I am a civil trial lawyer. I have a great deal of respect for litigants who fight their cases despite difficult odds. But I have often marveled with sadness when "the facts" of a case make it apparent that there is no case, and yet a client or opponent of a client fights on and on in an irrational quest that simply cannot be achieved.

"Enablers" are the attorneys or family members who have dug themselves in so deeply to the lost (and often unjust) cause, that they also refuse to give up. Perhaps they feel they must continue to support the fight so long as the litigant remains obsessed. Perhaps it is a form of misguided, destructive love.

Hillary Clinton is such a litigant in her quest for the White House. As did several candidates for President this year, she had a plausible case and an excellent chance to win. She bravely fought on even when it became an uphill battle. I respect that.

But this quest has long been lost on "the facts" to a candidate with his own quest, Barack Obama. Although insiders all know she will lose based on "the math" and also based on the fact that she is not best suited in this year of change, she clings and squirms and adheres.

She is obsessed-- addicted -- to the quest -- although all is lost.

This state of mind is dangerous because sometimes "fighters," while noble in their own minds -- will stoop to desperate tactics and self-destructive behavior in order that they not be forced to abandon their quests.

In Hillary Clinton's case, the tolerance for divisive racial politics, the lying, the exaggerations -- are obvious symptoms of desperate tactics. But her so-called "arguments" to the superdelegates as to how they should rationalize voting for her are the most egregious symptoms.

For example, it is pure egocentric dishonesty to argue that Michigan and Florida should be "counted as is" when, before the votes, she declared these contests irrlevant and swore they "would not count." The argument for re-voting had merit. But there has never been the slightest merit in permitting the irrelevant, uncontested election results to stand.

Nevertheless, like a mad litigant who won't give up despite all the facts, she now seems to truly believe that counting these votes "as is" would somehow be fair or tolerable.

No one except her most deluded enablers agree with this. But enablers are enablers, and her contributors, surrogates, and disillusioned supporters cheer her on as she makes this completely nutty argument. "Let's have an election that we all agreed won't count, but then count it anyway!"

This is an "up is down" argument and exposes an addiction, not a fight for a reasoned, noble cause. The weird madness will stop only when her enablers stop enabling.

I totally agree.

She has taken to saying she was against the war in Iraq before Sen. Obama. That to me is a very troubling thing. She is not operating in reality when she is making statements like this. She also now believes she truly won Michigan and Florida. At least you have a reason why these off the wall statements and thinking is going on.

I think if she ran in 04 she may have become president. But, she waited too long. And the mood is different.

She is also now out of touch with the new ways of raising money and campaigning. She is out of step. She is also terrible at managing her campaign which is a tip off to how she would be as a president. This is not good.

An extremely interesting comparison and analysis.

Now Hillary is apparently hinting that "pledged" delegates are really free to ignore the voters who elected them. This is exactly like George W. Bush proclaiming his devotion to democracy in one speech, and then junking it in another.

This is a combination that fascists use, and another bothersome indication that Hillary's bottom-line loyalties now lie with her big-bucks investors. Ultra rich fascists typically have their hired hands fight tenaciously to the bitter end.

This transformation is even clearer with McCain's changeover to his Ass Kiss Express. In fairness to McCain, he may have found some corner of his mind that believes betraying his ideals will enable him to do some nobler good later on. And maybe Hillary believes the same.

"This is an "up is down" argument and exposes an addiction, not a fight for a reasoned, noble cause. The weird madness will stop only when her enablers stop enabling."

When Hillary Clinton said that she and John McCain were qualified to be Commander in Chief but that Barack Obama wasn't, she exposed the depth of her delusions. If Clinton believes that then, if she loses the nomination, she will have to run as an independent "for the good of the country". I'm not sure that her enablers (mostly Bill) can pull Hillary back from that brink.

Obama 08!

All too true I'm afraid. While I'm sure there are those who would contend that she is a "victim" in terms of her personal and political life, I would submit that the solution is not to use the campaign as therapy.

I agree wholeheartedly with this analogy. I am also an attorney, and spend about a lot of time explaining to people that they don't have a case. I feel bad, but people need to hear the truth before they invest their money and time.

She is not only surrounded by advisors who enable her, its also the media who continues its focus on "the battle" for its own selfish purposes. Four months ago, the field was filled with candidates. But the media ignored most of them, and they dropped out.

There is a part of me that says if she wants to stay in the race, let her. But as the days go on, and the delegate numbers don't change, its just another nail in her campaign's coffin. But I also feel sorry for her, and think if she continues, it will damage any future political future she may have.

This is a great post, all of the Obambi's can now have a support group. What's the matter, is the democracy too much?

This is clearly not about democracy. If it were, Clinton wouldn't be claiming victory in Florida and certainly not Michigan.

Even people who supported HClinton before are coming to the realization that her chances of winning the nomination are slim to none, even if the race continues through to June and PR. We, 'Obambi's' have no problem with her continuing through to the end of the primary season. It just further validates him when he is the nominee.

The problem is that she keeps digging in her heels and coming up with more reasons why she should continue despite having little money, diminishing superdelegate support, fewer victories and little chance of overcoming her pledged delegate deficit. She couldn't lose, she has more superdelegates, she's won the 'important' states, he's not electable, caucuses aren't fair, the people of FL and MI are being disenfranchised...

A noble person would have bowed out gracefully by now and supported the front runner. She's doing this for herself, not for the country.

