Hillary Clinton Should Withdraw

The most likely outcome is that on March 5, Hillary Clinton withdraws from the presidential campaign and endorses Barack Obama.

At this moment, Senator Clinton has three options, two of which are acceptable, one of which would be disastrous for her and the Democratic Party.

In my view she should withdraw today, though she won't. Her second option is to campaign through March 4 at least but suspend all negative attacks and whatever happens, do it with class and grace as a unifier.

Her third option is to continue and escalate the negative attacks in a wrecking ball, demolition derby, scorched earth desperation play that will be rejected by voters and do permanent damage to her national stature.

Two facts are obvious. First, she cannot be nominated at a price worth the nomination. If she pursues the desperation dirt strategy it will be rejected by voters as her attacks were rejected in South Carolina, Wisconsin and nationally. Such a strategy would drive superdelegates to stampede to Obama and would be viewed as a direct attack on the prospects of the Democratic Party and a direct attack on the aspirations of political independents that would make her nomination both impossible and worthless.

The worst case for Senator Clinton is not that she loses the nomination, which is close to inevitable today, but that she loses in a way where she is seen as a destructive and divisive force that leaves large numbers of a generation of young people largely angry and bitter towards her for the rest of her career.

The second fact is equally clear. Contrary to myths perpetrated by the pundits in the media and their embarrassing misreading of the history of our times, neither the voters, nor the superdelegates, want any part of any effort to steal the nomination, corrupt the democratic process of the Democratic Party, or continue that politics of demeaning that the Clinton campaign has sadly trademarked in this year.

In the end, the superdelegates would never have considered violating and abusing the trust of the people who voted in primaries and caucuses. Equally ridiculous and offensive, the chance that Hillary Clinton could steal the support of elected pledged delegates is mathematically zero. The very notion that the Clinton staff would even consider this shows how far from the reality of 2008 the Clintons and their staff have been with tactics that have been a $150 million fiasco of division, mismanagement and self-destruction.

Hillary Rodham Clinton is a good person, a good Senator and a good public servant who has many years left in a career that could well ultimately lead to the presidency. She and her campaign have done some very bad things, in a very bad way. with very bad results.

It is time to begin a serious discussion of her upcoming withdrawal, and hope as Democrats and Americans that in the closing days of her campaign she acts as a healer and unifier who does credit to herself and a service to our party and our country.

Comments

[MyThought]

Isn't the race a little close to be asking her to bow out? This is stupid.

It ain't over til it's over. She'd look weak if she didn't fight hard.

Who are you anyway to say what she should or shouldn't do?

[Dvmx]

I think Hillary's moment was 2004. Then, history might have been on her side had she led a rebellion against the unconstitutional Bush regime. She might have succeeded and become quite a hero. But it looked difficult, and '08 looked easy, and so she didn't.
As it turned out, fate had another idea for '08, and there's no comparison.
Hillary can still be enormously effective and helpful in the work to come to right this country. If she doesn't as Budowsky suggests, blow it with negativity.

[SoldDowntheRiver]

In my humble opinion, being married to a former president and using that fact to carpetbag a Senate seat does not equal 35 years of experience. Clinton is unelectable, and absolutely cannot beat McCain in the general election. And somebody please tell me why "experience" is so important? Look at what "experience" has gotten us over the past 8 years...Rumsfeld, Cheney, a broken Army and military etc. Come on people, nominate someone who at least has a chance to get elected!

[ultramagnetic]

From your text to Hillary's ear. However I fear her ego will not let her accept defeat. The recent info about the 527 group, the delegate website and her plan to use the super delegates shows that she is about winning at any cost. Even the destruction of the Democratic party.

[pilotinfla]

I don't think that Hillary endured however many years of Bill's outrageous behavior with her even having to personally handle "bimbo eruptions" in order to quit now. And there may be no second chance for her -- the next time around there may be legitimate female candidates for president and the public may be even less willing to endure Clinton fatigue than they are now.

Finally, it would be unlikely that the Clintons would somehow start to have concerns about the Democratic party at this late date -- that has never been of concern to them before, why now?

[timm0]

pilot, you've pretty much nailed all the reasons why the wrecking ball approach will occur.

