Hillary Should Stay in Because She Can

The Democratic Party is starting to wonder if Hillary Clinton is in it to win it, or doin it to ruin it.

Players and pundits are opining about motivations. Is she angling for a spot on the ticket in hopes of engineering a palace coup four years from now? Does she want Obama to refill the Clinton retirement account, which has been depleted by $12 million in loans to her campaign? Do the Clintons know something they plan to spring when it's too late for Obama to bounce back? Or is this simply health care redux -- a woman who is simply unable to admit defeat.

These are all possibilities. And they are all beside the point. The question of should she or shouldn't she comes down to a matter of rules and reality.

The rules start with the disenfranchised voters of Florida and Michigan. The governors of both states are calling on (whining to) anyone who will listen that their delegates should be seated because this is a democracy, and in a democracy all votes must count.

Sure they should count, but democracy is also about rules. Individual voters must follow them -- about registrations, about districts, about citizenship. And so should Florida and Michigan. As Democratic national committee chairman Howard Dean points out, both Florida and Michigan voted for the system they later decided to ignore.

The reality is that cash-strapped states aren't going to pay for new elections. So any solution, if one can be found, is going to involve divvying up the delegates. If they did that as the committeds now stand, Obama is still ahead, meaning Clinton still needs to sweep the rest of the primaries. Barring an Obama bombshell, that isn't going to happen.

That takes us back to the rules. The main reason Clinton should continue her campaign is because we can. Ralph Nadir probably cost Al Gore the election. But that only happened because he convinced enough people to vote for him. Congressman Bob Barr, running as a Libertarian, may take votes from John McCain -- but again, only if people decide to vote for him.

Have a problem with that? Change the system. Until then, anyone with enough energy, talent, optimism (delusional or not) and money (borrowed or not) should be allowed to do all that the system allows.

Back to reality: Clinton staying in the race will likely not lead to a debacle in Denver.

This race is more fun than anything we've seen in years. It has drawn in young voters and new voters. Thanks mainly to Obama, and in spite of media that will always choose controversy over issues, it has been remarkably civil -- especially compared to the sleaze pit strategies of Karl Rove. Why not keep the excitement going?

People talk about the prospect of a divided convention as a terminal event -- the end of political life as we know it. It might be messy. It might be rough. But it will be great politics. It will breathe life into a process that has become televised wallpaper.

It is also not the worst thing that could happen to Obama. For an untested candidate, an election is better than a coronation. If you saunter to the nomination in shiny loafers and a hand in one pocket, doubts about readiness and toughness will persist.

If you come out of the pit victorious after going a year against two pit bulls like the Clintons, it says something. Being a little chewed up in the process is good. The entire campaign -- like the candidate himself -- will be better able to stand up to the Republican attack machine.

Democracy says that it isn't over until it's over. And it's not over until somebody hits 2,025 or the superdelegates make their choice at the convention. Until then, let's let democracy do what it does best -- open the contest to all comers and let them fight it out until somebody comes out on top.

Comments

[Umungus]

Aren't we taught to do the right thing because it's the right thing to do? Is Senator Clinton staying in the race even though she can't win the right thing to do?

I firmly believe Senator Clinton is staying in this race because she understands this is her one shot at the Presidency. She understands she can not wait eight years through the Obama Presidency, only to face a sitting Vice President. She will take this fight to the convention, it will be ugly, and she'll lose. I also doubt she'll work very hard to assist Senator Obama.

The New Yorker article makes an interesting assumption, would Senator Clinton have been on her way to becoming the first female President if she would have moved home to Illinois and ran for the Senate?

[standard]

" . . . it has been remarkably civil"

Oh really? Let's say that I posted, right here, lies about your credentials and your politics, made snide references to your gender and your ethnicity, called into question your religious affiliation ("She is a loyal FLDS woman . . . as far as I know.") and otherwise generally trashed your reputation. If my deliberately doing all that were in some way to my benefit, would that be "remarkably civil" of me?

The Clintons behave like pit bulls, as you state, so what useful objective do you achieve by encouraging them? Actually civility benefits Democracy. Imputing civility to the behavior of the Clintons, or of literal pit bulls, doesn't. The decency and reputation of the Democratic Party will greatly improve if and when we simply jettison the Clintons. They're just as last century as the Dixiecrats and--given their elite education and vaunted abilities--even more morally bankrupt. They should be reduced to no more than a colorful episode in Democratic Party history--like William Jennings Bryan or Tammany Hall.

