Is the Media's Pursuit of Horserace Coverage the Reason Sen. Clinton is Still Considered a Viable Contender for the Democratic Presidential Nomination?

That's the provocative thesis of this article by Jim Vandehei and Mike Allen in The Politico. And at Slate, Christopher Beam gives a similar answer: "Today's the New York Times A1 piece on Hillary Clinton, 'Clinton Facing Narrower Path to Nomination,' is an exercise in understatement. It nudges the candidate ever closer to the cliff but, maybe because of politeness, or business savvy, or maybe even a perceived need for objectivity, refrains from pushing her over." See also Josh Marshall.

Now, with news of Clinton's campaign debt and an admission by her staffer that she has no more than a 10% chance of securing the nomination, expect these stories to proliferate.

Could it be that the media has kept the story alive? I think that's an overstatement. Of course Clinton can't catch Obama, but it is also true that Obama cannot formally clinch without the superdelegates. So long as Clinton has the hope of an Obama implosion or major gaffe, she has a reason to remain in the race. So don't blame the media; blame the DNC's system for leaving this in the hands of superdelegates---something the DNC surely must reconsider for 2012 and beyond.

Comments

[TerenceHartnett]

Primaries have often been rough, so I wouldn't leap to the conclusion that the system is broken. But the system needs a long hard examination. I still like the Dem way--i.e. proportional allocation of delegates. The Republican way is worse I think. I also like a variety of caucuses and primaries.

One thing I think should be considered is packaging states together that give a much more diverse and representational cross section of Dem voters. I would like to see a movement toward 4 or 5 national primaries. Take all the states and bundle them into more diversely representative bundles--say 5 or 6 bundles. Have them evenly spaced. etc

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

i think edwards made a good argument for why a couple of small states to start the process has its merits, if you had large states or more states to start the candidates would need a huge amount of money just to consider running.

[Yee]

What's the rush to push Hillary out of the race?
Let people cool off, take time to think about what they want, who they trust.

[trevor01]

Why the rush? Why do children get anxious on Christmas Eve?

[Umungus]

She can't win the nomination unless she goes to the convention and "steals" the nomination. That what it would appear to most people, especially us who are supporting Senator Obama.

Where is the rush? If there was an actual rush to get her out of the process, the party would have moved toward Senator Obama and this would be over.

This is another problem with our party; they don't have the backbone to make a stand and fight for things. I believe this is an after effect of the Regan revolution. What we need are young new leaders who aren't gun shy.

If out party leaders weren't afraid, creating a democratic super majority would be easy.

[TerenceHartnett]

It is not a rush. A lot of people are anxious that she will eventually damage Obama for his run in November--many feel she already has. Also, the race is over. It was over after Wisconsin. It is over now. This is a waste of time, energy, and resources. I do not want another Rep in the White House. The idea that we are going to diminish our chances in the fall because we are indulging HRC in her 100 to 1 shot is ridiculous. She is hoping for Obama to de-rail--and she is looking for opportunities to make that happen. We had a primary--she lost. Let's move on.

[PracticalMagic]

Excuse me, but Obama himself has killed his chances to be President. He chose his pastor over being president, which is admirable, but forfeits the presidency. If you think that just 'cause the media is forgiving the Republicans and the right wing won't super-swift boat Obama with the "God Damn America" and other hate-mongering of his preacher, you are in fantasyland. I'm glad it came out now, while Hillary can still put Obama away. She will win PA, NC, IN, PR, KY, WV, Guam, while he may win OR, MT, and SD. In other words, she will catch up in delegates, and shut all her detractors up.

[PracticalMagic]

Excuse me, but if no one crosses the finish line, it is draw, period, end of story. The press line that Hillary can't win is just as true for Obama. He can't win either. He's a little bit ahead, but just as in any race, being ahead is nice, but if you don't cross the finish line, YOU DON"T WIN ! Now the superdelegates can make that happen, but either way, they take something away from the other ... they have a difficult choice. If they vote with their states, Hillary wins. If they vote for who can beat John McCain in the fall, Hillary wins. If they take the horse race into account Obama's ahead (until PA, IN, NC, KY, WV, PR). And, the corker is probably the Reverend Wright "God Damn America". Obama is dropping in the polls, and if only the bleeding heart liberals voted in November, he might win. But the Republicans and more importantly the Independents have moved away from him as having doubts about his truthfulness, his patriotism, and his competence to be President. Being a nice guy and somebody fun to have a beer with got us where we are today after Cheerleader Bush. Nobody wants that again ... We need serious people for president, like Hillary Clinton.

[slc20]

Yes.

[Kreskytim]

no.