My very first post on this blog was entitled, Hillary is a Loathsome Toad. Having seen the cover of New York magazine yesterday, I remembered it and why I wrote it. Although you can make the argument – and I have – that the prolonged primary season was helpful to Obama (it supplied some level of protective cover as the vetting process went on; for instance, if Jeremiah Wright came out now, it would be more damaging.), Hillary’s motivation for continuing when it was clear she had lost was purely selfish. She did not, and does not, care that she damaged Obama and the party’s chances by staying in the race.
So it has to be said again. Hillary is a loathsome toad.
Okay, so it’s not big news that Hillary will try to destroy anything that hinders her ambitions. But seriously, think about the damage she’s done and the reasons she’s done it and tell me she’s not a toad. After all, the logical conclusion is that she’d rather see McCain win in 2008. If that ain’t toad-like behavior, I don’t know what is.
The New York cover brought all this immediately to mind. Already, the day after she officially lost, she was posing with a look of wry defiance, saying to New Yorkers – particularly Obama supporters – lucky you, you’ve still got me. The intro paragraph on the website says:
How, in her diminishment, she became huge—an instant icon with more cultural potency than her husband. On the day after her final defeat, the unlikeliest of populist heroes discusses what exactly happened to turn her from wonk to phenom.
This woman, with her nasty attacks that could easily appear in a McCain commercial, race-baiting, and useless, but provocative, late primary victories, has done more damage to Obama than the Republicans ever could.
If Barack Obama loses, the smug face on the cover of New York magazine will be largely responsible. And I hope that New Yorkers will remember that. Caroline Kennedy, or some other high profile woman (she’ll never lose to man in New York), should challenge her in the primary, just to teach her a lesson.