Why Hillary Clinton should stay in the race
There's no real reason for her to step aside until the convention, argues Crosscut's national political writer. Let her finish the last five primaries. But if she fails to get the nomination, she then must embrace Barack Obama and go to work for him during the fall campaign.
Sen. Hillary Clinton won a whopping, huge-voter-turnout victory Tuesday, May 13, in West Virginia. Nonetheless, there followed more calls by media and some politicos for her prompt withdrawal from the Democratic presidential nominating race. Exit polls in West Virginia ratified Clinton's continuing strength among women, blue-collar, union, and older voters, as well as Sen. Barack Obama's vulnerability in states with comparatively low African-American populations.
A strange syndrome has set in among people who, not long ago, were defenders of the Clintons during Whitewater, commodities trading, Travelgate, Paula Jones, Ken Starr, Monica Lewinsky, Asian campaign contributions, drug-dealer pardons, and impeachment, among other travails.
The differences between then and now are several.
First, the Clintons' adversaries then were Republicans, a special counsel, and a few conservative-leaning media outlets. It was easy for Democrats to buy into the Clintons' assertions that their troubles were not due to them but to someone else — the Republican attack machine, right-wing extremists, drug and insurance companies trying to destroy health-care reform, and so on. It was always the dog who ate their homework. Hillary Clinton has tried the same approach in 2008 but, this time, added to her list of adversaries men who were threatened by the idea of a woman president and white-guilt liberals falling in behind a relatively unknown black candidate.
Second — and this is the critical difference — her opponent now is a likeable, fresh Democratic newcomer running on a platform of policy change and national unity. He has run a notably positive campaign. Not easy to charge him with smearing Hillary unfairly.
Finally, previously favorable media, in particular, have just plain run out of patience with the Clintons. The Clintons' 2008 playing of the race card, focus on wedge politics (setting one group against another on the basis of race, gender, age, or class), and hard-edged campaign tactics have alienated just about every mainstream media organization, columnist, and political reporter.
Some of this amounts to justice. But the ceaseless calls for a Clinton withdrawal are not fair. She is, in fact, far closer in popular votes and delegates to Sen. Barack Obama, three months ahead of the party convention, than many other challengers have been in two-person races for the Democratic or Republican presidential nominations.
Morever, although Clinton has run a sometimes rough campaign against Obama, it has been far less so than many prior national campaigns in both parties. In both 1948 and 1960, for instance, the Democratic nominating contests and conventions were rough, but Presidents Truman and Kennedy nonetheless won their fall general elections. The 2008 nominating contest has not been divisive when compared to many prior contests.
With West Virginia behind her, Clinton has five more primaries to contest with Obama through June 3. She could win three of them. Moreover, the unresolved issue of the unsanctioned Michigan and Florida primaries has not yet gone before the party's rules and/or credentials committees. How will those states' delegations be constituted — if, in fact, they are eventually to be seated? How many delegates will Obama and Clinton harvest in each state? (The credentials committee, with decisive authority, is weighted toward Obama delegates.)
There is another matter. Obama has run a strong campaign. Yet he still remains a relatively unknown quantity to many in his own party. He has been wounded by his former pastor's inflammatory remarks, his and his wife's own ill considered comments, and his association in Chicago with a 1960s radical and a notorious political fixer.
What remains to be disclosed? Probably, nothing. But if there is something more, Clinton would be foolish to leave the nominating race before it might come to public view. There is nothing wrong with sustaining herself as a strong alternative candidate — all the way to the convention itself — on the chance that Obama might self destruct.
Clinton is running out of campaign money, reportedly being $20 million in the hole as of last weekend. She apparently has made multimillion-dollar loans to the campaign to keep it afloat.
But that is not necessarily as serious as it might seem. Obama already has intimated that, if nominated, he would be open to helping Hillary pay off her campaign debt. If she is not nominated, and is stuck with a residual campaign debt, Clinton nonetheless will remain the senator from New York. A dozen phone calls and a few Wall Street and business-community fundraising events, post-election, should be able to retire the debt in its entirety. It would be a problem if she represented South Dakota. Representing New York, no problem.
I strongly support Obama. But if, improbably, I were counseling Clinton, I would advise her to hang in there, run a positive campaign in the five remaining primaries, bargain hard over Michigan and Florida, and keep her candidacy alive until the eve of Democrats' August convention in Denver.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism by becoming a member of Crosscut.com today!
Comments:
Posted Tue, May 13, 10:29 p.m. inappropriate
Stay in but stay positive: I think you're right - at this point, Clinton needs to reach the finish line, wherever that line may be. Given how close this one is, the winner needs to be decided clearly and fairly. A premature exit by Clinton would certainly alienate some Democrats who might otherwise suck up a tough loss and rally around Obama.
Your point about keeping our options open if Obama's campaign implodes in the next month (as unlikely as that seems) is also valid.
At this point, however, Clinton's campaign strategy needs to put the interests of the team ahead of her long shot at winning. Without question, her negative campaign and her appropriation of conservative talking points have damaged the party. Yes, Obama needs to learn how to play rough, and Clinton has given him plenty of practice. However, tactics such as leaking the "bitter" comment have done real and lasting damage to Obama and have provided McCain with powerful ammunition that he wouldn't have otherwise had. If she continues this approach, she would either win the primary in a way that would truly divide the party, or she would lose and leave Democrats with a greatly weakened contender.
