Why She Can't Quit Yet.

I hate having to be the person making this case, but I'll say it again:

Hillary Clinton can't quit. Not before Pennsylvania. Not after winning Ohio and the Texas primary. In order for this to end before June 3, Barack Obama has to win this outright.

April 22 in Pennsylvania.
May 6 in Indiana and North Carolina.

To use a tortured sports analogy, this is the ALCS (because the American League is far superior to John McCain's Senior Circuit). Hillary was down 3 games to 0 in Ohio and Texas. She escaped game 4 with a narrow victory. Now she needs a win in Pennsylvania, a home game for game 5, before going back on the road for game 6. At any point, if Barack Obama wins, she is eliminated.

But we're all quite aware why she can't quit yet. Why should we not tell her to quit yet?

Because we need Hillary Clinton supporters. We need a united party.

So what? You're asking. We've already won this thing, why is she persisting?

Calm down. Have some confidence in Obama's ability to win elections, and stop demonizing Hillary supporters! I saw a diary here that pointed out Russ Feingold said Obama supporter should "cool it," - the diary and half the comments said "No, Russ, I will not cool it."

A record number of Democrats are expected to turn out for the April 22 primary in Pennsylvania. This will likely be the case in North Carolina, and Indiana on May 6, as well.

We want our ace rested and ready for the Fall Classic. But we've got to make sure we close the deal.

No one wants this to go all the way to the Democratic Convention. But allowing the primary process to play itself out is to our benefit right now. The time for the calls for Hillary to drop out should not be now - but after she loses a contest in the next two months.

You want to win this nomination? Then let's win it. Not by default. But on the merits.

•  Tip Jar

  by ptmflbcs on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:39:59 AM PDT

  •  Can't Quit

    She can't quite because she has been under constant sniper fire, and can't get to a phone!

    And she lost Texas, Hillarybot.

    by Dagoril on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:41:34 AM PDT

    •  You should read what I write...

      Before you accuse me of being a Hillary supporter.

      by ptmflbcs on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:43:05 AM PDT

      •  My apologies

        My apologies, it's just that usually it's the Hillarybots claiming a Hillary victory in Texas...a state where Hillary got fewer delegates than Obama, the actual winner. Getting fewer delegates in an election is actually "losing."

        Perhaps you were just using a more obscure definition of the word "win", which I am not aware of.

        by Dagoril on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:33:12 PM PDT

        •  He said "winning ... the Texas primary"

          She did win the Texas primary. And she lost the Texas caucus, thus losing the overall Texas PrimaCaucus™ by a small margin.

          He was using a definition of the word "primary" which you are not aware of. He was using it to mean "primary".

          by dconrad on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:12:55 PM PDT

•  can't quit because she owes money

  she needs to keep raising money -  

  and it is interesting to see that so far see in only spending about 1/2 of what Obama is in advertising in Penna

  and remember that her campaign lied about her February fundraising, since a much larger share of it than they had implied or stated could not be used in the primary.

  At some point she is going to have to decide whether continuing on just runs her further into the hole . . .

  by teacherken on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:43:06 AM PDT

  •  She ALREADY has $160+ Million Reasons To Go On

    And a HUGE outside the Party network sitting on HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS with just ONE goal.

    Electing her as President...

    The people who GAVE this money are expecting a HUGE return for that investment, and they will not be easily convinced to give it up.

    by IndianaDemocrat on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:47:27 AM PDT

    •  We have already noticed that

      They were told to sod off.  

      by Quicklund on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:28:53 AM PDT

•  Well...

  She may have won the texas primary, but she didn' twin Texas.

  by lordradish on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:43:12 AM PDT

  •  Rush voters

    Clinton did not really win the Texas Primary either.  Hardcore Republicans (Rush Voters) make up like 10% of Clinton total.  Take them away and Clinton lost by a lot in the Texas Primary.

    by dan667 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:52:54 AM PDT

    •  dunno about 10%

      but the Repugs definitely played a factor statewide. The southern/border areas went heavily for Clinton, and that's not GOP country. The Hillary turnout in east Texas, on the other hand, smells of Rush's taint.

      by swilldog on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:09:41 AM PDT

      •  As I recall...

        ...Senator Clinton won the primary vote in Texas by 109,000 - but she got about 120,000 Republican votes.

