First of all I was pleasantly surprised and very appreciative of the rapid jump on this site of many people willing to be gracious winners and try to rebuild bridges with Hillary supporters after the end of the race, and even to treat the Senator herself with respect, despite that most of you are strongly opposed to her. It is a credit to this site, and something to hold onto for when the nominee is actually decided.
However, I think people here are jumping the gun. This race is not over. Oh, I know that Obama will almost certainly win on every concievable metric: pledged delegates, the popular vote, and even the popular vote including Florida and Hillary's margin over uncommitted in Michigan. I know the chances of the superdelegates overturning that are slim. However, they are not nonexistent. If they were nonexistent, the superdelegates would have moved already, in private if not public.
In short, the nomination battle is not finished.
The AS LONG AS clause
One common sentiment is that Hillary can stay in as long as she does not actually say bad things about Obama or anything that could be divisive. "Hillary can stay in AS LONG AS..."
That is patronizing, because you can't pursue two goals at once. It is like saying "You can have your day in court, as long as you don't actually try to argue your case." She can't simultaneously help elect herself and help elect Obama (well she could, but she would be working at cross purposes). It is stupid, from her perspective, to have two goals. So Hillary might as well drop out if that were the case; it would help Obama more if she dropped out right now, and thus allowed the Obama campaign to begin focusing on the General Election right now, than if she stayed in and ran a window-dressing campaign. It helps neither her nor Obama for her to stay in the race "as long as".
Hillary is hurting the party by staying in, therefore she should drop out
Again, the problem with this is that it is too charitable. The truth is, she has been hurting the party ever since Feb. 5, because the extension of the primary battle into February, then March, then April incrementally hurt the party. If Hillary's first priority was Democratic victory, and that came before her own campaign, she would have dropped out on Feb. 6, and endorsed Obama. Conversely, if Obama's first priority was Democratic victory, and that cam before his campaign, he would have dropped out on Feb. 6, as well. Obama has been hurting the party for the past 3 months by staying in. Even today, he could help the party by dropping out. Does that mean he should? No. It would be a stupid, batshit, crazy, insane thing to do. But he could. End this divisive primary now if he wanted. Just as Hillary could.
Another interpretation is that her first priority is a Democratic victory, but she believes that since she is the only electable candidate, Democratic chances in November vanish with her concession. Hence, she is doing Democrats a favor by staying in. Either way, May 6 changed nothing. The divisive primary did not start hurting the party on May 6. It has been hurting the party since February.
It is somehow unseemly or unusual for her to stay in the race while have such a small chance
This is wrong. Ted Kennedy was behind by 750 delegates in 1980 yet he took his campaign all the way to the convention in Madison Square Garden, then tried to get Jimmy Carter's pledged delegates released. He failed, but he tried, and today he remains a respected patriarch in the party (his biggest personal flaw remains the Martha Moxley manslaughter accusation; no one faults him for staying in the Presidential race until the convention in 1980; in fact, most credit it as the height of his career since he gave his best speech at that convention).
As Wikipedia states:
Carter was still able to maintain a substantial lead even after Kennedy swept the last batch of primaries in June. Despite this, Kennedy refused to drop out, and the 1980 Democratic National Convention was one of the nastiest on record.
Then there is the Mondale/Hart analogy. In 1984, after the end of the Democratic primary Gary Hart had about 36 percent of the vote to Mondale's 38 percent, trailing the popular vote by about 450,000. But Hart did not drop out until after Mondale had sewn up the mathemtical delegates he needed to clinch the nomination, including superdelegates:
ABC: Did you question [the superdelegates'] role at that time?
GH: They were all there according to party rules, so there was very little to question.
I did speak to all 700 of them, my wife and I did, individually between the end of the primaries and the convention, and ask for their support. But many of them had pledged to Vice-President Mondale even before the primaries began and they felt that they were morally obligated to support him even though they felt I might be the stronger candidate
Then you have the Reagan/Ford analogy. Perhaps the closest analogy. In the spring of 1976 Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford ran a spirited race for their party's nomination, and:
The 1976 Republican National Convention was held in Kansas City. As the convention began Ford was seen as having a slight lead in delegate votes, but still shy of the 1130 delegates he needed to win. Reagan and Ford both competed for the votes of individual delegates and state delegations. In a bid to woo moderate Northern Republicans, Reagan shocked the convention by announcing that if he won the nomination, Senator Richard Schweiker of Pennsylvania, a moderate, would be his running mate. The move backfired, however, as few moderates switched to Reagan, while many conservative delegates were outraged. The key state of Mississippi, which Reagan needed, narrowly voted to support Ford; it was believed that Reagan's choice of Schweiker had led Clarke Reed, Mississippi's Chairman, to switch to Ford. Ford then won the nomination, narrowly, on the first ballot.
Reagan stayed to the convention and had a floor fight. This was the guy whose supposed golden rule was not to say anything bad about another Republican. It did nothing to hurt his chances in 1980. George H.W. Bush attacked his "voodoo economics", not the fact that he hadn't dropped out early in '76.
One can decry Hillary's decision to stay in the race, but the MSM and the Obama supporters should recognize that it is perfectly normal. For those calling for her to drop out:
Did Ted Kennedy drop out prematurely in 1980?
Did Gary Hart drop out prematurely in 1984?
Did Ronald Reagan drop out prematurely in 1976?
The answers are no, no, and no. None of these candidates eventually won their nomination, but they all not only stayed in, but tried to win. No one has ever stayed in while not trying to win. Find me one example in modern history where a candidate who has come so close to the nomination dropped out before the other candidate had absolutely clinched a mathematical victory. None. Obama has not clinched a mathematical victory. The race goes on, and while it goes on Obama and Clinton are going to campaign.
Finally, this is an explanation, not an endorsement. What do I want her to do? I want her to drop out. However, that is not my decision to make. And I recognize she is only making the same decision that every other candidate in her position has made.
* Does this mean I think it is useless for Obama supporters to act like gracious winners at this point? No; the reason is that while Hillary herself goes on many of her supporters may at some point or another, due to her long odds, fall by the wayside. These people, IMO, ought to be treated with respect. Thank you ahead of time.
** One day one of the two nominees will drop out. If it is Hillary, I would appreciate it very, very, very much if Obama supporters would take stock of their feelings and, afterwards, be as gracious as you can possibly muster toward Hillary and her supporters who are willing to support Obama, if only to help Obama. Such a day has not yet come.