March 26, 2008--The Clintons' Strategy: John McCain for President

In 1956, a young senator from Massachusetts attempted to become Adlai Stevenson’s running mate. John Kennedy failed, Stevenson lost in a landslide to Dwight Eisenhower, but four years later JFK successfully sought the presidential nomination and defeated Richard Nixon in a close election. Some say it was stolen for him by party bosses such as Richard Daley in Chicago.

In 1976, Ronald Reagan challenged incumbent president Gerald Ford for the Republican nomination. He was defeated in that quest, Ford lost to the unpopular Jimmy Carter in the general election, but four years later Reagan was the overwhelming nominee of his party and won an easy victory over the by by then ineffectual Carter.

George H. W. Bush in 1980 was Ronald Reagan’s chief rival for the presidential nomination, lost out, but was rewarded with the vice presidential nomination. He served for eight years in that position, was nominated himself for the presidency in 1988, and easily defeated the pathetic Michael Dukakis.

That same year, 1988, a young governor from a very small state toyed with the idea of seeking the Democratic Party’s nomination. But before the primary season really began he withdrew his candidacy, announcing that he would try again four years later (if his party’s nominee lost) or eight years later if by some chance Dukakis could manage to defeat Bush. We know what happened to him and we know that Bill Clinton won the 1992 nomination and was twice elected president.

Then this year's Republican nominee, John McCain, eight years ago was squashed in a bitter Karl Rovian primary campaign battle by George W. Bush. And if the Clintons this year, in the words of one of their senior supporters, succeed in "breaking Barack Obama's back" between now and the convention, who knows, we may see McCain ensconced in the White House come January.

So what lessons and insights might one take from this recent presidential history?

What jumps out most clearly is that about half the time it pays to lose the presidential nomination the first time you try for it because almost invariably you wind up with the nomination four or eight years later and then you get elected president! The real goal of all this striving.

Thus, if you are Hillary Clinton and your first attempt at the nomination is likely slipping away what would you do if you also read history this way?

It’s obvious—you come away from losing with your lifelong ambition to become president undiminished, you’re still relatively young, and you want to do a version of what Ronald Reagan and your own husband did—see the candidate of your own party who beat you out for the nomination lose, hope that John McCain turns out to be as ineffective as Gerry Ford and Jimmy Carter, and then come roaring back four years from now and run an “I told-you-so” campaign, winning both the nomination and the presidency in 2012.

In science there's something called Ockham’s Razor. Named for the 14th Century logician Franciscan Friar William of Ockham, it states that any phenomenon should make or require as few assumptions as possible. In other words, the simplest solution or explanation is best.

If we apply this principle to the current struggle within the Democratic Party, Hillary and Bill Clinton doing all they appear to be doing to tear down Barack Obama so that John McCain will be elected (see NY Times article linked below), the simplest explanation for their otherwise reprehensible behavior is that it’s all about Hillary in 2012.