Bill Clinton Makes the Strongest Argument AGAINST Hillary's Nomination

In this strangest of political environments, where the exigencies of the moment supersede longer-term considerations, Bill Clinton has made the strongest case AGAINST the nomination of Hillary Clinton.

Remember a few weeks ago when Bill Clinton was telling everyone to "cool it," that Hillary's continuance in the race would have no impact on the November election? Remember the example he used?

Bill Clinton reminded us that he himself was in 3rd place, behind both HW Bush, and Ross Perot, going into the convention and yet he won. [Of course, he neglected to mention that the party with a convention fight has always lost, and that no one was arguing that he, who had won the delegates, ought not be nominated.]

From now until the convention -- and, do not be deluded, Hillary is not going to get out of the race until someone else gets the majority of the votes at the convention -- the Clintons will be arguing that the party needs to pick the strongest candidate, and will refer to polling evidence against McCain when it favors them, and 'logical' arguments when the polling evidence does not favor them, that Hillary is the stronger candidate.

But, Bill told us that going into the 1992 convention he was in third place, that the party unites behind the nominee and, in this political climate, that nominee will win.

The inexorable conclusion is that there is no basis for a determination about who might win the general election.

At least that is what he said a few weeks ago.

That means that the primaries are conducted to determine whom the voters want to be the nominee, period. Not, as the Clintons suggest, to construct an argument for whom should be nominated.

As indicated in "A Primal Scream to Superdelegates: Don't Fiddle While the Progressive Movement Burns, There is No Reason to Delay" (March 14, 2008) and "Superdelegates, How About Some Leadership"? (March 21, 2008), the Clintons have lost the elected delegates, they have lost the number of contests, and almost certainly will lose the popular vote. Moreover, the only measure of victory written into party rules is the delegate count.

The only case left is to the superdelegates, and the Clintons' only argument is 'electability', a position Bill Clinton's logic denies.

As indicated in "The Absurd Arguments of Both (Clinton & Obama) Campaigns" (February 15, 2008), the suggestion that Obama can expand the party because he has won states Democrats usually do not win, or that Hillary wins the states Democrats need to win -- based upon who won which state against the other -- is ridiculous. [It is a measure of how pathetic the MSM is that they discuss this nonsense interminably.]

Hillary herself said at the Philadelphia debate that Barack was electable. Indeed, Ed Rendell, the Hillary campaign chair in Pennsylvania, and Governor of that state, said more emphatically that Barack would carry Pennsylvania in the general election.

Thus, while Barack's numbers against McCain may fall due to the continued internecine warfare that Hillary will continue right through to the convention, Bill Clinton has said that it does not matter, and points to himself as evidence to the contrary.

Who would have thunk it?