[1dogs2]

Interesting headline. That's the same reason Clinton offered for the Monica debacle: "I did because I could." This explanation of behavior is symptomatic of moral and intellectual bankruptcy. It carries with it a total disregard for the consequences of what one does and a narcissistic cynicism that is appallingly destructive. Bill Clinton was the first person I ever heard offer this reason for behavior. Unfortunately, I've heard it more and more frequently from all kinds of people since then for all kinds of public and private conduct, all of it reprehensible, cruel, selfish and destructive.

Politics is not a game. There are serious consequences for irresponsible behavior, both public and private. Bill Clinton's irresponsible private behavior brought us eight years of disastrous Republican rule. Is Hillary's irresponsible public behavior now going to bring us another four years of equally or more disastrous years of the same?

[wakupmagy]

Very, very well said.

I would just add that Bill Clinton's disparaging, demeaning comment diminshed all women--the ones in his own family, as well.

[Bobrobert]

Here here.

Hillary should stay in to give all the voters a chance to vote in this election.

She brings some excitement in this world of blah.

Without here there would never have been a 24/7 coverage of this election year up to this point.

So stay in and keep everyone wondering what on earth will happen next.

Thanks everyone for allowing me my various rants. It helped me clean my mind of garbage.

Remember to vote!!!

P.S. I wouldn't have switched parties to vote democratic without Hillary!!!

[billydog]

Sure, and we can stay in Iraq making all kinds of excuses to stay there, too. This is Hillary's version of GW Bushes stay the course. Just as stupid, just as arrogant and just as pathetic as stay the course in Iraq. Narcissism at its worst.

[missjabez]

Peggy Drexler is putting a pretty face on a campaign that has been very nasty. It could have been a civil campaign, but Clinton chose to cheapen it with gutter tactics. I do agree that the campaign has toughened Obama, and he will be ready to duke it out with McCain.

[EinChicago]

Hogwash. Obama was the sleazy one. He introduced race as a cheap tactic with his constant imitations of the great MLK knowing that any comment or defense against it would allow his rabid Kultists to screech "OMG UR teh Racist!" He has been the quintessential passive-aggressive slimey politician.,

[MichaelDeane]

What a pantload of crap. From intimations of drug use to questioning his experience and patriotism to claims of plagiarism to purposefully misrepresenting his position to race baiting to guilt by association, the Clinton campaign has willfully run one of the more despicable campaigns in recent history.

What surprises me is how many of her supporters have their heads up their **ses when it come to their candidate. When Rove does it, they cry foul. When HRC does it, they blame the victim.

These supporters, like their candidate, disgust me.

[hwebb54]

I wish Hillary would take it to Denver. If she doesn't what does she have to look forward too? Another Democratic party 4 years from now that tries to push her out? Another candidate getting all the good press while people like Chris Matthews talks about how old she is? I say, take it to Denver, fight it out and if you don't win, burn the place to the ground on your way out. I know I speak for a lot of Hillary supporters when I say I'm sick of the Democratic Party. The leadership is spineless and whatever makes Barack happy are the rules of the day. If Hillary does lose this, I can't wait until McCain (who will get my vote) beats Obama and Hillary goes on the "I told you so" tour. Oh, and it's not just old women who support Hillary. I'm a 28 year old college grad who could see through Obama's bullshit. I'm surprised at the "sheep factor" with college educated people. I guess if you are attractive, black and can read from a teleprompter, anyone can be president.

[JadedAggie]

I think you fail to realize Hillary won't get a "I told you so" tour if her supporters are seen at fault for revenge voting.

[swoosie1]

Oh please--don't be so pedantic. The party has been destroyed. The good old boys did it and they get to deal with the mess. Revenge is best served cold.

[voxpopgirl]

Peggy Drexler, the author of this piece asks, "WHY NOT KEEP THE EXCITEMENT GOING?". Well Peggy, because this is not a game for the fun of it. Because it's time to get serious and focus on fighting McCain and the Republican Party. Got that Peggy?

