Tempermentally Unfit?

So says Chait:

This gambit by Clinton is simply an attempt to steal the nomination. It’s obviously not going to work, because Democratic superdelegates don’t want to commit suicide. But this episode is very revealing about Clinton’s character. I try not to make moralistic characterological judgments about politicians, because all politicians compromise their ideals in the pursuit of power. There are no angels in this business. Clinton’s gambit, however, truly is breathtaking.

If she’s consciously lying, it’s a shockingly cynical move. I don’t think she’s lying. I think she’s so convinced of her own morality and historical importance that she can whip herself into a moralistic fervor to support nearly any position that might benefit her, however crass and sleazy. It’s not just that she’s convinced herself it’s okay to try to steal the nomination, she has also appropriated the most sacred legacies of liberalism for her effort to do so. She is proving herself temperamentally unfit for the presidency.

I’ve met, known, or worked for quite a few politicians, and the sheer brazeness of some of the Clinton rhetoric still shocks me. As I said yesterday, I simply can’t understand what compels them to go out every day and say things that are either total nonsense (if we scored the game differently she’d be winning) or simply won’t help her (seating Florida and Michigan, even in full). It does seem like she’s devolved almost totally to attacking the process, and coming increasingly close to attacking the very legitimacy of the process (as she’s been doing for some time in regards to caucuses). I don’t want to delve too far into the psychobabble, and I’m not going to go near so far as, say, Andrew Sullivan might, but it does increasingly seem like some people around her at least (Bill, McAullife, Wolfson, Lanny!) are either unab;e or unwilling to accept that the party has moved on and denied them what they really do seem to regard as their right to power.

It’s sad, frankly.