I'm sorry, but this is silly nonsense. Why does Hillary carry on? Because she can.

Primary campaigns do not end because the candidate realizes that victory is no longer plausible. They end because they run out of money. Hillary has an uncanny and historically unique ability to raise money despite electoral failure. As long as she has money coming in, and staffers willing to stay on her payroll, she will continue her campaign. We really don't need psychoanalysis to answer this question.

How about ego gratification?  As soon as everyone acknowledges this is over, Hillary just fades into a well-deserved obscurity, unless she continues to attack Obama in order to remain in the spotlight -- a lifetime of Geraldine Ferraro moments.  I think the odds of the latter are better than even.

Let's see what happens after PA when everyone can see that there are no more fantasy scenarios in which she gets a majority of the pledged delegates or of the popular vote.  We will shortly know whether Hillary is a party of one, as I have claimed, or not.

But Mike, what would it imply about Clinton that she remained so extremely convinced -- in March 2008 -- of Obama's essential unelectability? Look at his record in the primaries; look at his broad base of support, including significant numbers of independents and Republicans; look at his jaw-dropping fundraising prowess; look at the many and considerable weaknesses of the Republican party this year; and look how he stacks up against McCain over time relative to Hillary. You can normalize the putative psychology of what you're suggesting by saying "Now that may be a delusion. But ...." But: It doesn't begin to account for the profound removal from reality that it would take for Clinton to believe that she is somehow duty-bound to save the party from a fundamentally unelectable Obama.

Micheal, Also she would win the end game with more electoral votes, thus the Presidency. Give them both the Kerry blue states ,then add Arkansas and Ohio for Hillary and she gets 277 electoral votes. Obama does not.  His people think he can  get crossover states Virginia and Colorado but the have not gone democratic since 1964. He cannot even get enoufh electoral votes(270) with New Mexico.It is not popular vote or number of states that wins the game, after all.

The whole subject of "why the heck is Sen. Clinton staying in?" is pure Obama narrative in my view. The blunt fact is that neither Democratic candidate has won the nomination. Period. They are sepatrated by a relative handful of popular votes (no matter how you count it) and a relative handful of delegates.

And if the situation were reversed would Obama supporters be crying out for his withdrawal? Hell, no. The dominant narrative then would be see how well he did even if he's down a few votes? See how he challenged the frontrunner to come so close? See how he's shown her vulnerabilities and electability problems? Obama drop out?? Never! For sure.

So the situation is reversed, at least for the time, being but one thing is clear; in this purely party process of identifying the best possible genenal election candidate neither Clinton nor Obama has prevailed. So ultimately the decision will be made by party professionals (i.e. the super delegates) who presumably were created for a reason. Let the remainder of the votes be case, let the party apparatus sort it all out over time with whatever metrics make sense (popular vote, electoral vote wins, elected delegate count, etc.) and then let the chips fall where they may, but with plenty of time to unite for the general campaign.

But all this "Hillary must quit!" ranting is pure Obama campaign literature and should be seen as such.

Hillary carries on because she still has a case - albeit a shaky one - that she can beat Obama and be a stronger candidate in November. If she bludgeons Obama in PA - which is a pretty good bet right now - then I cannot see a scenario where she will bow out until the convention.

And let's face it, with the Swift N----r campaign against Obama still in full force, and most likely to stay until November if he is the candidate, a case can be made that she could be a better candidate, especially if Obama fails to counter, especially if he fails to beat Clinton in states like PA and IN and cannot beat back his opponents attempts to turn him into Homie the Dangerous Mad Clown...

Why does she carry on?  She hasn't won the nomination.  And neither has Barak Obama.  The dynamics of the race have changed.  Clinton has won several large primaries and is in a double digit lead in PA.  Obama, on the other hand, having undergone some real scrutiny for the first time, has seen his halo a bit tarnished.  

If the superdelates were suposed to automatically follow the pledge delegates,  what was the point of the supers in the first place?  If the Wright story has legs, or should Obama fade by summer, the supers may exercise their discretion.  Unlikely, but it is a reason for the Clinton campaign to coninue.  

