« Hanging around in the lost and found | Main | When I wake up in the morning I pour the coffee read the paper »

22 May 2008


Andrew Durkin


The only thing I would add to Rachel's commentary is that if Clinton *had* dropped out gracefully once things started to become unlikely for her, that wouldn't necessarily have meant "sure defeat." If something had come up that had definitively proved Obama to be unelectable, who else could the party have reliably turned to to jump in at the eleventh hour? And if Obama had gone on to become the presumptive nominee at that stage, what better shoe-in for the VP slot?

In other words, there was a moment where Clinton herself could have proved that she truly had the best interests of the country at heart, and that she understood that running for President (for the potential benefit of the country) is not the same thing as running in a marathon (for the potential benefit of the runner). The fact that she wasn't able to think in these terms suggests that she is simply a raving megalomaniac (something I didn't used to think about her).

And if I hear her say that she is leading in the popular vote (and go uncorrected by the interviewer) one more time, I'm gonna lose it...

The comments to this entry are closed.