Priorities USA reconfigures for Hillary

[Mr. Morden]

This is perhaps the clearest sign so far.  The fact that the Obama high command is lining up behind Hillary is no coincidence.

The clearest sign of what?  That the party establishment backs her?  We've known that for some time, no?  'Will she actually run?' is a separate question.  Of course, she probably will, but moves like this don't really speak to that, one way or the other.  This stuff necessarily happens without any direct input from the candidate herself, since any such input would be illegal.

[Mr. Morden]

This is perhaps the clearest sign so far.  The fact that the Obama high command is lining up behind Hillary is no coincidence.

The clearest sign of what?  That the party establishment backs her?  We've known that for some time, no?  'Will she actually run?' is a separate question.  Of course, she probably will, but moves like this don't really speak to that, one way or the other.  This stuff necessarily happens without any direct input from the candidate herself, since any such input would be illegal.

It is the clearest sign that the party establishment is convinced that she will run.  They would not be going through all this trouble if there was considerable uncertainty.  The actions being taken here go way beyond a mere verbal endorsement.

It sounds like everyone has talked themselves into believing that she's running because they desperately want her to run.  The party establishment wants her in the race, and in their own minds, greasing the wheels like this will make that happen.  But there is still the fundamental point that she needs to want it herself.  From reading her public statements, it sounds like she's leaning towards jumping in, but I wouldn't bet my life on it.

[Mr. Morden]

As far as Messina & Co. making these moves out of "desperation," I find it hard to believe they would waste all this time, energy and money on someone who had signaled little interest in running.

No, that's not what I meant.  She has signalled interest in running, and she will probably run, but we already knew that from her own words, how she shifted from "I'm not running" to "I'll think about it" about a year ago.  But the establishment is nonetheless desperate for her to run.  (Being "desperate" for something to happen doesn't mean that it's unlikely to happen.)

I'm unconvinced that Messina & Co. have some kind of insider info on this.  Maybe they do, but this move doesn't convince me one way or the other on that.  Read most of the stories in which Dem. insiders gush over Clinton.  Their logic tends to be "We need her to run, therefore she will run."

[Mr. Morden]

But Morden, why is the establishment so desperate for her to run? Because of polls? I'm unconvinced it's the end of the world if she doesn't run. There are other candidates.

OK, let me clarify what I mean further.  Maybe "desperate" is the wrong word.  Let's just say that they very strongly desire it.  Doesn't mean that they couldn't win with another candidate.  But the bulk of the party establishment seems to have convinced themselves that she's their strongest candidate.  Doesn't mean that they're right, but that's what they seem to think.

And the bonus is that there's a belief that if Clinton runs, there's a decent chance that she'll only face token opposition in the primary.  And the establishment also tends to believe that primaries are risky, and it's preferable to just let their candidate skate through unscathed.  Again, doesn't mean that they're *right* in thinking that.  But that appears to be a common belief, based on my reading of the situation.

Finally, there's also the groupthink desire to be on the winning side.  It looks like she's probably going to run anyway, so if I'm a Democratic operative, it's in my interest to suck up to her early and promote her candidacy, because she'll remember that when she's in power.