Run, Hillary, Run. Ralph, Too.

The New York Times is now on autopilot, suffering from an astounding bit of groupthink. First, David Brooks, usually independent minded, echoes the chattering class sentiment about the terrible consequences of Hillary Clinton remaining in the race for president. Now Nick Kristof writes virtually the same thing. Maureen Dowd basically said that the Clintons are out to destroy the Democratic party by staying in the race. Please.

My spouse works for Clinton; that's well known. So take my opinion as you will but it seems crazy to me that Clinton should even consider dropping out at this point. Here's why:

1. What about Reagan, Hart and Kennedy? In my adulthood -- if a Bar Mitzvah counts as an entree to manhood -- there have been three all-the-way-to-the-convention races. In 1976, Ronald Reagan was further behind Gerald Ford at this point in the race but he remained in the hunt all the way until the convention. No one looks back on the Sainted Gipper as being "divisive" or helping the Democrats. Instead, his continuing to run is seen as a matter of principle. He not only held on to the convention but even took the audacious step of naming a moderate running mate, Richard Schweicker of Pennsylvania, in a Hail Mary attempt at winning over Ford delegates. Does David Brooks think Reagan was wrong? In 1984, Gary Hart stayed in the race until the convention and Ted Kennedy famously did so in 1980. Of course, Kennedy's churlish behavior at the convention -- he publicly dissed Jimmy Carter -- did help sink the party's chances in the fall but I don't see any of the Kennedy accolytes now saying Clinton should drop out. The Obamaites would like to see Clinton drop out so their man can win this thing with elected delegates. Forget it. He's going to have to get there with those icky superdelegates.

2. What's the Case for her Leaving? Mathematically, it is getting harder for her to win and it's hard to see how she's going to persuade superdelegates to abandon the first African-American nominee of a major party for her. I think Obama will be the nominee. But so what? As long as she has a plausible shot at the nomination and is within a couple of hundred delegates of Obama, so what if she keeps running? She has a shaky but still plausible argument come June: With Florida, where both she and Obama were on the ballot, she may have won the popular vote. She may have won all the big states save Obama's home of Illinois and North Carolina and she may, by that time, be ahead in the polls. That's not the best argument in the world but it's at least a reasonable one to present to superdelegates. By the way, Obamaites who are arguing that superdelegates should follow the lead of the people aren't making that argument to Ted Kennedy and Bill Richardson, who have endorsed their man, while coming from states that Clinton won.

3. What's Wrong with a Divided Convention? The new conventional wisdom is that a Democratic fight will doom the party. Maybe. It's possible. But it's hardly guaranteed. The primary fights have made Obama a better candidate and have arguably toughened him up for the fall in a way that running against the very impressive Alan Keyes never did. A divided convention will have incomparable viewership and will end with a united party. God forbid, the delegates in Denver actually have something to do other than be props for a DNC infomercial. So what if there are a couple of ballots? It'll be real politics and it will, I bet, make the party stronger. Of course, if Clinton or Obama is truculent like Kennedy in '80 it will hurt the party but neither wants the rap for bringing th party down. Of course, if Obama does get enough delegates to be the nominee Clinton should, like Mike Huckabee before her, get out of the race or risk looking like an idiot. But until that time why should Obama be given a coronation?

For more click here.

Comments

[mrqapla]

The Clintons have been out to destroy the party since at least 1992.
Vote Mike Gravel.

[Gibbons]

Yes they were terrible they balanced the budget, got millions of people off welfare,put 800000 more policemen on the streets and paid the national debt down by over two trillion dollars. We just can't have that kind of chicanery, BTW I hope you are old enough to understand satire.

[timothydcraig]

Matt has made a very strong argument for why Hillary is likely to doom the Democratic party in the general election. All of the examples he cites of candidatesstaying in after it was over resulted in a loss for their party in the general election. It clearly is not true that nobody would accuse the "Gipper" of dividing the Republican party. Many would credit Reagan for delivering the election to Carter.

[Gibbons]

All those losses occurred after that racist old dem LBJ signed the Civil Rights bill when he signed it he commented that the solid south had moved into the republican column what politician today would throw away eleven states just because it was the RIGHT thing to do.

[RButler]

Shhh. Hillary caught heck from the Obama campaign for saying that LBJ got civil rights legislation passed with a reluctant Congress. If the superdelegates are smarter than the Obama campaign, they'll vote for Hillary.

[jhNY]

Sorry. You lost me at " David Brooks, usually independent minded". Independent of original thought? Maybe. Independent of the wishes of his pals in the republican party. Never, never, ever.

[reggaebass]

Wow. You get paid for this?
In answer to question 1 In all those extended party fights you mentioned the said party lost the general election! That is what is wrong with it. Ford lost in 76 after Reagan, Carter lost in 80 after Kennedy, Mondale lost in 84 after Hart. That is the entire point. That actually answers question 2 and 3 as well. Your thesis only makes sense if you ignore the fact that the entire point of this is to win the presidency. How stupid can you possibly get?!?

[mbafromharvard]

YES - Keep up the fight!! I love watching the Dems continue to implode. As the fight continues, the money is draining from their coffers!! All the while McCain build his up for the fight. So please - keep this fight going all the way to the convention!

[mcthfg]

Really?

You're still willing to admit that you're cheering for the Republicans? After everything? They haven't screwed you enough, you want a little more? Maybe you could wear that on a t-shirt so if we meet on the street, we could have a discussion.

I hope you've signed up for the armed forces, instead of simply urging others to die of your behalf. But you don't sound like someone who would do that...

[JimR]

I don't have a problem with her staying in the race. I do have a problem with her negative campaign tactics. Fortunately, more and more people seem to be getting turned off by them.

[ffa]

I second first 2 sentences.

[giachi]

I agree that people are getting turned off by the negative campaign tactics...­I am one of those people. At the beginning of this race I was very excited about both candidates. Even though I've supported Obama from the beginning, I initially had no problem voting for Clinton if she were the nominee…but this was before I realized the reality of who Hillary Clinton is…a selfish, untrustworthy person with very little character. After weeks of negative campaign tactics there is no way I could cast a vote for Clinton if she is the candidate.­..I have no respect for her and I truly believe that she is still in the race because of her ego….it seems that she cares more about the power and status of being the first woman president than she does about the good of this country. If she ends up as the democratic candidate I will be forced to support Nader or Gravel (if he runs as a libertarian). This campaign has already completely turned me off to the entire democratic party and made me seriously consider changing my status to independent or possibly registering with a third party. How much longer are these two democratic candidates going to continue tearing each other down? They've already given McCain and the Republicans sufficient ammunition for the general election, so as the nasty bickering and negative campaign tactics continue how does either of them expect the Democrats to have any real chance come November?