Why Stop Now?

The popular debate over the past week or so as to whether or not Hillary Clinton should drop out of the race for the Democratic nomination, which has largely dominated the attention of cable news channels and newspapers, continued on Sunday as various surrogates and journalists appeared on morning talk shows to discuss the prospects of a long, drawn out nomination fight.

Several politicians, the most prominent example being Senator Leahy, have come forward this week and urged Clinton to drop out of the race, assuming that her candidacy is all but doomed and that her desire to continue fighting will only serve to hurt the party in the long run. Adding to this idea today was Governor Richardson, now a public supporter of Obama, as well as New York Times columnist David Brooks. Brooks wrote earlier this week that because Hillary only has a very slim chance at victory, which he now puts at just 5% because of the math that works against her, her continued attempts to attack Senator Obama and question his record, which will be supported by his dropping poll numbers and her continued success in several of the states soon to vote, will result in her hurting his candidacy while in fact not winning herself. He repeated this argument today on NBC's Meet the Press, as he believes that as she grows more confident from victories in upcoming races like Pennsylvania, she will grow more aggressive, yet never move significantly closer to the nomination, as a result of the delegate gap that will continue to exist between herself and Senator Obama. Brooks figures that with Michigan and Florida looking like they will no longer re-vote or break in her favor, and with superdelegates still unlikely to overturn the "will of the people," Clinton is only hurting her own party by remaining in the race.

This however, was not the sole opinion presented this week, and not the sole opinion heard on the air today. Besides Clinton herself, as well as obvious Clinton supporters like her husband, former President Clinton, and close advisor and longtime friend James Carville, who all spoke out publicly this week and denied that there was any legitimate reason why she should quit before every primary was complete, journalist Peter Beinart and the editorial board of the Washington Post also came out today in defense of a continuation of this fight. Beinart, also appearing on Meet the Press, argued that the historical evidence has shown him that draw-out nomination contests do not, in fact, significantly affect that party's results in the general election. His belief is that Obama has become a much better candidate over the past few months and will actually benefit as a result of the fact that certain "scandals" are appearing now, rather than later on, which is a result of the vetting process that Hillary's campaign has initiated. He still regards Obama as clearly the more likely nominee, but he values the fact that serious issues are being discussed between the two candidates and observes that no Democrat will, in the end, regret the process now taking place that is testing both of the potential candidates as to how strong they will be in a general election fight against John McCain.

In an editorial article entitled, "Don't Stop Campaigning," which was published Sunday in the Washington Post, the paper continued this argument, stating that, no matter what you think of either Democratic Presidential candidate, this process is a) energizing the electorate, b) informing voters and battle-testing both candidates, and c) not yet over. On the first point, they point out that there have been record numbers of voters who have registered as Democrats and have voted thus far in these primaries, thereby getting excited about one of the two candidates months before any voter would typically start paying attention, especially in a late-voting state like Pennsylvania. On the second point, despite the attacks on the other candidate's qualifications for the office, the paper suggests that discussions between Clinton and Obama can be cordial and substantive. They point out how the candidates debated issues of the economy and the mortgage crisis in the last week and suggest that even more serious conversations could take place: "The list of issues to hash out is endless, and doing so in polite political combat could produce a stronger Democratic candidate for the fall and a better-informed electorate." Certainly the merits of each candidate's positions can be determined, and each candidate can gain advice as to how to better pitch their messages to the public and how to campaign more effectively, overall. On the last point, the editorial points out that the delegate count remains relatively close and that neither candidate will, in the end, have earned enough elected delegates to win. This point also includes the argument that millions of voters still have not yet had their say, which has been a rallying cry for the Clinton campaign in recent weeks, in addition to the observation that the race may at one point break for one candidate or the other, and it may not be the one that we predict right now, given all the uncertainty thus far in this primary period.

With nothing quite yet clear in the race for the nomination and no signs of immediate doom and gloom for the Democratic Party, as journalist Peter Beinart and the Washington Post might ask, "Why stop now?"