And should she lose, she won't "fade into well deserved obscurity"  She occupies what is probably the most prestigious seat in the U.S. Senate - the seat of Robert Kennedy and Patrick Monynihan.  Senior senator from NY.

Deb - that logic only works if you believe that Obama won't carry the states that Hilary won in the primary in the general. I have never understood that general Clinton talking point. I don't see a problem with Obama picking both Arkansas and Ohio.

One small quibble...I believe that Sen. Clinton is junior to Sen. Schumer.

As long as there's a plausible chance that Hillary Clinton will receive more votes for the Democratic nomination than Barrack Obama she has every right to "carry on."

But DubyaD, isn't Schumer the senior senator from New York?

Not only is she the junior senator from New York, but I think a senate seat is only as prestigious as the senator currently sitting in it.

The only way the nomination can be decided is by the votes of the superdelegates, so persuading the superdelegates and finding a way to assuage Obama's supporters are the keys to the nomination for Clinton.

Obama actually has exactly the same tasks--to persuade the superdelegates and to assuage Clinton's supporters.

Each has different arguments that they can make, and each has good arguments. At the margins of change, Clinton is at a point where her arguments are getting stronger, and Obama is at a point where more people are experiencing hesitation about his candidacy. Thus, the pause in the movement of superdelegates toward Obama--a phenomenon that has been well marked since Ohio and Texas.

So, the argument for Clinton staying in is actually getting stronger from her point of view.

Those, like Brooks or Alter, who are calling for Clinton to drop out are simply people who prefer Obama. Clinton supporters don't think she should drop out. There is no reason for her to.

If in fact there were a consensus among the superdelegates, the contest would end immediately. But there is not one--and both candidates need the superdelegates. The fact that the superdelegates have not reached a consensus is direct evidence--the only meaningful evidence--that the nomination is not decided.

EITHER victor is going to have a VERY hard time with the supporters of the loser.

rasmussenreports.com/.../daily_presidential_tracking_poll

. McCain leads Barack Obama 50% to 41% and Hillary Clinton 48% to 43%

McCain is viewed favorably by 55% of voters nationwide and unfavorably by 42%. Obama’s reviews are 46% favorable and 52% unfavorable. For Clinton, those numbers are 45% favorable, 52% unfavorable

by the fact that just 71% of Democratic Primary voters now say they will vote for Hillary Clinton in the general election campaign. If Barack Obama is nominated, 64% of Democratic Primary voters are ready to vote for him.

In the Democratic Presidential Nomination, it’s Clinton 46%, Obama 43%

Can you imagine any politician with Clinton poll number to get out ?

If the situation were reversed, Obama would have been chased out of the prior to Texas and Ohio, regardless of his polling.  This whole nonsense of a purely pro-Obama press seems to miss that particular point.  Hillary was given a pass during that string of defeats, allowed to hang around because of who she was, not because of her tremendous work as a candidate.

Hillary's lead in PA is shrinking.

Look for it to continue to shrink.

After she wins (at best) PA by single digits and loses NC shortly thereafter, there really is no logical reason for her to actively campaign (although she can just "suspend" it pending a potential Obama meltdown).  If she doesn't after the first week of May, then we will really know  that HRC will claw and scatch until the last superdelegate declares, party and November be damned.

Is everyone forgetting that MAYBE, just MAYBE Obama would look better in the national polls if he could concentrate on a single task?  Right now he's slipping because he has to defend himself against both McCain AND Clinton.  Given the chance to take on McCain in full force without the knife in his back from Clinton, he would do quite well.

This long, drawn-out primary is only helping the Republicans and John McCain.  Personally, I blame Ohio for this mess.  Screw you, Buckeye state!

Look, guys, I've never hidden my dislike of the Clintons.

But, you have a system for nomination.  You stipulate the number of votes necessary to win that nomination.  

Neither candidate has won the necessary votes.  One of the candidates looked like he might be imploding a week ago.

Hillary has every right-- and actually a responsibility to her supporters-- to continue to struggle to win the nomination.

Which will only be decided by the vote of the delegates.  None of whom, elected or super, is bound by the rules to vote for either candidate.  

