Falsifed?

Of course, no sooner do I make my prediction about Clinton giving up, than it is arguably falsified.

For example, following "Shame on you, Barack Obama" (for his having the gall to make a counter-assertion on health care), note this past week's frontal assault by opinion-makers about regret that we might be stuck with Obama, when we really don't know what kind of vicious attacks the Republicans will make on him -- the things way too nasty for Clinton's people ever to bring up, because you know they've only been going with the weaker material, because they're that virtuous -- and besides, have you heard of Rezko? And won't the Republicans take advantage of the fact that Obama hates America, and is really kind of foreign himself, and wayyy too sensitive about the race issue?

Obama's association with Rezko is easily almost half as fishy as the Clinton's with Norman Hsu, and you know the Republicans will have a field day with Obama's questionable associations, which will hit him ten times as hard, because really, all Obama has going for him is that he is putatively not the old sleazy type of politician, whereas with the case of pardons for donations, pardons for FALN terrorists for votes, pardons for larcenous community leaders for votes, pardons for $100,000 payments made to two of Hillary Clinton's brothers, and lobbying for Kazakh uranium contracts for $10 million contributions -- there's just no way the Republicans could use that old news against Hillary -- let alone the really old news which Hillary has actually had to answer questions about, like the $100,000 commodities payoff, and her legal work furthering the Whitewater scam.

Yes, in the fall it will be the Clintons who will be wearing the teflon.
Because we already know who we're dealing with when it comes to the Clintons.

She's just too tested. And all evidence from the primary to the contrary (you know, poor strategy, wasted money, tin ear) -- and despite every poll comparing Obama vs. McCain and Clinton vs. McCain -- we all know it's Hillary that can go up against John McCain in the general election.

And did I mention that she's been tested -- as only the wife of a President Clinton could be?

And that, having been "mislead" by Bush into voting for giving war a chance, Hillary is just the one to be trusted with pulling us out of it? And that, having screwed up politically and legally on health care and then losing the Congress to the Republicans, we know that only Hillary has the wisdom of experience to do it again, to completion this time?

All snark aside, arguably this last-gasp defense (offense?) is more useful in ensuring donations from red-meat liberal backers than in swaying undecided voters, and more useful in ensuring a loss for Obama in November, than in ensuring a win for Hillary next week rather than in 4 years.

Because there's no downside when you're $5 million in the hole and fading in every poll.

And who knows? Maybe she can go the distance.

Hillary Has Given Up!

Hillary Clinton hasn't publicly conceded the Democratic nomination to Barack Obama, of course. But I have seen a new piece of evidence indicating that she has given up, that her actions show she is no longer acting primarily to win the election, but rather to position herself better if she loses. (Psychologically, her closing speech last night has been widely discussed as possibly hinting at the same thing.)

What's the news? She has sent out invitations to Massachusetts supporters that she will be in Boston this Sunday (Feb 24), holding a fundraiser dinner (a $5,000 per table “Conversation with Hillary” that is “In Support of Hillary Clinton for President”). Now she could hold a fundraiser just as easily in a state that still has a primary to come. But she is instead in Massachusetts because whatever differential in cash she can get by being in Boston instead of in Texas or Ohio (or Rhode Island, where she will be earlier in the day) more than outweighs the advantage she could get in votes by showing up in a still-relevant state.

The other interpretation of this news is that she's so broke that she must maximize income even at the cost of not being in relevant states with upcoming primaries. This is different, but almost as good news for Hillary's opponents to right and left – and almost as disheartening to her supporters. It is at least as telling on this score as the news that she has recently loaned her campaign $5 million of her "personal" money.

Most likely, both things are true: Hillary is now more interested in getting her $5 million back than she is in maximizing her chances of winning. She is no longer fighting for the nomination.

In the interests of full disclosure, I do not support Hillary Clinton, or indeed the Clintons. I am willing to consider that this might be due primarily to my antipathy to their ideological position, or even to subconscious sexism on my part, but I think it has more to do with their being unusually dishonest and crooked for politicians at their level. (I voted against her – for Obama – in the primary, and would vote against her in the general election, but I do not know if I can vote for either Obama or McCain in the general if that is the choice.)