Hillary has every right to continue to campaign for as long as she wants or until the money runs out. Then she can expend her own substantial wealth and keep on going for months. But, the cost to Hillary and her family will not just be economic. She will damage her own political future and that of her party. Her hardball tactics have guaranteed that she will never be the nominee of the Democratic party -- not this year or any subsequent year. Those of us her oppose her have every right to express that opposition and to continue to doubt her ability to lead the country, now and forever.

From what I can tell, with her, the object of power is power. She wants to be the boss. She wants to be in control. She thinks she has some God-given RIGHT to be President.

She's as deluded as the trust-fund babies who have never had to face reality without the armor of position and privilege. She is incapable of stepping outside herself, as Joh Kennedy did in 1960, to look at himself and see what it is about him that is bothering the voters. It's a fatal flaw in a politician.

In JFK's case, it was his Roman Catholicism. Many Protestants were afraid he would be taking orders from the Pope in Rome on domestic, Constitutional and civil rights issues that flew in the face of what the people might want. Kennedy gave a speech that specifically addressed that problem and more or less got by it. (Going on 50 years later, most people tend to forget his margin of victory was razor-thin and may have been achieved by crooked politics in Chicago on his behalf.)

In the case of Slick Hillary, the problem is a fundamental lack of honesty and integrity. I've written about this before. She cannot produce when the heat is on, and when she fails it's never her fault, it's always something someone else did or something beyond her control.. She will exaggerate and lie, as witness her latest crock of crap about debarking in Bosnia under fire in 1996 when the news tapes show it was a perfectly ordinary arrival of a VIP, complete with the presentation of a bouquet by a cute little local girl. She'll use someone until their usefulness is used up, then cut them loose without a backward glance. I don't know if she is this way by nature or if it is a behavior learned from her poor excuse for a 'husband,' but it is characteristic of both of them. To them, loyalty runs only up the pyramid of power to them at its apex, never back down to those below. It's an entitlement mindset, yes; but more to the point, it's an ancien regime mindset. And it's 200 years out of date.

People sense this in her. Her pathetic attempts to act populist ring hollow at best. She's about as populist as Marie Antoinette. The people who don't share her delusions; not merely that she has what it takes to do the job of Presdient, but also that she actually has independent, verifiable, significant achievements to point to to prove she has the right stuff, see this very clearly. She may have the thick skin a politician needs to get through a day on the campaign trail without either vomiting or beating one's head against the wall, but she does not have what it takes to fill the seat her scumbag 'husband' defiled for eight years in the Oval Office.

Americans will put up with a great deal from their Presidents - witness the fact no one tried to have Johnson assassinated after he pushed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 through Congress when there was serious national opposition to it - but they do expect them to have a clear vision about where the country needs to go, how to get it there, and to know what they are doing. It's plain to see she can't see past getting elected, that she does not have a coherent plan to get Congress to dig the country out of the hole the incumbent has dropped us into, that they can't count on her to do the job no matter what it takes. In short, she wants to be Queen Hillary, not President Clinton the Younger. And no one in this country wants that. More to the point, the country as a whole can see, based on the performance fo George Bush, that we can't afford another idiot with those sorts of delusions.

What about the people who are enabling Obama? The man has nothing to offer but soaring rhetoric and yet he could be elected President at which time he will probably destroy this country. Obama doesn't like whites so he will ultimately be divisive and he continues to associate with the wrong people and make mistakes so rookie in nature that he shouldn't allowed to run for President. And I've never heard people defend anyone as irrationally as they do Obama, say anything negative about him to one of his diehard supporters and it's a though someone has insulted a family member. All I can say is - GO McCain!!!

"Obama doesn't like whites..."

...what about his mother?

These kinds of assumptions never cease to baffle me.

We don't need a support group; when the other team starts trash-talking, all you need to do is point to the scoreboard.

[points to scoreboard]

[points to scoreboard again]

This is one of the better posts/discussions I have ever read here. I do find it interesting, that should her big money enablers continue to enable, is she would go the independant route and run anyway. The fallout from that would be interesting to say the least!

john adkisson:

No one except her most deluded enablers agree with this. But enablers are enablers, and her contributors, surrogates, and disillusioned supporters cheer her on as she makes this completely nutty argument. "Let's have an election that we all agreed won't count, but then count it anyway!"

This is an "up is down" argument and exposes an addiction, not a fight for a reasoned, noble cause. The weird madness will stop only when her enablers stop enabling.

That's what just blows me away about this, but it's typical Clinton.

It's amazingly shameless and brazen to agree that an election won't count than contradict yourself and insist that it does when it serves your purposes.

Any other politician would be laughed out of the public arena. But the Clintons get away with it because the democratic party have given them a pass on *everything* bad that they've done as a reward for 8 years of presidential authority; like there's a "We don't talk about the Clinton's that way" rule where you just can't call the Clintons liars even when they brazenly and obviously lie.

Why shouldn't they do so? The Clintons can do whatever the hell they want and dems let them get away with it, including lying to their own party.

Anyone else, Howard Deane would of told "You made an agreement, I have your signature, now sit down, shut up, and stop wining" but The Clinton Royal Family is exempt from the promises they make, apparently.

As for enablers, the only way I see this stopping is if people stop donating. A slate.com author said that "politicians really don't quit, they run out of cash."

That's the only way the plug gets pulled. Her donations dive after a nearer than expected PA win or a big NC loss and she just can't compete anymore without dipping into her personal $$$ which makes her campaign look even worse, cue self-perpetuating downward spiral.