That is their own decision, to be made at the Convention.

Which is why they have the convention.

If you Democrats don't like your own rules, and think this is purely ceremonial, then change the rules for next time.

Frankly, as an outsider, I find your sniping unseemly.

Rhubarbs, you and I are on the same page.   High fives.

Just as Hillary has every "right" to continue to run, we, voters, have every right to criticize her mercilessly for putting her own ego gratification ahead of the success of the Democratic party.  Sniping?  We have not yet begun to snipe!

As for pccostello, you never cease to amaze.  As a matter of fact, the drift of superdelegates toward Obama has continued albeit at a much reduced pace.  Hillary's argument is getting stronger?  Because it is she who is now sinking in the polls?  Your creativity astounds.  When Obama is losing ground against Hillary, it proves she is the stronger candidate.  When Hillary is losing ground aginst Obama, it proves she is the stronger candidate.

Don't you ever feel just a little bit embarrassed by the things you write?

Note:  Chan wants the fighting to continue because he is an acknowledged McCain supporter.  

I find McCain's incipient Alzheimer's unseemly, chan.  But the Republican party has every right to nominate him and live with the consequences.  You made your rules.  Live with them.

Don't forget that the stakes this year are not just the nomination and election, but the outcome will also determine who will control the party's future after November. That's more than enough reason to stay in the race as long as possible, to have the maximum influence on the party apparatus' composition and direction, toward the 2012 and 2016 nominations most notably.

I have no problem with her continuing to run, Huckabee did and his chances were a hell of a lot slimmer, the problem is her "carrying on", that is having a campaign run by a group of disasters by the name of Penn, Wolfson, Singer, etc. and what has been referred to as a fog of nonsense in the other thread, by talking about flipping pledged delegates, or whining endlessly about not getting Michigan delegates.

She should concentrate on winning the remaining primaries, highlighting the differences between them respectfully (I see nothing wrong with her saying she has more experience, provided it is real and not made up like Bosnia or Northern Ireland), and then when the votes are done making her case. But she seems incapable of doing this.

And now, of course, her lies are also catching up with her. This Bosnia trip is just the beginning. And wait until her taxes come out on April 15. They didn't amass a hundred million dollar fortune from savvy investing.

If, as pccostello claims, "Hillary's arguments are getting stronger," you sure don't see any evidence of it among the Super Delegates. Not even slightly. The reality is that Hillary has pretty much flat-lined on her Super Delegate pick-ups.  She's lost a few since Super Tuesday and has only picked up two new ones (and that was last week, when the Wright affair was at its nadir). Obama, meanwhile, has picked up close to 60 in the last month or so, including Bill Richardson and Chris Dodd, two former rivals.

Despite the incremental poll adjustments that the Clintonites here like to post when their girl is up slightly, the trend is pretty well established at this point and it ill serves the party's interest to pretend otherwise. Hillary's only path to the nomination is the one that involves a bloodletting. And it that's what it takes, be looking for a McCain landslide in November.

What Rhube and Chan said.

Ain't over til the fat lady runs out of dough.

BHLnyc  according to pc, Hillary's arguments are always getting stronger and Obama's weaker, even during her 11 losses in a row, she kept beating the drum for Ohio and Texas, now it will be Pa.

The absolute excoriation of Bill Richardson by the Clinton camp is an attempt to keep the Supers in line, at least on the sidelines.  But their job is to make these kind of decisions for the good of the Party.  It is becoming clear that, and the meme circulting even in MSM is that, Clinton can only win with some combination of scorched earth primary politics and an Obama implosion.  This leaves the Democratic nominee, which ever one it is, badly tarnished as McCain sits quietly by building up cred, he's up 11 points since Super TU!!!  I think the supers need to make their choice.  There is no more on Obama, other posts have shown there are people who have been looking, and there's nothing.  He's not going to melt down, he's not going to quit, and he's not going to lose his lead.  I don't blame this on Clinton, because the Supers are here to prevent EXACTLY this problem, and they aren't.

Monsters never die you know, they just go and lie fallow due to radiation damage, they recharge their batteries/life force, and attack again, and again, and again...Gojiro Hillary.

