News & Election Videos
Related Topics
clinton
election 2008
obama
Election 2008 Obama vs. McCain | Clinton vs. McCain | Latest 2008 Polls | Latest 2008 News

SEND TO A FRIEND | PRINT ARTICLE |

Clinton Fatigue Driving Pressure to Quit

By Steven Stark

This past week, Vermont senator Patrick Leahy joined a growing chorus of politicians, pundits, bloggers, and Barack Obama supporters urging Hillary Clinton -- trailing by a little more than 100 delegates with a number of contests still to go -- to quit the Democratic race in the interests of party unity.

It is, in truth, an argument virtually without precedent in modern political history, at least at this stage of such a close race. And while it does have its origins in an effort to preserve party unity, it also has its roots in an odd and vitriolic crusade to purge the Clintons and hand the nomination to a candidate who has yet, after all, to win a single large state's primary (other than his own), let alone the nomination.

The fact is that, until now, candidates have rarely, if ever, faced such a concerted movement (featuring prominent names, such as Bill Richardson, and a column in Slate titled "The Hillary Deathwatch"), urging them to drop out before their rival has clinched the nomination. To review the history:

• In 1988, Jesse Jackson took his hopeless campaign against winner Michael Dukakis all the way to the convention, often to great media praise.

• In 1980, Ted Kennedy carried his run against Jimmy Carter all the way to the convention, even though it was clear he had been routed.

• In 1976, Ronald Reagan contested the "inevitability" of Gerald Ford all the way to the convention. Few, then or since, have ever thought to criticize Reagan's failure to step aside and let Ford assume the mantle.

• Also in 1976, three candidates -- Mo Udall, Jerry Brown, and Frank Church -- ran against Jimmy Carter all the way through the final primaries, even though Carter seemed more than likely to be the eventual nominee.

• Even in 1960, Lyndon Johnson and Adlai Stevenson fought the "certain" nomination of John F. Kennedy all the way to the convention floor.

In fact, until this year, it's been an axiom of American politics that candidates are allowed to pursue their runs until they decide to drop out -- which is usually, by the way, when they run out of money. Even Mike Huckabee kept running against John McCain in this campaign long after it was obvious he had no hope of winning the GOP nod.

Yet in one of the tightest races in modern history -- before the opponent has come close to clearly clinching the nomination, before a number of voters have been given the chance to have their voices heard, and when Clinton still has a chance, albeit a slim one, to win the prize, she is continually vilified for failing to see the light and bow out. What gives?

Shifting standards

Part of it is undoubtedly that there's concern among Democrats that this protracted race is hurting the party's prospects for the fall. But the truth is that if Clinton were to drop out tomorrow, Obama would still have the same liabilities he has today -- they'd only emerge later.

Another part of it is driven by the fact that the superdelegates would much rather avoid their difficult choice between Obama and Clinton. Politicians generally like to compromise, and there's no avoiding a very tough choice in this case. Unless, of course, Clinton drops out and takes them off the hook.

But a larger factor is that Clinton is being held to a different standard than virtually any other candidate in history. That's being driven by Clinton fatigue, but it's also being driven by a concerted campaign that examines every action the Clintons take and somehow finds the basest, most self-serving motivation for its existence. Thus, in this case, when Clinton is simply doing what everyone else has always done, she's constantly attacked as an obsessed and crazed egomaniac, bent on self-aggrandizement at the expense of her party. Is there a fair amount of sexism in the way she's being asked to get out of the way so a man can have the job? You be the judge.

Finally, there have been others who have observed how the Obama campaign resembles a religious movement (in both its positive and negative aspects). Thus, we have the growing messianism of Obama supporters -- both on the Web and in the media -- whose comments seem to convey the strong impression that it's time for everyone to participate in the coronation of the chosen one.

If Obama really wants to vanquish Clinton, he has several other options that can end the contest long before the August convention. He could win Pennsylvania at the end of April. Or he could win a string of primaries after that, or successfully woo enough superdelegates to win the nomination. His problem isn't that Clinton continues to run (after all, so did Huckabee); it's that she continues to win, much to his chagrin.

Lastly, at the risk of getting preachy right here, it's kind of un-American to end a contest prematurely. Did the referee call a premature end to the Davidson-Wisconsin NCAA tournament hoops game this past week because it was clear Davidson was going to win and the team needed to rest its starters for the next contest? The usual standard is that we allow contests to play out to a conclusion and we also try to allow everyone who wants to vote to have a chance to participate. Yes, the Clinton campaign has often been unusually negative -- a valid topic of criticism. But should she withdraw? Only if she's held to a standard different from the one we've always had before.

Boston Phoenix


Facebook | Email | Print |

Sponsored Links

Steven Stark
Author Archive