[irishgawdess]

This is my understanding of the superdelegate system. It was started by the Democratic Party after the 1972 election when McGovern lost to Nixon by a rather wide margin, despite anti-war sentiments. The Democratic Party didn't want to risk losing the presidency in future elections because the “common people” went wild for a populist nominee who wouldn’t be able to beat the Republican nominee. The superdelegate system was introduced to control the outcome of the general election. It may not have been presented in such a gross light, but…

Many Americans distrust the political system; Democrats are decrying the use of the superdelegate system this year. We’re tired of being treated like idiots, and want our voices to count for a change. Superdelegates say they don't want to "corrupt the system" or "abuse the trust of the people," yet the pledging of their votes continues. Are they listening to the voices of Americans?

There is the potential for the superdelegates or Democratic candidates to control the final outcome in November. Superdelegates aren’t bound to align their votes with the popular vote, (although many have said they would.) What leads us to believe that centrists in the party wouldn’t throw their support behind the candidate with the best chance of winning the nomination? Party over principle, and all that. We have no idea what is being discussed or promised behind the scenes. Might there be some expectation of quid pro quo?

Additionally, we’ve seen examples of how low Hillary’s campaign will stoop to win the election. They haven't even brought out their big guns yet. You said Hillary is a “good person.” Then you go on to say her campaign has been a “$150 million fiasco of division, mismanagement and self-destruction.” Has her staff been working on their own initiative? Somehow, I doubt it. It’s a naïve assumption that the Clinton campaign wouldn’t attempt to salvage their chance to get Hillary elected. Or that Bill and Hillary wouldn’t twist some arms to get what they want.

[yrerbendr]

I can only hope that Hillary Clinton will read this article and see the sense written here. Her career will go forwards if she steps aside to unify the Democratic party. All other avenues lead to her career destruction. Step aside, learn from the mistakes, run again. This will be her best chance to be President.

[Lemeritus]

"In my view she should withdraw today...."

Will you personally be contacting the nearly 10,500,000 people who've voted for Senator Clinton to tell them that you've rethought their decision?

The party will be fine; I don't for a moment think the nomination is in danger of being hijacked. Let the process play itself out -- anything else would be an insult to the voters and the candidates.

[nk007]

Bravo Brent! Finally some one with common sense. I think if Sen. Clinton embarks on negative attacks, and the trashing of Sen. Obama, she amy win the nomination but loose the presidency. I also think if she continues to trash sen. Obama, sen Obama may win the nomination but loose the presidency, because the Republicans are sure to revive Clinton's negative attacks. Unlike Mr. Budowsky, I am not sure that it is time for Sen. Clinton to withdraw from the race. I think she still has the chance to pull it off if she wins Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania with large margins. However, If she narrowly wins those states by trashing Obama she most likely will turn off independents and loyal Obama supporters who may not be there to support her in the general elections.

[altohone]

Good post Brent.

It seems as if the Hillary camp has already decided to go negative regardless of its' impact on the party.

Brent- do you think the participants in "some very bad things" should be called to task?

It seems to me there are some active participants who have crossed the line in Hillary's quest for power, and that they should be sidelined if they don't apologize for the "excesses" as Hillary called Bill's lying.

I ask, because it seems that the idea of accountability is flawed if the buck always stops at the top. Hillary deserves the criticism for the campaign tactics, but her operatives and bloggers shouldn't just get blanket pardons once she withdraws.

There were serious violations of objectivity, factual accuracy, and common decency by many who should know better than to assume all will be forgiven after the primaries.

I'm not sure we should overlook it all, and I'd oppose asking them to join the campaign against the GOP too if they would bring their mentality and tactics along.

I don't want Carville or some other insiders speaking for my party, and I don't want certain writers closer to home (hint) trying to do to McCain what they failed to do to Obama.

Those folks and tactics hurt Hillary and I don't want them tarnishing Obama too.

I'm all for party unity, but these people haven't been.

Any thoughts?

[braveryexists]

I have a bit of a hard time buying into the assertion that the Clinton campaign has turned into the embodiment of evil that a lot of people are accusing it of. Sure, she's used (some) negative campaigning, but anybody that thinks the Clinton campaign has sunk to new lows in modern politics obviously hasn't paid attention to the American political scene of the past twenty years. Once Obama wins the nomination and gets into the general election, the rhetoric that will be marshaled against him will make the Clinton campaign look like they're using kid gloves. As Democrats, we need to accept that fact and show a little backbone rather than this constant whining about how unfair everything is.