The very fact that the supers have not declared is evidence that they are still considering Clinton, and that they have not decided between her and Obama. I would think that would be obvious. A huge number of supers are not saying who they are for--which means they have not decided. the supers can end this any time they want to--but they don't want to, yet.

Clinton continues to do very well in the polls. She is up again today in Rasmussen. As I read the polls, the drift is away from Obama.

Obama had planned to have a surge of supers going to him after Ohio and Texas. It never happened. He has had three terrible weeks. The supers are quiet. What do you think all that means?

It just amazes that Obama supporters think tha Clinton has an obligation not to compete.

Hillary is starting to remind me of Mega-Streisand in South Park Episode where she crushes the town in her attempt to unite the triangle of power to dominate the world. Where's Robert "Mothra" Smith when you need him?

www.comedycentral.com/.../player.jhtml

superdelegates are not considering Hillary. They are simply waiting for the voting to end and then choose the winner that most people consider to be the winner (which is most likely going to be Obama). They are politicians who don't want to get on the wrong side. Certainly none of them are actively considering Hillary, if there was anything active about them they would have taken Hillary last year.

Hillary's only hope is an Obama implosion, barring that hoping for the superdelegates to have a St. Paul type epiphany (Hillary shall save us) is pure delusion. They will not go against the will of the voters even though they theoretically can because if they did and Hillary lost they will be crucified. Going with the winner is the safe bet. And please no bullshit about electability. Mondale got the nomination over Hart with superdelegates in 84. Everyone knew that Hart was more electable but the superdelegates went with the winner of the pledged delegate count because they are gutless. And with Hillary being outed daily as a fraud (she who stormed the Tuzla airport like a wonder woman, fending off bullets) even the electable argument is going down in flames. Better to lose in November and protect your own career then go down with Hillbo.

roid writes, "Just as Hillary has every "right" to continue to run, we, voters, have every right to criticize her mercilessly for putting her own ego gratification ahead of the success of the Democratic party. "

You call it 'ego gratification' (and with a Clinton, that's always in there.  But, it's also gut, grit, determination, and persevereance.  God hates a coward and a quitter.

You guys may be quitters.  Hillary is not.  (Nor was her husband.)  And, even if it is the quality of cockroaches, you've got to admire people who will not let their lessers kill them.

When Obama actually wins, following your own goddamn rules, then declare victory.

It ain't over till it's over.  And if it weren't for this Churchillian style spirit, we would all be speaking German.  A difficult language, and I'm glad I didn't have to learn it.

Post '68 Democrats are wusses.  The Clintons are not wusses.  I dislike almost everything about them.  But, love them for telling losers to back off.

roid writes, "...I find McCain's incipient Alzheimer's unseemly, chan."

That's the kind of remark a gentleman like McCain, or Obama for that matter, would never utter.

I would prefer to lose with a McCain and have my honor, then to win with a Clinton foresake it.

But, I defend her right to fight till she's been beat.  And would have defended the right of Romney or any Republican to have done the same, no longer how long it protracted the GOP battle.

Gore for President in 2008

pccostello, whom I know you all revile, makes a salient point.  If this is all so horrible for the party;  if Hillary has so clearly lost and is destroying the party by carrying on; then it is the duty of the Supers, if they are truly loyal to the Democratic Party, to put a stake through Hillary's heart tomorrow.

Obviously, the Supers either don't agree with you, or don't have any guts.  

It they don't have the courage to face down Hillary, then once again it shows why the Democratic Party is not worthy, lacking in requisite testosterone, to take the helm of  the United States.

If you've got a beef, gentlemen, it is with your Supers.  Tell them to kill her.  Don't aks the Clintons to commit joint suicide.

THIS JUST IN:

According to ABC News in an interview with a DNC official who prefers to remain anonymous:  

Democratic Party Official: Clinton Pursuing 'The Tonya Harding Option'

"The delegate math is difficult for Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, the official said. But it's not a question of CAN she achieve it. Of course she can, the official said.

The question is -- what will Clinton have to do in order to achieve it?