[swoosie1]

You condescend don't you? I think you must not know that Peggy has a brain.

[swoosie1]

hwebb54--A great post! I feel exactly the same way and could not have said it any better. We are birds of a feather and there are a whole bunch of us out there...probably around 40% of the democratic voting block. It seems to me that we have been exchanged for the youth vote. I guess the powers that be think we are going to come around in November...you know, do that "healing" thing that Pelosi and crew are so fond of talking about. Well, they should not look my way...I am not a voter they can rehab for Obama. No way. Anyway, thanks for the post. It was good!

[missjabez]

"I guess if you are attractive, black, and can read from a teleprompter, anyone can be president".

With comments like that, you seem to prove that many Clinton supporters are racist. Now I'm not into blanket statements, and I'm sure many Clinton fans are not racist. But you don't do do much to disprove that commonly held assumption. Glad you support Clinton;she's the gal for you.

[abigail1]

No true supporter of Clinton would dream of voting for McCain. And no half way decent person would laud an "I told you so tour" that celebrated the beginning of George Bush's third term and all the bloodshed and disaster that it would bring.
Barack Obama is not part of the old spineless Democratic party leadership, Hillary Clinton is. She has been in the Senate caving to the will of the Republicans by voting for the war and the banking bill and whatever else was politically expedient at the time. Just as her husband caved to the will of the Republican Congress time and time again while he was President. Hillary and Bill Clinton made the spineless shell of a Democratic party that has been struggling to come back. They and other DLC people like Lieberman ushered in the "third way" that watered down core Democratic principles and put Democrats on defense for the better part of 2 decades. It is only since 2006 we've begun to fight back.
I think your bullshit detector is on the fritz.

[JamieStarr]

The problem with Hillary staying in has nothing to do with her right to do so. It has everything to do with what's best for the party.

She is not going to be the nominee. Her only hope is an implosion of the Obama candidacy. If that is the reasoning to stay in, all candidates should stay in until the end. But, they don't. They realize that they are likely not going to be the nominee and they step aside for the good of the party.

Her refusal to concede has created animosity and a false sense of hope in her followers. So much so, that many of them are threatening to vote for McCain or stay home. Now how could any Democrat in good conscience sit by the sidelines or vote to continue the horrendous GOP policies that we've been subject to for the last eight years?

[EinChicago]

In no other year have candidates been so close with whines from one side for teh other to drop out. Kennedy had less than 1200 delegates to carter's 1900, but he was applauded for "standing on principle". Obama is a disaster waiting to happen. If he is teh nominee, the absolute best case scenario is that he loses and a qualified Dem wins in 2012. All an Obama victory will do is put in place a weak, oassive-aggressive spineless ninny for 4 years to take the balme for all the GOP mess and push teh dems into the wilderness following 2012. If we can't have a competent dem like the Clinton's to fix the mess, it's better McCain wins than we re-run 1976-1980 with Obama playing the role of Jimmy Carter and ensuring a GOP president from 2012 until 2024 at least.

[Softnsweet]

EinChicago.

Quit your whining! You can do nothing about Obama win. So leave the party and shut up.

[Umungus]

You are so ill-informed on this primary battle, it borders on a break from reality.

[monique]

Thank you! Yes! Let's go to Denver!

I am in for the long haul.

When you have half the party behind you, you can take it all the way to Denver.

If Gary Hart and Teddy Kennedy can take it to the convention -- and they had a whole lot less than Hillary has! -- so can she!

And 2210 is the number!

GO HILLARY!

[JadedAggie]

You have no sense of history. We LOST both when Gary Hart and when Ted Kennedy took it to the convention. Not only did we lose both of those general elections, but neither Gary Hart or Ted Kennedy won their battle to get the nomination. All they did was split the party horrifically and cause us to get slaughtered in the general election.

[swoosie1]

History? Baby, doncha know she is MAKING HISTORY? She is the first woman to go the distance and she is taking it all the way. So buck up and get used to it. Besides, if Obama is the candidate that all those boys in the boys club think he is, well, shoot, he should be fine without the woman vote....

[RedBirdy]

Maybe we lost because they didn't wanna hurt feelings and chose the WRONG candidate. And as far as your statement about feminists and Clinton, she has a stronger record for the women's movement. Her pleas to the supreme court about protecting roe vs wade, her push for plan b. get your facts straight and stop attacking people.