        Which is why Senator Obama's caucus win in Texas has the validity it does.

        In any case, after this weekend we'll have the final, uber-totals from Texas.

        by Jaime Frontero on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:53:41 AM PDT

•  The NL is better!

  Let's go Mets!

  by Pragmaticus on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:43:50 AM PDT

  •  I'm an AL fan...

    Plus, the "Senior Circuit" joke was too easy to pass up.

    by ptmflbcs on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:45:05 AM PDT

    •  Too true. n/t

      by Pragmaticus on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:54:52 AM PDT

    •  Obama is a White Sox fan

      It's the only thing that I've discovered that I don't like about him.

      by Pangloss on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:06:07 AM PDT

•  She lost Texas

  by The Dead Man on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:44:03 AM PDT

•  try 3-17

  she is 3-17 since super tuesday. Thats why she should quit.  FYI- she lost Texas as will be noted this saturday when its finally over.

  by dark daze on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:44:28 AM PDT

•  huh

  Then let's win it. Not by default. But on the merits

   why do people buy into stupid spin? He has already WON IT!.. Why the hell do you buy into the myth that some states dont matter?

  by dark daze on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:47:52 AM PDT

  •  I don't...

    But we need Hillary supporters. They need to feel like she wasn't pushed out.

    And I have every confidence that we will win on May 6.

    I'd love it if we ended it sooner. But it doesn't look likely.

    by ptmflbcs on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:54:04 AM PDT

•  If she calms down....

  she does not need to quit.  It's all in Hillary's hands.

  I think everyone would cut her some slack if she showed some grace and some concern for the nation and the party.

  But over the past few months she has acted like a one woman wrecking crew.  It now appears as if she may have done more damage to herself than Obama, but the reality is, that as long as she keeps the vitriol going, and Obama has to respond, the less likely November victory becomes.

  If Clinton would just run a dignified campaign, talk about issues, leave Obama alone and go after McCain, then everyone could vote, and if all goes as expected, she could then step aside.  Will she do this?  I don't think so.

  And because she won't, she has to be pushed.  This is risky, but we are damned if we do and damned if we don't.

  by landrew on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:48:41 AM PDT

  •  "Leave Obama Alone"

    Any idea how silly that sounds these days?  I would prefer "stick to the high road."  She could perhaps talk about her policies which differ from Obama's policies.

    by murrayewv on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:12:29 AM PDT

•  I'm actually OK with this...

  I wouldn't mind seeing a primary or two to make sure that the Wright effect really isn't showing up, but my argument is that this would be the best time for Clinton to drop out.

  Right now she could look pretty strong.  Come 4 weeks from now and she will have lost all of her bargaining power.

  by thezzyzx on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:49:51 AM PDT

•  The sooner she quits the better

  Cannot start healing until she is out.

  by dan667 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:53:33 AM PDT

•  Confidence in Obama's Ability

  I like that.  We do need to have some confidence in Obama's ability to win elections.  It would be nice tho, if both she and her staff would stop doing their best imitation of a wrecking crew.  

  by robertgp124 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:53:34 AM PDT

•  quiting is a loser move-she should be defeated

  by bten on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:54:15 AM PDT

•  Two theories

  Theory 1: she won't get out until she can find a place in which she can do so and save face.  In my mind it would be after PA/IN/NC if those don't go well.  The numbers are an umbrella.

  Theory 2: take her at her word: if she wins PA and has a credible showing in IN and PA, she takes it to the convention.

  People are doing some hating on her now as the "in it to spoil it" and "tanya harding" memes catch hold.  The problem is, she can't get out while these sentiments take off -- sort of a catch 22.  The memes need to be spread to change public perception, but put her in the corner.  I don't think she gets out until the numbers slap her in the face, because they offer her a shield: "I'm getting out because I don't have the support, NOT because people are starting to hate me."

  The villain in this thing:  The time between primaries.

  by ksh01 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:56:28 AM PDT

  •  Yes, it's amazing that PA

    is so long after TX and OH. When I heard the next major date was April 22 I thought, "No, you must mean March 22. Right? ... Right?"

    by dconrad on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:16:39 PM PDT

    •  yeah, their ability to control the goal post

      narrative is amazing....it's also amazing that folks keep allowing Clinton surrogates (and some from Obama) to avoid the fact that Obama got more delegates.

      it goes on a long, long time.....in a way, Clinton is the only thing that trips Clinton up and I hope the voters in PA pay attention to that.

