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

[S1m0n]

" Instead, his continuing to run is seen as a matter of principle.­"

With just as much respect: Senator, we knew Ronald Reagan, and Hillary Clinton is no Ronald Reagan.

No one is likely to accuse Hillary of staying in this race on a point of principle. We know her, and the only principle involved is, "I OWN this nomination! How dare that Johnny come lately try and take it from me!"

[gwosterwisch]

The evidence Cooper presents contradicts his own argument.
1. "What about Reagan, Hart, and Kennedy?" In each of those elections (1976, 1984, and 1980) their respective parties presidential nominee lost the election.
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." That pretty much says it all.
3. "What's Wrong with a Divided Convention?" When did a nominee coming out of a divided convention go on to win the election. Think Republican in 1976 or Democratic in 1924, 1968, 1980, and 1984--all losers.

[Kahawa]

To me the point is that the more the candidates jab at each other, the more potential fuel they give to the Republicans. I'm particularly troubled by this business of Obama and Clinton supporters saying they would vote for McCain if their chosen candidate is not nominated. I was glad to see a statement the other day by Clinton, on this issue of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I hope to hear both candidates speak to this repeatedly. But still, we have two strong, talented candidates, fighting a tough campaign and unfortunately slinging far more mud than they should. Any mud that sticks could be a handicap in November.

[juanito69IIcorps]

Tell us about your gal, Marc. She sits down at the very same table with Richard Mellon Scaife, the prime mover of the "vast, right-wing conspiracy," and proceeds to remind everyone about the Reverend Wright. You mention the name Kennedy. Yes, and they called Bobby Kennedy an opportunist!

[hopelessobama]

maybe obama doesnt deserve it if he can't knock her out himself. he failed in NH. failed on super tuesday. failed in ohio and texas. he's gonna blow it again in PA, and he is blocking revotes in michigan and florida. i mean this is not an impressive win by any means. kerry swept throught the primaries while obama is struggling to get 2024. what kind of movement is that? what kind of phenom is that? he's struggling against a candidate with the highest negatives in history? and then he has to face the most respected republican in the country?!?!?!?! obama should drop out, i mean look at how horrid deval turned out, and his resume is identical to obama's, plus he writes obama's speeches. obama is just alot of media creation, the sooner everyone accepts that, the sooner president mccain can go on to leading the free world.

[Amminadab]

They certainly seem afraid about finishing the race.

[rzan]

Actually he won in Texas, and if you subtract the repubs who voted for hillary at the behest of Rush Limbaugh, he really won there. Also, you are not reading the news. He is not blocking the revote and is in fact encouraging a revote in Florida. It looks as if he would win in Michigan, so why wouldn't he be for it? Passing off incorrect information as correct is really not too cool.

[besscannon]

Obama claims to want to stop BIG MONEY'S grip on the government, but, he is using BIG money and BIG organization like Move On, etc. to BUY this election. Does that sound like "Change"? Sounds like the same old status quo to me. Big Money supporting him is buying advertisement on every search machine online and threatening loss of support to Pelosi and super delegates in thinly veiled letters if they don't support Obama. And Obama is the one that says Hillary will do anything to get elected. I think he needs to look in the mirror to see who is doing EVERYTHING to win. I also suspect Oprah has her checkbook open for whatever he needs. This is not change, it is the "same old thing", wouldn't you say? Also, he claims to be getting all his money from grass roots. BULL! What he isn't including is the big nuclear organization that gave him $22million, plus there is an oil company backing him, also. Does this sound true to what this slick politican, Obama, is telling you all?

[hopelessobama]

eventually you fringe lefties have to accept the truth: the decorated service and incredible bi-partisan and reforming career of john mccain would beat these hapless candidates even if they were playing nice and holding hands. they simply do not measure up; not in courage, not in experience, not in leadership. barack obama is barley qualified to work for mccain much less beat him, and hillary...­well even lefties are seeing why the right has hated the clintons. its time to face it boys and girls, you are up against perhaps the most respected and electable republican not named reagan in american history. even a flawless campaign by obama would struggle against the accolades and luaded accomplishments of mccain. the man has a 54% approval among DEMOCRATS!!! look one day, after 15-20 years of hard work and experience, barack might be ready for the vice presidency­...maybe. but until then get used to saying the following: President John McCain

[Yuletide]

1. Large numbers of Republicans are less than enthusiastic about McCain, and are unlikely to show up at the polls.
2. Many Democrats are currently in a snit about the Hil vs Obama thing and are saying they'll vote for McCain if their candidate doesn't get the nomination, but most of that will fade once the Democrats have a candidate selected.
3. The pointless war in Iraq, which McCain supports, is draining the U.S. economy. For most folks, the economy is the #1 issue. McCain supports continuing the war indefinitely, thereby draining the economy indefinitely.
4. McCain is too far to the left for core Republicans and too far to the right for Democrats.
5. For many years I've been hearing that if African Americans showed up at the polls, Democrats would never lose an election. Guess who can bring African Americans out to vote?
6. Clinton does very well with women voters, who account for more than half the adult population.

