriotism. However, to make someone untrustworthy into someone trustworthy is very hard to do. Somehow, back in 1968, they did it with Nixon, so it can be done, but Hillary Clinton has at best a steep upward path to the White House.
That’s been the rub with Hillary from the beginning – she has “high negatives” (as does her husband). That’s why Conrad Burns lost – people finally got wind of his backroom dealings, and once those seeds were sown, they could not be gathered in again.
Clinton needs to step aside, but she surely knows that if Barack Obama does not win in November, she can still have a career. If he wins, she’s done. She’ll be too old to run again in 2016. But 2012 would be feasible. So it doesn’t hurt her destroy him to get the nomination. One way or another, she comes out a winner.
That’s the basic math, according to Vichy Democrats, and it makes perfect sense. The Clinton campaign’s negative attacks on Obama are calculated, she knows the outcome, and she doesn’t care.
Piece of Mindful 
I don’t know Mark, looks like she still has a chance.
LikeLike
I don’t get the scorched earth policy she is pursuing here, but my excellent wife has two theories:
1. She knows that if she can scorch the earth enough that McCain is able to take the victory from Obama, then she will have a shot in 2012 (especially considering McCain will be arounf 136 years old by that time)
2. She thinks that if she can’t take the white house, her and her husband will be better off economically with a McCain presidency considering that the divide between the richest and the poorest will only continue to grow.
I think that the first one is more likely, particularly when you consider that her husband’s demand at speaking engagements if likely to take a nose dive in the US after his shameful performance during the election.
LikeLike
Swede, I saw that video earlier today and thought of it as I was reading this post. Good work!
LikeLike
With Hillary, it’s blind ambition, a sense of entitlement – what’s most annoying to me is that she needs liberal votes to win, but as seen in her recent comments about MoveOn, etc, seems to hold liberals in contempt. As did her husband.
LikeLike
Well, here goes, I hope your program (call it Hugo) doesn’t shut me down.
This loggerhead in the Dem party kinda reminds me of a Freddy Mercury song, lyrics being, “I want it all, I want it now”. The Dem party shouldn’t be run by the extreme left, because what you get, is the mess that is this primary.
The most successful stratedgy the left has ever posessed is incramentalisum. That’s right, the slow slouch into socialisum. It worked for our cousins in Europe, it worked for Rome, hell, it works every time its tried.
Just look at your successes here in the US. In the 30’s black Harleum had a 30% fatherless rate now we have 70%. Johnson’s war on poverty has cost us billions if not trillions, and guess what, the same percentage of us are poor. Our graduation rates continue to decline even though our urban schools get tens of thousands of dollars per student. The list goes on and on, increased taxes, regulations, illegals, every possible left wish list has started to be fullfilled.
You should be happy, not upset that the most liberal candidate could possibly lose this. Relax, pour the cold water in the pan, turn it to low, and throw another frog in.
LikeLike
Well said.
LikeLike
Like good market traders who make money in an up or down trend, the elite puppet masters that control both corporate parties have three candidates that will serve their interests well. For the rest of us, it’s over before it really begins. It’s candidates like Kucinich, Nader and Paul that raise the prospect of politics slipping from elite control. No threat remains, so it matters little if corporate pragmatists duel on, or which one prevails. They can offer only the false promise of superficial political concessions, at best. There’s always 2012.
LikeLike