I ran across this article by Elizabeth Drew that made some points I've been thinking about over the past few months. She articulated them much better than I can, so I figured I'd pass the link along.
First up, I'm not calling on Hillary to drop out of the race. If she wants to run, even on the slimmest of chances, that's within her right as part of the the Democratic process. And she does have a lot of loyal supporters who'd feel let down if she bailed while there was still any hope at all, and she owes something to them. So, I'm not faulting her for that.
I do, however, think it's a futile exercise, and people are getting teased with false hopes... for reasons Drew makes clear.
a) Hillary Rodham Clinton is such a polarizing figure that everyone who ever considered voting Republican in November, and even many who never did, will go to the polls to vote against her, thus jeopardizing Democrats down the ticket – i.e., themselves, or, for party leaders, the sizeable majorities they hope to gain in the House and the Senate in November.
This is why I've considered her candidacy a stillbirth from the day it was announced. Hillary Clinton does have good legislative qualities, and she is incredibly smart and capable... but these things aren't going to matter at all due to the fact that she, and her husband, are such hated figures that she's never had a hope in hell of winning the general election. The right wing loathes her with a completely-unhinged passion. They're not at all excited about John McCain (in fact, many of them hate him, considering him a "RINO" (Republican In Name Only)), so the best source of motivation for getting Republicans to the polls is to have him run against Hillary. Republicans won't turn out big to vote for John McCain, but they'd turn out in legions to vote against Hillary. She would be the major motivating factor for Republicans this year, which is why FOX News has been making happy-talk about her, why Rush Limbaugh has been getting Republicans to vote for her in the primaries, and why notorious right-wing arch-fiends like Rupert Murdoch and Newt Gingrich have been making nice-nice with her. Even Richard Mellon Scaife, who ran the
Arkansas Project, has been meeting with her and endorsing her. Some people have taken this to mean that Hillary's going right-wing... but, it's all chess-playing. The right wing is trying to set her up as their opponent, because they know they can defeat her... and they've always wanted to, just for the symbollic satisfaction of it: a chance to finally defeat a Clinton.
Hillary has never been electable as president. Even many people who are now Hillary supporters know this, and initially didn't want her to enter the race at all. Now that she's in, they're excited by her for various reasons, but it doesn't change the certainty that her candidacy is D.O.A. as far as the general election goes.
Drew's next point:
(b) To take the nomination away from Obama when he is leading in the elected delegate count would deeply alienate the black base of the Democratic Party, and, in the words of one leading Democrat, "The superdelegates are not going to switch their voter and jeopardize the future of the Democratic Party for generations." Such a move, he said, would also disillusion the new, mostly young, voters who have entered into politics for the first time because of Obama, and lose the votes of independents who could make the critical difference in November
.
I would add the youth vote as well. Obama has brought more new voters to the table than any other candidate, and they're going to be disillusioned with the process if the guy who got the most votes is taken off the table for no good reason.
And Drew's third point:
(c) Because the black vote can make the decisive difference in numerous congressional districts, discarding Obama could cost the Democrats numerous seats.
Down-ticket concerns are something a lot of people are overlooking. I admit, due to the Wright scandal and other issues, I have my doubts that Obama can beat McCain (who I don't underestimate, either). It will be a tough fight. I do, however, think he still has a better chance of doing so than Clinton does, because of the Republican loathing of her, and because of a long history of scandals, old and new, waiting to be used against her. But, even if we don't regain the White House, we want to keep the House and Senate. Bill Clinton cost us that during his term, and Hillary would likely do the same.
Furthermore, the congressional Democratic leaders don’t draw the same conclusion from Pennsylvania and also earlier contests that many observers think they do: that Obama’s candidacy is fatally flawed because he has as yet been largely unable to win the votes of working class whites. They point out something that has been largely overlooked in all the talk – the Ohio and Pennsylvania primaries were closed primaries, and, one key congressional Democrat says, "Yes, he doesn’t do really well with a big part of the Democratic base, but she doesn’t do well with independents, who will be critical to success in November."
Another crucial point. A lot of Hillary supporters point out that "Obama can't win the big states," as if this were something other than a primary. Most of the people who are going to vote Democrat, will vote Democrat. I think in the general election Obama could still win states that Hillary won in the primaries, just as she could still win states that Obama won in the primaries. This "can't win big states" thing is a fairly hollow meme when you're basing it on Democrat-only-contests in primaries.
They also make the argument that Obama "can't close the deal"... glossing over the fact that Hillary started out with the deal supposedly already closed for her. At the beginning of the race she was the "inevitable" candidate... and that idea didn't make it past Super Tuesday. Given her spouse, she's practically an incumbent, with unparalled name recognition and the DLC behind her... and she still didn't maintain her lead. So the "Obama can't close the deal" idea is glossing over a major fact that Hillary started with huge advantages and is still getting beaten in every set of numbers, from votes to fundraising. Being "inevitable" she should be coasting now, rather than clawing frantically for every straw.
Anyway, Drew's article is worth spreading around, I think.