This all adds up to a solid victory for whomever the Democrats nominate in the end. So get used to saying "President Obama" or "President Clinton." Either one's fine with me.

[MrWinky]

Interesting take. Sure, a divided convention could sink the Dems chances, but hey, screw it, take a chance, live a little. If Hillary does like Ted and drops a piano on the main candidate every time he turns around, then it will be a repeat of that election. There is just too much on the line.

I don't care if Hillary stays in. She is free to run her campaign anyway she likes. However, if she cares for the party, she may say, "For the rest of the campaign, I'm going to talk to everyone about me, my promises, and what I can do for Amercia." Hell, if your going to lose, why not lose at least knowing you put your message out there. Heck, people liked Hillary b/f the election began, it may even bring he some votes. As it is now, she is constantly looking to hamstring Obama on anything and everything, and while there is a small chance to win, I think it is actually digging her grave faster with the supers. If she keeps it clean, it would kind of be like the season when Clemens retired (the first time). A chance for everyone to see the positive things she stands for and give us all a chance to clap for all that Bill and her have done. I would enjoy that, and I think it would be a fitting legacy. The way she is going to go out now is beneath her.

[DoninJoisey]

I don't begrudge her the right to stay in - as did Huckabee - but the MANNER in which she is conducting the campaign - putting McCain above Obama? THAT is over the line by any measure.

The other Rovian tactics - the 3am fear ad, creating a lie (experience) and repeating it over and over - are deplorable, but to actually praise McCain over Obama? What happened to "I am really proud to be seated here next to Barack Obama"???

I'm an independent, so I'm not arguing party loyalty, but anyone who thinks McCain isn't senile or delusional hasn't listened to him. To slime your opponent may work in the Rove model, but it turns me off.

[hopelessobama]

mccain is over obama. ones a war hero the others a half-term nobody. its only logical that she would place them that way.

[rzan]

Except that intellectually, Obama greatly surpasses McCain. I am sick of having idiots decide the fate of this country. McCain finished fifth from the bottom at Anapolis, and Obama was the editor of the Harvard Law Review. If you want a stupid war mongerer deciding the fate of this country, by all means support McCain.

[betch]

Your point # 1 proves the case for your opposition . . each of the "all-the-w­ay-to-the-­convention­" races you mentioned were losses for the party that endured them. Good point. Your NYTimes buddies are correct.

[Denni]

Mathematically 'difficult'? Er, "getting harder for her to win'? ok... if it helps you sleep through the night. Can you enlighten us about what could possibly, and realistically, happen that would mathematically give her a shot at winning!?!??! Does she have to stop running? NO, but anyone who cared about their party would. Anyone who cared about their party wouldn't have let 20 wealthy-bu­t-delusion­al dinosaurs not send a letter in her name, bullying the speaker of the party. Anyone who cared about her party wouldn't try to push responsiblility for Florida and Michigan on her opponent when SHE also signed the pledge --- oh, and her 'get over it' statement about the two states from Oct. of 2007, when she thought she was inevitable, are floating around.

That's the problem with Clinton and many who support her. They forget how much of their own words and actions come back to bite her in the end.

[NickHauselman]

Here's the math as I see it:

There are 689 total delegates left. Let's just say Obama get 45 percent of those (310). If you add that to his total, he will have a sum total (including super delegates) of 1,932.

That leaves only a difference of 93 Super delegates needed to get to 2,025. There are 247 Super Delegates left - does anyone really think that he wouldn't get at least 37 percent of the remaining Super Delegate votes?

It appears to me that there will be no need for back room dealing in this scenario, and the man with the most votes, states, and pledged delegates will have the 2,025 needed to secure the nomination.

[clevelandchick]

Hey Matt -

You still have a little of the deeeelicious McCain BBQ sauce on your chin. I'd wipe it off if I were you, you'd come off a little less obvious.

[awb]

Mandy is the best person in Clinton world - but she is one and they are many

She should deflect to Obama and then you can write a true piece

It's over

[SamThornton]

Matt, I read the three opinion pieces you cite. Sadly, they make a hell of a lot more sense than you do.

Sorry. Perhaps you might like to take a closer look at reality.

[Herrington]

‘What about Reagan, Hart and Kennedy?’

Ford lost in 1976. Democrats lost in 1980 and 1984. You might have better luck arguing that a brokered convention is bad for the party based on the data.

‘She has a shaky but still plausible argument come June’

Shaky logic. I might win the lottery too, but I’m not going to start spending like I’ve won until I’ve won.

‘Democratic fight will doom the party. Maybe. It's possible. But it's hardly guaranteed­.’

Uh, doesn’t not taking the chance if you don’t have to make more sense?