What will she have to do to Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, in order to eke out her improbable victory?

She will have to "break his back," the official said. She will have to destroy Obama, make Obama completely unacceptable.

"Her securing the nomination is certainly possible - but it will require exercising the 'Tonya Harding option.'" the official said. "Is that really what we Democrats want?"

See the entire interview:

blogs.abcnews.com/.../dnc-official-cl.html

You might think that Clinton would fatally suffer from ruining Obama's and the party's chances this year. It ain't necessarily so: she would by default be the titular head of the party going forward, like it or not. The DNC will be hers, so she will have a lock on the nominating process four years from now. Winning isn't everything, but losing isn't permanent in politics - ask Richard Nixon (oops, I forgot, you can't).

But chan,

Is it not my right to take note of McCain's incipient Alzheimer's?  Do not the rules permit me to do this?  And, if it is my right, should you not be defending my exercise of my right to the bitter end?  I understood you precisely to be saying that there are no standards of propriety, common good, taste, that ought to restrain Hillary's pursuit of her own interest even though it is "within the rules."

So then tell me, how is it that there are standards other than "of right" that can be applied to my exercise of my right of free speech but there are no such rules that apply to Hillary?  Am I under some peculiar liability compared to Hillary Clinton that I am unaware of?

And of course, I am only doing McCain a service.  I am just trying to toughen him up for the general election campaign when his demeanor on stage my lead some to suggest that he is too old and feeble to be president.

Lock on the nomination in four years?  Are there to be no primaries four years from now?  Will there be no other candidates (well, okay, not Eliot Spitzer)?

Say chan,

Just how do you, not being a Democrat, make up your rules about whom Democrats can and cannot criticize and on what grounds?  I see no logic to them whatsoever other than that you are in favor of the Democrats doing whatever it is at the moment that you think will work to McCain's greatest advantage.  Your advice to Democrats is about as helpful as that of David Brooks.

The supers have not declared because the party does not want it to appear that they have not only decided the outcome but done so before the voters have been heard.  That is the proper thing to do.  However, it is also entirely indicative of what they are going to do when the time comes, which is defer to the voters.  If Obama came to the convention with more delegates and Hillary with more popular votes (in actual contests that is, not MI and FL), then the outcome might be in doubt.  When, as is now virtually inevitable, he has more of both, it is perfectly clear what the supers will do as they are now doing -- defer to the voters.

If indeed the supers had any inclination to do anything other than that, it would make perfect sense for them to do it now.  Therefore, the Hillaristas can take their rich fantasy lives somewhere else.  As soon as it is clear that the remaining contests are too few to affect change the delegate or popular vote outcome, even allowing for Hillarista fantasies, they will declare.

I still want to know what people think of the possibility that Hillary will continue the battel even after Obama has more than a majority of delegates behind him.  Will she give up gracefully or continue to try and upset the outcome?

roid, if you have proof, then most certainly exercise your, "...right to take note of McCain's incipient Alzheimer's?"

As to toughening up Senator McCain, that gentleman bore up to far more than you or I or any other current candidate has ever been asked to.  And he did it in service of his country.

He doesn't need me to protect him from the likes of you.

roid asks, "...Just how do you, not being a Democrat, make up your rules about whom Democrats can and cannot criticize and on what grounds?"

It is one of the great privileges of American citizenship to be able to comment on whatever I please.

In addition, what happens in the Democratic Party is germane fo every citizen, especially when it's about a candidate for president.

My commentary is not making up rules for Democrats.  It is simply reminding you of what your own rules are.  Since you are putatively the "Democratic" Party, it would be interesting to see if you are capable of acting democratically.

Apparently you are, when things go your way.  But, when they are not, you look to change your own rules mid-game.

Hillary herself has been guilty of that.  And many weighing in here are, in effect, recommending that.

Meanwhile, as membership in your party is hardly exclusive, and could be obtained with the stroke of a pen; and also as Democrats have been the ones who have pushed for cross-party voting, I don't feel like I'm exactly intruding in the girl's locker room here.

Well, actually, sometimes I do.

the main thing that is annoying about this entire line of argument, is that it is very unlikely that if the situation were reversed, that Obama would drop out now "for the good of the party'.