[Rubiconski]

I get that Hillary supporters want to win I get it. But it's just not happening. She tried and lost. She thought she was a shoo-in because she was a Clinton and a woman. Those aren't good enough reasons. You EARN the white house. Her entitlement illusion was fed by her yes men and women. She has been out maneuvered by a better opponent. That's it.

So stop your petty squabbling and stop acting like parrots repeating stuff you know isn't true and just deal with it. Hillary isn't the only or last woman that will ever run for President. But, she's very much one of the worst possible choices, given her polarity. I don't hear Obama's supporters quite so up in arms about not supporting Hillary were she to find a way to win the nomination. They understand that WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME TEAM.

Get over yourselves and realize there's a greater responsibility in 2008 than worrying about YOUR agenda getting met...

[RichLiberal]

I'm with you all the way. But Hillary's supporters cannot passively sit by and expect her to be able to remain in the race. The non-stop pressure of Kennedy and Pelosi, and Chris Mathews, Keith Olbermann, and Tim Russert and all the little minds that blindly follow them will not stop until they have erased Hillary from the Democratic Party. The only way to stop this is a full court counter-offensive. Terry McAullife has done a good job pointing us in the right direction.

The TV propaganda is insidious. After watching CNN and MSNBC for an hour or two, and it's been this way since January, one gets a picture of Hillary as a misguided "woman" who for some "peculiar" reason refuses to recognize that she's lost to this unqualified arrogant elitist Obama that the aforementioned are trying to force down our throats.

In addition the Obama campaign has been contemtuous of virtually the whole Democratic Base except for the elitist liberals themselves. If working class Democrats want a party that represents them, they have to take it back from these hijackers.

[BadChristian]

Kinda' seems like the urban democrats are the people you're accusing of being the "Hijackers" of the party, since this has been split pretty clearly as urban and rural... Pretty classic split. Obama takes the urban centers, Clinton takes the rural and suburbanites...

But, Urban America has been the base of the Democratic Party for my whole life, so, I don't see who it is you are defining as the base. Further, I think that most urban areas have a larger poverty problem than suburbs, so the "elitist" tag seems misplaced.

But taking the Democratic party back from urban centers to who? The rural areas or the suburban areas? and since when has that been the base?

[RichLiberal]

The only urban center Obama has won is the working class AA community whose votes apparently have been on race not economics. Obama has succeeded in dividing the working class between white and black.

The rest of Obama's constituency is primarily the "liberal elite", most of whom are actually working class but don't know it. They generally have had life a bit easier than the average and are not particularly sympathetic to working class programs like social security and universal health care. They are primarily congregated around academic institutions as opposed to corporate institutions. The tenured college professor does not exactly "feel the pain" of the working man. They have economic programs focused on high-minded objectives w the consequences to working people be damned.

Once the AA community tunes into this they will likely respond w a collective wtf and wonder what just happened.

The Democratic Party is built around the FDR economic legacy and the JFK/LBJ civil rights initiatives.

One look at the electoral map and you will see Hillary has clearly won the Democratic Base, while Obama has been isolated to the Deep South and Central Northwest regions. Hillary is contiguous Massachusetts to California. Our elected Democratic officials are betraying the Dem legacy and need to be held accountable:

http://www.diversityj.com/ElectoralVoteStates.html

[Zanti]

They can't hearrrrrrr you....

[BadChristian]

I hope you don't think I am being rude, Zanti.
That was not my intent.

I think the DLC has hijacked the party, personally, and kept it hostage for a long time. But it might be as easy to say that they "won" the party away from the grassroots and it's base by being more powerful and more organized.

I hope that they are losing it now... But I wonder if that looks like it's being "Hijacked" back to the urban centers, diverse communities, and "Melting pots" of America that were the base when I was younger.

[Geauterre]

Hillary Clinton's stubborness, no matter its cause, seems like such a profitless enterprise. If she wins, we lose. If she loses, we win. In any event, the Republicans hope she's the one they oppose and not Barack Obama. You see, to their mind, it would be hard to point a finger at a man who's never supped out of the D.C. trough.

