Inside Hillary's mind...

Hattie Garlick writes:

With less than 10 days to turn around a Democratic race increasingly appearing sown up by her contender, Hillary yesterday published a personal response in the New York Daily News, countering claims that her thoughts were turning to darker tactics.

The backgound is, of course, her arguable Freudian slip on Friday, made while defending her dwindling chances to the regional US newspaper Argus Leader: "you know my husband did not wrap up the nominiation in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere around the middle of June. We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California."

Supporters of Obama - whose historic bid has been shadowed by fears for his safety - leapt on the phrase immediately, and have spent the weekend voicing interpretations ranging from a deep-seated desire to illiminate her rival that reveals the darker recesses of the candidate's dangerous subconcious, to a cringe-making slip from diplomacy while the Kennedy family still reels from the shock of Edward Kennedy's recent diagnosis.

Hillary's defence though is less interesting for its hounded and exhausted apology than for the dogged tone of its response to the real question: Why does she still resist withdrawing from the race?

"I am not unaware of the challanges or the odds of my securing the nomination" she writes. "... if Sen. Obama wins the nomination, I will support him and work my heart out for him against John McCain... I am running because I believe staying in this race will help unite the Democratic Party. I believe that if Sen. Obama and I both make our case - and all Democrats have the chance to make their voices heard - in the end, everyone will be more likely to rally around the nominee."

Comments

[JOHN CHUCKMAN, TORONTO]

Hillary's word's are boiler-plate, politically-correct blubbering.

You only have to look at the many recent photos of Hillary to see why she really stays in the race.

Her eyes almost bulge from their sockets with hard, ferocious ambition.

Now, all politicians are ambitious, and it's up to individual voters to sort out which of them has something else other than ambition to offer.

In Hillary's case, I fail to see anything else.

The truth is that her many verbal gaffs and blunders demonstrate conclusively that she is not suited for the job she seeks. They make a mockery of her claims to be so ready and experienced.

So too do her strategic mistakes since the start, including underestimating Obama early on. This is prima facie evidence for her inadequate skills and preparation.

I was once sympathetic with Hillary in the days when the Republicans constantly hounded her in the White House. I recognized her intelligence and assumed she might well be the right first woman for the White House.

But this campaign has turned my view of her upside down. She has revealed a character very similar to the late Richard Nixon. Just a nasty piece of work.