Hillary Clinton and Occam's Razor

[georgecolombo]

If you're not familiar with Occam's Razor, it is a scientific/philosophical premise which states that "the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory." (Wikipedia)

So, how does this apply to Hillary? Well, a question that seems to occupy the airwaves and blogs lately is, "What does Hillary want? Why is she still in the race?" There's a common thread underlying all of the proffered answers: They're rank speculation and assume "facts" for which there is no evidence. Is Hillary on a crusade for the rights of Florida and Michigan voters? Unlikely since that's clearly a concern she didn't have when she originally agreed to the rules. Does Hillary want to be offered the VP slot? Does she want a speaking slot at the convention? Is she holding out for the Senate Majority Leader position? The governorship of New York? Who knows? There's really no way of telling.

Let me suggest a far simpler explanation, one that depends only on observable facts: Maybe Hillary just has a pathological need for attention and approval and, on that basis, simply can't give up the adulation that she gets while campaigning. Maybe there's something about her psychological makeup, not to mention her grip on reality, that's not quite right. This would not only account for why she's still in the race but it would also explain a few other things, like her elaborate Bosnian fantasy.

I'm not trying to be unkind here. Under the circumstances, though, this is a far more straightforward explanation of what we're seeing than all of the speculation the pundits have been serving up for he past several weeks.

[Dogmudgeon]

1. Or perhaps she means what she says

That's a much simpler explanation than coming up with a bullshit psychological theory that makes Obama cultists feel intelligent.

--p!

[cbayer]

2. Good one.

Yep, Occam's razor.

[Lerkfish]

3. nah, campaigning is hard work, I don't think she likes it unless she's a masochist

I think it falls down into some distribution among one or more of the following possibilities:

1. Dubai, Saudi Arabia, Colombia, Big Pharma, etc. All donated either to her campaign or to Bill's speaking fees, in the expectation of Quid Pro Quo. If she does not succeed, she cannot deliver. She has a lot of promisory notes that will come due.
2. she needs to keep going to give herself time to raise enough money to repay her own loan (would YOU want to lose 10 million on a losing campaign?)
3. she wants to be on the ticket
4. She's painted herself into a political corner with no graceful exit strategy
5. She's praying for Obama to get struck by lightning (act of god)

[wryter2000]

4. My version of the simplest reason she continues to run

She wants to be President.

"But," you say, "that's impossible. She doesn't have the numbers."

True, but if she can cause enough confusion, she and her husband might to able to twist arms and make backroom deals to swing things with the superdelegates at the convention. It's kind of a political Hail Mary pass.

In any case, we all may suffer another 4 years of disaster because she decided to put herself ahead of the best interests of the citizens of the US and the world.

[C_U_L8R]

5. She's never admitted defeat before

she's currently sitting in the only office she's ever been elected too.
Perhaps she has no clue how to concede. That's why she appears to be such a poor sport.

[Warpy]

I'm afraid you might be missing the point

There is little ideological difference between Clinton and Obama when you look at their voting records, campaign rhetoric (which should always be taken with a pound of salt) aside.

The refusal to quit tells me there is something else at work, that this isn't a clash of ideologies or even personalities. It is a clash of organizations: the DLC Clinton team versus the non DLC Obama team. Basically, this is a fight to wrest control of the party back from Howard Dean and restore it to the DLC and that is why the fight might indeed be taken to the convention floor.

That's how I read it. I haven't seen evidence of any of the character flaws you describe in Clinton. Just looking at the facts leads me to my conclusion: no difference in ideology, little difference in temperament, big difference in campaign organization.

[Clear Blue Sky]

6. Simpler still.

She still thinks she will get the nomination.

Who knows how? Back room deals, arm twisting of super delegates, rules committee, other tricks the Clinton Machine is yet to play?