Well, it's all come down to the "psychology of the Clintons" -- or so goes the conventional wisdom of the punditry over the past few weeks. Hillary has "earned the right" to get out on her own terms in a manner in which she's comfortable. Don't worry, it'll happen. Just give her time and space.
Hogwash.
On the surface of it, catering to the "psychology of the Clintons" may seem like a humane thing to do, but this is a bit like saying we should cater to the psychological processes of presidents (say Johnson, Nixon, or Bush) whose wars are going horribly wrong -- why not give them the personal space to wrap things up on their own terms?
A hyperbolic analogy? Maybe. But consider the sweeping implications of Hillary's psychology. The longer she stays in the race the closer the party approaches point-of-no-return divisions. I know it's fashionable to say that the party has plenty of time to heal -- and, hopefully, that's still true. But history has clearly shown the self-destructive nature of divided conventions (Dems in 72, GOP in 76, Dems in 80, etc.). Sure, we may not have a formally divided convention in Denver this year, but, because divisiveness exists on a continuum, the longer we wait to unify behind Barack, the less the divisions will have a chance to heal.
Worst case scenario? Catering to the Clintons' psychology gets McCain elected, keeps the war in Iraq going, starts a new war in Iran, emboldens new generations of terrorists against the US, solidifies a right-wing majority on the Supreme Court, turns off a freshly turned-on chunk of the US electorate, torpedoes health care reform, etc, etc -- all because Hillary has earned the right to get out on her own terms?
I hear pleas for patience with Hillary on a daily basis. Here's a link to one recent example: Jonathan Alter talks with Keith Olbermann last night (salient part starts about three minutes in).
When you see Clinton supporters -- big players -- they tend to be kind of sad about the whole thing, sad for the Clintons, but they're still in reality land and want to give the Clintons a chance to kind of process their feelings. It's very, very hard to lose, and I think on some level you can give Hillary a break on this, this kind of thing, this kind of comment today saying that she's won the popular vote, which is not true, these kinds of things, because it is so hard to lose, she's tired, and in many ways she's run a campaign full of grit.
Give her a break? Allow her to process her feelings? I'd care about her feelings if I were her personal friend, but, as an American, there are far more important stakes than the preservation of her pride or power.
Here's Howard Fineman with Keith Olbermann also from last night (see about 4:30 in).
Keith, I spent a lot of time talking with someone who's very close to Bill and Hillary Clinton, who's been in the room with them a lot over the last few weeks. And this person said to me, "Look, this is not a matter of math right now. This is a matter of psychology. This is a matter of figuring out how and when Hillary Clinton is going to climb down out of this effort." You can see that she's working herself hoarse. [...] It's awesome the way she's working right now. To what end it's not clear. [...] In talking to the Clinton people, I'm not sure how far into the summer they really want to fight this thing. They don't. But the question is what Hillary and Bill want to do.
What Hillary and Bill want to do? I suppose, as card-carrying members of the aristocracy they've earned the right to hold democracy hostage to their hubris?
Just because she has the capability of stretching this thing out (by manipulating her supporters into behaving as a negative power block), it does not follow that it's the right thing to do. She is exhibiting a queenly narcissism that I, for one, will not forget if I ever have the chance to weigh in on a future candidacy of hers.
I understand that some are buying into the spin that she's actually trying to help Barack in the long run by managing the grieving process of her supporters so as to mitigate their bitterness, or to shield Obama from embarrassing big losses against someone who's no longer in the race in places like Kentucky and West Virginia. But I don't buy these rationales.
Clearly the most salient rationale for her stubbornness -- other than "psychology" -- is summed up in three cynical words heard repeatedly by any number of her surrogates: "Anything can happen." And clearly she's also attempting to cement in history (for future exploitation) her identity as a fighter who will never give up.
So, here's my question: Because of a combination of personal ambition, a cynical waiting in the wings for an Obama disaster, and a queenly narcissim, the country is supposed to placidly give her the space to withdraw on her own terms?
Hillary is trying to walk a fine line, doing everything she can to pursue a strategy that damages Barack so that she'll emerge in 2012 as the wise old leader who we excitable upstarts should have listened to all along -- but, of course, she can't be overt about it. She has to pretend she cares more about the party and the country than her personal ambitions. That's why I think it's important she not be given a bunch of free rope with memes that she's "earned" the right to be as sluggish as she wants.
"Anything can happen" (to Obama) is not a reason to continue her campaign.
Perfectly deserving candidates like Biden, Richardson, Edwards, and Dodd withdrew when they realized it was simply not reasonable to stay in.