[Gina5966]

Talk about egocentric! I'm glad that you've been amused Peggy.
Unfortunately, I care much more about "Good Governing" than "Good Politics!" What tripe!

[BadChristian]

I think it's more about the influence of the DLC than Hillary.

The DLC stands to have it's influence in the party destroyed, since they couldn't beat a newbie with an "Inevitable" candidate, backed by all the power players, and what was supposed to be the best money machine in the business.

If she stays in, they may be able to stick around, help her with future elections, raise some dough for her debt, prove the opponent shouldn't have messed with the big boys, etc.

But I think Barack's campaign has proved that Democrats have turned against the DLC, and it's "Powerbroken politics."

[swoosie1]

Sure...they are so powerful...I guess they won't care when they lose the women voters for November. It is sort of one of those little things and Obama will find lots of new youth voters...right? The women--the 40% at least who are sick of the way Hillary has been demeaned by the party bosses, well, they are going to be fine when they walk into that booth in November and vote against the kid. So be it.

[bitter08]

I suppose in your world cutting off your fingers to save your hand makes sense.

John McCain will remove a woman's right to choose. John McCain will make permanent the Bush tax cuts for the top 10%. John McCain will maintain the war in Iraq for 4 more years. In your world it is very possible that the United States may not exist in 2012 because your candidate did not win.

Even your candidate Senator Hillary Clinton has expressed and believes with all her being that anything is better than McCain. She also believes with all her being that she is the best candidate to do that but that if she cannot that her policies are more closely aligned with that of her current opponent for the nomination.

Most Obama supporters knowing the seriousness of this election would be extremely hurt at the conclusion of this nomination process if their candidate was not to win. But would coalesce around Senator Clinton to reverse the last 8 years... and ensure we have a country to fight for in 2012... Because even if he had to wait until 2016 ensuring that we end a 3rd Bush term is paramount for both your candidate and Mr. Obama.

[sky2evan]

swoosie,

You are extremely uninformed.

Badchristian is referring to the DLC (Democratic Leadership Council), as opposed to the DNC (Democratic National Committee). The DLC was actually founded by Clinton supporters (like Terry McAuliffe), and historically they have espoused center-right political positions: pro-corporate, anti-union (remember Mark Penn), national security hardliners. Bill Clinton was one of the first chairmen, and most subsequent chairmen after him have been Southern white Democrats. The current chairman is Harold Ford, a Southern black Democrat. Ms. Hillary Clinton currently is the chair of the DLC's American Dream Initiative.

You are the perfect example of a basic flaw in democracy: uninformed citizens who have the right to vote. The blind choosing the blind.

The lower income working classes who have the most at stake with the economy, have been voting for the $109 million candidate who is $20 million in debt. And for you, you actually think because she's a woman, and you're a woman, that she's got your best interests at heart.

Utterly laughable if it weren't so tragic.

[DocR]

Please provide a link to support that 40% number.

[WorkingClass]

Your right you bad Christian you. Its the end of the DLC. This election will also mark the end of the GOP. Two birds with one stone. Good riddance to them both.

[Lemoenus]

People's lives are at stake and you want to play little games. Hey, why not elect John McCain, that would be exciting won't it?

[monique]

Little games?

Oh no no no, you misunderstand.

We are very serious. This is a really big game. And we are playing for keeps!

[bitter08]

Play away... I suppose in your world cutting off your fingers to save your hand makes sense.

John McCain will remove a woman's right to choose. John McCain will make permanent the Bush tax cuts for the top 10%. John McCain will maintain the war in Iraq for 4 more years. In your world it is very possible that the United States may not exist in 2012 because your candidate did not win.

Even your candidate Senator Hillary Clinton has expressed and believes with all her being that anything is better than McCain. She also believes with all her being that she is the best candidate to beat him... but that if she cannot that her policies are more closely aligned with that of her current opponent for the nomination.

Most Obama supporters knowing the seriousness of this election would be extremely hurt at the conclusion of this nomination process if their candidate was not to win. But would coalesce around Senator Clinton to reverse the last 8 years... and ensure we have a country to fight for in 2012... Because even if he had to wait until 2016 ensuring that we end a 3rd Bush term is paramount for both your candidate and Mr. Obama.