Posted Wed, May 14, 6:55 a.m. inappropriate
For her own sake she should leave gracefully now: Interesting points, but when I see the spectacle of Hillary Clinton, former admirer of Eleanor Roosevelt, now happily exploiting the racism of some of her supporters, I think she's already been in this campaign far too long for her own good.
I'd love to admire her. It gives me no joy to compare her to Obama and feel appalled at the difference between their evident notions of leadership, and morality. For example, Obama has called out Christian African-American audiences about their homophobia. That's what I think of as leadership--courageously challenging people to do their best, even to grow. Courage is infectious, and we need a big dose of it in this country.
Can you imagine Hillary Clinton speaking to her Appalachian supporters about racism, challenging them in a respectful but strong way to widen their worlds and take responsibility for their own fears? It's not respectful to them to simply exploit their fears and their worst instincts--which we all have in one way or another. But to really try to lead these folks would take courage, it would involve risk, and evidently this smart and I believe once-principled woman would rather play up to their pathology than try to lead them.
I think she's lost all moral compass, and it would be better for everyone if she left the stage as soon as possible.
Posted Wed, May 14, 4:55 p.m. inappropriate
double standard: The overall media manipulation of the campaign beginning 6 months before the primaries has been stunning. First, John Edwards was basically denied major media coverage despite his appeal and his strong performance in Iowa. Next, Hillary was basically told to get out of the race as early as New Hampshire and the calls for her to leave the race and the near hysterical critiques of her campaign attack against Obama have been deafening. Obama has had adulatory coverage for a year, unheard of. As someone who is not a big Clinton fan, I have come to admire Hillary's toughness and tenacity in the face of incredible and unfair negative media. She could more than go toe to toe with McCain.
What's going on is that the McGovern Democrats (who have a stellar record at winning presidential elections) have never liked the Clintons with some justifiable cause and they have seen Obama as a way towards pay-back against the Clintons. They have combined with media on the right who view Obama as more defeatable than Clinton. Thus a potential reason for the easy ride Obama has enjoyed.
We've heard the old joke, I don't belong to an organized political party - I'm a Democrat. But how true it is - we Democrats really don't know how to come together. I have a lot of skepticism about Obama's ability to defeat McCain and it is a joke to berate Hillary for her campaign tactics for they are perfectly gentel when compared to the 'swift boat' attacks that Obama will face in the open waters. I hope the McGovern Democrats know what they're doing - unfortunately, their track record is far from encouraging.
Posted Wed, May 14, 9:57 p.m. inappropriate
RE: double standard: When you say "McGovern Democrats", who exactly are you referring to, senior citizens? My impression was that the elderly were leaning towards Hillary.
As for your theory about Obama support being all about payback to the Clintons, I disagree. I think most Obama supporters (myself included) like him because they see him as the Bill Clinton of this race, while the only similarity they can see between Bill and Hillary is the last name.
Posted Thu, May 15, 9:22 a.m. inappropriate
RE: double standard: The "Bill Clinton of his race"? Man, you really know how to insult someone.
Posted Thu, May 15, 2:50 p.m. inappropriate
RE: double standard: Re-read the previous post more carefully: "The Bill Clinton of THIS race."
Posted Sun, May 18, 11:45 a.m. inappropriate
Another Viewpoint: "The Clintons' 2008 playing of the race card, "
Nasty, snarky, and dangerously untruthful statement. There is proof positive, thanks to Obama campaign strategy memos, that it was their intention to play the race victim all along, in order to solidify black support.
Senator Clinton mentioning that it took not only the vision and dedication of a MLK, but also the leadership and political know-how of an LBJ to get the Civil Rights Act passed was the truth. It was not a slam against MLK, it was not a racist slur. For Senator Obama to declare Senator Clinton, and Representative Ferraro, and former President Clinton and his own grandmother all racists is self-serving political cynicsm at its worst.
Obama wants it both ways: mention the word "white" and you are a racist; mention the word "whitey" and you are a trusted, respected, patriotic but misunderstood minister.
Trusted and respected that is, until that minister "insulted" Obama by labeling him as a politician. Zap!
"He has run a notably positive campaign. Not easy to charge him with smearing Hillary unfairly."
Have you been listening? Senator Obama has consistently belittled, dismissed, and lampooned Clinton. For brevity's sake I will merely list words and phrases spoken by Obama about Clinton. If you would like the list of citations, I will be happy to supply them.
Backbiting, bitter, falsehoods, would like to have the voters silenced, poor judgments, may have had something to do with Bhutto's assassination, secretive, desperate, negative, phony, ducking and dodging, calculation and evasion, hedge and dodge and spin, disingenuous, special-interest obsession, not forthright, calculating, unprincipled, vague, willing to say anything, all about deceit, not straight with the American people, fear-mongering, politics as usual.
And I am only up to January!
I am not declaring that no opponent-bashing should take place during campaigns; some of it is rather amusing. But do not for a moment believe that Barack Obama is "above politics as usual" or that he is anything but a politician.
An inexperienced one, an overly ambitious one, and one who counts on folks like you believing everything he pretends to be.
Did you believe him when he said "I will serve out my full six year term." ?
The last time he said that was in November of 2006. In February of 2007 he declared his candidacy.
His site was created on October of 2006, the month before he was still promising to serve out his full term.