      I think the most powerful "meme" to get out there is that Clinton cannot win the nomination at this point.

      by ksh01 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:31:42 PM PDT

•  It's the negative attacks

  that most people have a problem with.  I'm happy if she stays in through the primaries, but I'd like to see them keep it clean.

  by channiga on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:57:54 AM PDT

•  This would sound very fair..

  if it weren't for Clinton's incredibly negative and damaging attacks against Obama. Allowing time for Clinton to constantly damage Obama's chances in the general not by her presence but by her attacks can't be allowed.

  by Dougie on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:59:52 AM PDT

•  This is why she has to quit....

  Mr. Clinton said all three major candidates remaining in the race are talented and special people.

  He did not go into detail on Sen. Barack Obama, the Illinois Senator still locked in political combat with Sen. Clinton's wife for the Democratic nomination. Their next battle takes place next month in Pennsylvania.

  But McCain, who Mr. Clinton said is a "moderate", "has given about all you can give for this country without dyin' for it."

  He said McCain was on the right side of issues like being against torture of enemy combatants and global warming, which "just about crosses the bridge for them (Republicans)."

  We can't have the spouse of the candidate, who happens to be the former President reinforcing false talking points about McCain.  Who is going to get Bill to quit this without forcing Hillary out?

  by landrew on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:04:47 AM PDT

  •  Why?

    Why can't we stop demonizing McCain and talk about the differences between the policies without being thought to advocate for McCain?  By taking the low road against McCain, Democrats will lose the election.  Clinton knows that and Obama knows that too.

    by murrayewv on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:14:38 AM PDT

    •  Because we want to win....

      we have to win.  And these talking points are not true.  Pointing that out is not demonizing McCain, it's not taking a low road - it's telling the truth.

      1.  What makes McCain a moderate?  Is it "bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran"?  Is it his plan to stay in Iraq for the next hundred years, maybe more?  Is it his economic plan of more tax cuts for the rich?

      2.  McCain is against torture?  Then why did he vote against the ban on waterboarding a few weeks ago?

      All Clinton is doing is strengthening myths about McCain that make him appear reasonable and moderate (a maverick in Republican clothing) and this will just help to syphon off Independents in November.  How does this help us win and help the country?

      McCain is a conservative Republiban, running for a continuation of Bush's policies.  McCain admits it, why won't Bill Clinton?

      by landrew on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:42:43 AM PDT

      •  What makes McCain a moderate.....

        He has a reasonable environmental record and isn't a global warming denier.
        He has a record of working with Democrats on campaign reform and other issues.
        He believes in balancing the federal budget.
        He supports reasonable immigration reform.
        He is against torture.

        Generally, thats about it- and someone looking at those voting positions could carefully dissect out the flaws that make a Democrat a better candidate.

        There are genuine differences between McCain and any Democrat.  I would never vote for him.  But strategically, he is a much loved war hero (at least by the press) and there are many who like him as such.  And every Republican ran farther to the right in this election than McCain.  So that contributes to the perception McCain is a moderate- grading on the curve.

        I just see the strategy of the Clintons as strategy not heresy.  And I fully expect Obama to 100% adopt the same tone and language- he probably does already if you pay attention- he is running to work with Republicans not take a nasty attitude as a name caller.  

        by murrayewv on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:21:03 PM PDT

•  Basketball might be a better metaphor

  Obama's team is up by 20 points with three minutes to go.  She's in foul trouble and out of time outs.

  by Pangloss on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:09:04 AM PDT

  •  in keeping with your metaphor

    It sure would be nice if the refs were doing their jobs and calling the intentional fouls and technicals. ;-)

    by swilldog on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:13:03 AM PDT

•  You are on to something

  I was very opinionated very early on that Sen Edwards should drop.  But when he did drop, I realized I had been wrong.  Sen Edwards dropped at exactly the right time.  He took as many shots as he possibly could.  When he lost them all, he dropped with enough time for the remaining two candidates to have a fair head-to-head match.  When he dropped, his supporters were left knowing he had had a fair shot but simply was not going to win the nomination.