Are there any Obama supporters who would assert otherwise?

I assert so Channy. Of course he would drop out, McCain will win against Hillary, in 4 years Obama would be far stronger (since whoever will be President now is inheriting a real shitstorm). Obama ain't stupid, he is young and so is his base. In 4 years no one will care about Wright (although I think Obama would have dropped out even earlier, at which point Wright would not even have been an issue, and brought up in 4 years would have looked stupid and dated) This is Hillary's one shot and she knows it. No, you are wrong Channy for even other reasons, money would have dried up, and he also doesn't have anywhere near the sense of entitlement Hillary does (with a name like Barack Obama how could he). 4 years plays far better for him. His problem this time is he has won but not big enough. Reverse though he would have walked.

I'm not sure that we don't need a touch of psychoanalysis to read Hillary Clinton (or indeed anyone whose actions are not entirely explicable on the rational level).  Clinton clearly believes that she is entitled to the nomination, and seems to regard Obama as a kind of smooth operator who won't wait his turn in the "appropriate" way.

Another counterfactual -- as long as we're thinking about them -- is what Hillary would do if it were Edwards and not Obama who had succeeded so far.  One wonders if the Clinton campaign would be running ads with the hair-combing deal or analyzing the floor plan of the Edwards' house.  Would they be for example suggesting that, as his wife has cancer, Edwards wouldn't be able to concentrate on the presidency in the way the Sen. Clinton would?  Yes, very possibly.  A couple of ambiguous comments dropped into a Sunday yak show would be enough to get the media to follow that line.

One doesn't have to go to speculation, however, as there have been examples provided in reality.  The comment about McCain and herself being the only people qualified to take on the office of president was such an astonishing move that I wish the party had publicly reprimanded her in some way.  Has there been anything of that nature from Obama, that dissed his Democratic colleague while providing a treasure of a TV moment to the Repugs?  I don't think so.  What Clinton is doing will rebound on her even if she wins the nomination.  She is poisoning the waters for anything like the normal unity when it comes to the GE, and she doesn't seem to care.

ironyroad, if Edwards were in Obama's position, Hillary would be even angrier and more vicious.  

Because Edwards is clearly a lightweight with none of Obama's talent.  And therefore even less worthy than Obama to be jeopardizing here entitlement to the White House and her special place in history.

As to what you say, Blackie, I think you are idealizing your candidate.  He would continue to run, in my estimation.  But, he wouldn't be as reckless as Hillary.  And would avoid the bridge-burning she seems to be doing.

Like Hilary, he would be waiting for her to make her stumble.  But, in fairness to Hillary's logic, Obama being newer, and not nearly as thoroughly vetted as the Clintons, she has plenty of reason to think that other problems akin to or worse than Rev Wright could emerge.  

As to the theory that he is young and knows he can run again.  Yeah.  Sure.  But if he were in the very close number two spot, having come all this way, raised all this money, garnered all this enthusiasm, he would be none to keen to just stop and walk away.

Can you think of anybody in any election during the entire life of the Republic, who in a horserace this close, has walked away before he was actually beat?

My knowledge of American history is reasonably good, though not encyclopediac.  I can't think of anyone who has.

I think the big problem is, it's been a long, long time since political convenitons have mattered.  1980 was the last time.  Almost a generation and a half.

You are all so used to Conventions as coronations, that this long, undecided race is just mind-f****ing you all.  Go back and read some history books and quit hyperventilating.

The Party and the Republic can survive a battle royal.

channy, you missed my point that if he had lost 11 races in a row, the money would have dried up. without money he would be like Huckabee, staying for pride only. (to be fair to Huckabee, he did McCain credit by remaining civil)

Smoke-filled rooms: not all bad.

Gore for Pres in 08

You're right, blackie, I entirely missed it.  But, I don't get it.  He's been better at raising money than she.

If the races he lost were in states that weren't his natural constituency, his supporters would have waited till he got to fertile grounds again.  Just like Hillary's did.

Although I'll grant you, she was in a position to lend herself $5 million.