[altohone]

Bill is on the record lying.
Hillary is on the record lying.
Her campaign manager is on the record lying.

Pointing out this fact is not whining.

I'm not talking about "new lows".
I'm talking about the CURRENT CAMPAIGN in the context of the current campaign.

SOME negative campaigning is some too much if the result hurts Dem chances of winning.

[benjaminblue]

Hillary Clinton should never have entered the race to begin with. While -- technically -- she has committed no wrong in running, her candidacy is borderline illegal. And we've had enough borderline (and over the border) illegal activity from the current administration. It is not in the nation's best interests to have the same few families in the White House, in the position to create "permanent tax cuts" favoring themselves or "100 year wars" that line their pockets directely and indirectly, no matter how senseless those wars are, or how destructive they are to the country. Hillary should have known better than to try to perpetuate the myth that only the Bushes and the Clintons are fit to govern; the two families are greedy, self-serving failures.

[ultramagnetic]

Exactly her campaign has been a study in Carl Rove style 50+1 politics.

[braveryexists]

Thanks for a great post! I wasn't aware that our nation had laws prohibiting U.S. citizens to run for elected office based on marital status. I also didn't know that the Clinton family were war profiteers hell-bent on bringing our country to its knees. I guess I never considered the myriad ways in which Hillary Clinton is completely indistinguishable from George W. Bush. Makes sense when you think about it, though.

[realitytrumpsbull]

I fully disagree, further, I think there should be MORE candidates, like, 'every single eligible man and woman in the United States' should be running for that office. OBviously, there's some sort of chronic money-related issue in the Oval Office today, else, there would be no war in Iraq, because CONGRESS would have told the zekkytiv brayansh to kindly fold it into a cocked hat and dispose of accordingly. Since that is NOT what happened, and there seem to be billions upon billions(paging Carl Sagan, geneticists, get on that) of dollars 'missing', they'd better look in the 'counting' department, too, check for stickyfingers front-to-back. If a 10-year-old can do better with a copy of Quicken and a copy of Axis and Allies, it's time for the 'no panhandling' and 'under new management' signs to be posted prominently. Germany, YOU, TOO!
New broom sweeps clean...how about the New Broom Independents? Ethics test for all of em to see if they'd be willing to sign up under that. Demoscamster union-pand­erers...re­form doesn't have to hurt, but you DO have to start...somewhere? Make a clean spot, there.

[JB2]

Well said, Brent.

10 straight losses - by an average of 33 points each. Why is there even a dispute? Give it up, Hil; go back to your carpet-bagged Senate seat.

[PinkoAttic]

I would like to believe she will do the right thing and withdraw by or on March 5th, though she is no doubt surrounded by advisors who see themselves as being too heavily invested as the architects of a " losing campaign " that they will urge her to slog it out to the finish. Last night's results ought to have sent a pretty clear message and as the writer said, at this point, it is far better for her to come off smelling like roses as the unifier and party stalwart than as a mean, calculating and desperate megalomaniac, which is what the press will portray her as, rightly or wrongly if she keeps going after losing Texas and/or Ohio.

I have always thought she would make a superb Secretary of State. She is in a totally different league from the Condi Rice's of this world and it is a position which would afford her a good deal more liberty of action from a personal/political standpoint than she would ever be allowed as president. She could make a bigger impact in many respects than could ever be made from the Oval Office. She has far too bright a head on her shoulders to be VP and it would probably be insfufferably disappointing for her after this in any event.

Bottom line is, this is an extraordinarily talented individual with a good deal to offer her country and the world. It would be an enormous shame to squander any more good will and personal potential in a battle which even the most artful of politicians would likely find impossible to win at this stage. It may be time to take a page out of Bismarck's school and practice realpolitik.

[midimidi]

I feel like she should withdraw. She is ready to take the whole democratic party down with her. Alot of her supporters say she should become the independent candidate. She seems sort of like she's got an axe to grind, I think this is more about her unwilling to give up since she put up with the whole Monica mess for her turn at the presidency.