  When she does drop, I will not be able to say that Sen Clinton left the race at the perfect moment like Sen Edwards did.  But since we are past that point, I think you are right.  We need to run PA, and since they are so close to PA, IN and NC as well.  After those primaries cement Obama's insurmountable lead even further, then she can withdraw with teh phychological breakneeded for her supporters to come to acceptance of that fact.

  by Quicklund on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:25:42 AM PDT

•  The Myth of Meritocracy

  Not by default. But on the merits.

  To be honest, I feel that your use of "merits" is rather disconcerting here.  You are saying that this entire process (running for President on the Dem side) is completely equal.  Judging from Mrs. Clinton's "bad behaviors" and "quips" against Mr. Obama, it is not.

  To be frank, this is the same argument that is used in racial conversations between whites and non-whites when it has to do with whether someone has "enough credentials for the job".  It is as if one openly ignores the predjudicial treatment that causes disparities between races when trying to apply for jobs (in this case, the POTUS) and for advances in education.

  What is especially derogatory, you assume that this was an equal and fair playing field.  And to assume so is to be blind to the belittling and negative tactics of the Clinton campaign outright.

  I would rather the party leaders (such as Howard Dean) try to put a stop to this in another way.  Someone, in essence, has to step in.

  --politicalceci

  by politicalceci on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:28:01 AM PDT

  •  The merits...

    I mean, we can't be seen as ending this before its natural conclusion. It means we're going to have to play it to the point where Clinton can drop out and save face. She can't do that until there's an actual election.

    by ptmflbcs on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:14:00 AM PDT

    •  The road to hell is paved with good intentions...

      I see what you are trying to say.  But, honestly, I think we are past that.  Ms. Clinton did not respect the rules of the DNC when doing her tactics.  Why, should the DNC respect (and trust) her to "bow out gracefully"?

      When she does so, she will leave a scorched earth that will have caused a lot of damage within the DNC.  Everyone knows that.  Her leaving isn't going to have a kum-baya effect on the entire party.  These are wounds that will be there for a long time.

      Do you truly think that she will actually leave gracefully after all she's done?

      --politicalceci

      by politicalceci on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:34:13 AM PDT

•  There's the Elton John Concert

  She's got to stay around for him to sing "Your Song" while gazing adoringly into her eyes, right?

  Or maybe "The Bitch is Back."

  by notksanymore on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:34:39 AM PDT

•  Disagree, she cannot be *allowed* to quit

  Let her go on.  The more negative her campaign becomes, the less influence she will wield when this election ends.  If the Clinton camp acquires large debts during the process, they will end the cycle even weaker.

  What would be helpful is for the superdelegates who remain to give indications that each negative attack removes another option from Clinton, e.g., attack a fellow Democrat with a smear again, no possibility of majority leader for you.  Ever.  Next attack, primary challenger for the senate seat.

  Thus far, the Clinton smears against Obama look more like a Stars Wars parody with inept Stormtroopers against master Jedi.......

  by ColonelKlink on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:36:14 AM PDT

•  Stop telling me what to do!

  I want to make nice with Clinton supporters. But then I see someone talk about how he is trying to disenfranchise voters and someone saying Florida and Michigan should be seated as is, and I remember. Clinton supporters are willing to do anything to see "their girl" as the nominee.

  we've won it on the merits. its over according to the rules. once clinton supporters recognize this i will be more than willing to rebuild bridges.

  by BlueGA on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:40:28 AM PDT

•  Don't Panic

  Everyone needs to read the "Hitchhikers Guide to the Universe" on a regular basis.  It will work out.  How?  I don't know. (That's from "Shakespeare in Love" for those playing along.)

  We need to stop complaining about Clinton and keep up the work.  Obama is creating an election structure for the fall with every primary or caucus.  As long as Clinton and Obama continue, the oxygen gets sucked out for McCain.

  I'm confident that by 22 April Clinton will have lost support.  I just have to think that the whole Bosnia story is going to lose here some support.

  by red moon dog on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:47:36 AM PDT

•  Persisting vs negative campaigning

  I'm not asking her to stop campaigning.
  I'm asking her to stop negative campaigning.
  It only helps McCain.

  by Frank Palmer on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:55:07 AM PDT