Not that the Clinton campaign values intellectual honesty, but her main argument for staying in the race completely undermines her argument for having the Florida and Michigan delegations seated "as is". And this contradiction takes her campaign to new heights of intellectual dishonesty and cognitive dissonance.
Here is her argument for Michigan and Florida being seated as "voted":
"I am asking you to join me in working with representatives from Florida and Michigan and the Democratic National Committee to arrive at a solution that honors the votes of the millions of people who went to the polls in Florida and Michigan," she concluded. "It is not enough to simply seat their representatives at the convention in Denver. The people of these great states, like the people who have voted and are to vote in other states, must have a voice in selecting our party's nominee." Link
Here is her main argument for staying in the race (and this same logic is being applied to contests after WV):
"I think we ought to keep this going so the people of West Virginia's voices are heard." Link
These two statements are completely contradictory. According to her first statement, somehow peoples' "voices" were heard in Michigan despite Obama's name not being on the ballot, no local campaigning, and people being officially told their votes would not count (the ultimate voter suppression tactic ensuring a drastic reduction in turnout). Also, somehow peoples' "voices" were heard in Florida despite no local campaigning and people being told their votes would not count.
Her second quote assumes that if she drops out of the race peoples' "voices" will not be heard. But her dropping out of the race would create nearly the exact same climate in the remaining contests as existed in Florida and Michigan:
- People would assume their vote would not count, leading tens of thousands of people to stay home.
- People may only see one candidate on the ballot (if she is able to remove her name from ballots this late).
- While people would see some campaigning it would be nothing compared to previous contests as Hillary would not be campaigning and Obama would be gearing up for the general election.
So which one is it? Are peoples' "voices" really heard in primaries where they are told in advance that their vote won't matter? Do people need to see several candidates on a ballot for their "voices" to count? Do people need to see advertisements and stump speeches all over their state for their "voices" to count?
I don't know the answers to all of these questions. But I do know a really specious argument when I see it. And by Hillary's own arguments either she has no good reason to be in the race, or Michigan and Florida have no good reason to be seated.