File under...

So, a few days back I posted something snidely about the failure of the Clinton campaign to secure the Democratic nomination and how it might be the work of the infamous ‘Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.’

Little did I know how deeply the roots of that paranoia have hold within the Clinton camp. Just a few days later, the former President made the following remarks:

Clinton also suggested that some were trying to “cover up” Hillary Clinton’s chances of winning in key states that Democrats will have to win in the general election.

“‘Oh, this is so terrible: The people they want her. Oh, this is so terrible: She is winning the general election, and he is not. Oh, my goodness, we have to cover this up.’”

Clinton did not expound on who he was accusing.

The former president added that his wife had not been given the respect she deserved as a legitimate presidential candidate.

“She is winning the general election today, and he is not, according to all the evidence,” Clinton said. “And I have never seen anything like it. I have never seen a candidate treated so disrespectfully just for running.”

I could find this laughable if we weren’t discussing Presidential politics. The ‘aw-shucks’ attitude, the ‘we know she is supposed to win’ along with the implication that any other alternative must by default indicate there is something amiss, a right denied.

Even better still is the logic of the popular vote argument:

A DNC committee is meeting to consider what to do with the two states this weekend and will probably come up with a compromise to partially seat the delegations. There’s still the embarrassment that if the votes from Florida and Michigan (where Obama pulled his name from the ballot and technically received no votes) are counted in popular-vote totals, Hillary very narrowly has more votes than Obama. He’s probably going to get the nomination through superdelegates - defying the popular will as measured by that old-fashioned yardstick of votes.

I have yet to hear it mentioned by anyone in HRC’s camp when they go on about the popular vote or seating the delegates from the aforementioned states that she was the only candidate whose name was on the ballot. No mention of how her opponents honored their parties’ directives – of course, this isn’t about the party though is it?

Probably that‘s why there was such an furor of those remarks last week, aside from theat they were factually incorrect, because it becomes apparent even to members within her own party just what this candidacy is about:

Clinton has poured more than $11 million of her own money into the campaign, with no guarantee of ever getting it back. She has changed slogans and themes the way Obama changes his ties. She has been the first major-party presidential candidate in memory to tout her appeal to white voters. She has abandoned any pretense of consistency, inventing new rationales for continuing her candidacy and new yardsticks for measuring its success whenever the old rationales and yardsticks begin to favor Obama.

Is it surprising to see many in HRC’s camp succumbing so deeply to self denial? Not really, because we’ve been down this road before.