Pat Leahy and Ed Rendell Need to Pipe Down

I've argued for some time that Hillary Clinton is almost certain to lose the Democratic presidential nomination -- but I am not in the "Hillary should drop out" camp.

Sen. Pat Leahy, the veteran Democratic Vermonter, yesterday became the latest to call for Mrs. Clinton's withdrawal from the race. But the one person who can shut down Hillary Clinton's campaign before the nominating convention is Hillary Clinton, and she has every right to stay in the race until convention delegates (super-, pleged-, etc.) cast their ballots. I don't think she will, but she can.

Put yourself in her shoes. I understand that outside of the Hillary Kool-Aid Caucus it's fashionable to view President and Mrs. Clinton as power-hungry monsters who would rather see Dick Cheney coronated as emperor before someone not named Clinton is elected president. But imagine for a moment this scenario: Suppose she really believes that Barack Obama is George McGovern part two (or part too), that he will be painted as too-liberal, too-inexperienced, too soft, and too black (who knows how many more Jeremiah Wright tapes are waiting for their moments in the sun?) by the GOP attack machine and that his nomination would likely lead not only to President McCain, but President McCain with a landslide mandate to move our troops out of Iraq and right into Iran?

I'm not saying that's a correct analysis of Obama's general election prospects -- I don't think it is -- but the issue here is whether it's a reasonable one. Can someone reasonably look at Barack Obama and see electoral disaster? Yes. And can someone reasonably look at the last eight years and conclude that this election will be vitally important to the course of the country? Yes.

So if you were the last, best chance to stem the tide of domestic and foreign fiascos that have marked the Bush presidency, what would you do? Drop out because Pat Leahy asked? (Or, perhaps later, Howard Dean? Or Al Gore?) Or fight like hell until hope is extinguished?

(I'm not claiming to have divined Hillary Clinton's motives, or those of her aides -- I doubt there's a single reason for her remaining in the race any more than there was a single reason that we invaded Iraq.)

But here's a practical reason why Leahy and the others should quiet down: Party unity. There is a core of Hillary Clinton supporters who are deeply invested in her candidacy who won't be any more pleased by her being shoved out by party elders than would Obama-philes if he were trumped by superdelegates.

All of that said, however, Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, a Clintonite, cannot have had a straight face yesterday when he said this, quoted in the New York Times:

"Just flip it for a second," Mr. Rendell said. "Let's say Senator Clinton was ahead by about 110 delegates and ahead by less than 1 percent of the vote cast, and she and her supporters started to call on Senator Obama to get out. Just picture what the media would be saying. They'd be saying you're being racist, you're being everything in the world. It's nuts! It's nuts!"

Seriously? Is there any doubt that if Obama had lost 11 primaries in a row and had a virtually insurmountable pledged delegate deficit that Rendell and other Clintonites would be calling for his withdrawal? Come on, gov.