I’ve been toying with an idea the last few days, and this reference in an AP article helped encapsulate the point.
In the same editorial board meeting, [Hillary] Clinton said ”it is unprecedented in history” for political activists to urge a candidate to withdraw when his or her chances of winning the nomination appear remote. In fact, such events have happened several times.
Three months ago, Republican hopeful Mike Huckabee angered Sen. John McCain by lingering in the GOP race after McCain’s nomination seemed all but assured. ”Of course I would like for him to withdraw today,” McCain said at the time. A McCain campaign memo, which was leaked to the media, said the campaign was being forced to spend money in upcoming primary states merely to avoid being embarrassed by the underfunded Huckabee.
I’ve been rather confused of late about why the notion of urging Hillary Clinton to withdraw has become verboten. To be sure, I can understand why ardent Clinton backers would encourage her to hang in there as long as possible, but I get the sense that anyone who recommends the second-place candidate step aside to benefit the party and the first-place candidate is accused of pushing the boundaries of political norms.
The Obama campaign certainly seems to have picked up on this. After subtle suggestions about wrapping up the nominating fight, both Obama and his top aides have been extremely cautious about even hinting that Clinton get out of the way. They’ve made symbolic gestures — the celebration in Iowa on Tuesday didn’t exactly include an ambiguous message about the state of the Democratic race — but they’ve also said, on the record, repeatedly, that Clinton should stay in as long as she’d like. The decision is entirely up to her and her campaign.
And yet, I’ve seen some suggestions that encouraging Clinton to drop out is akin to misogyny and condescension. It’s disrespectful. It’s a metaphorical slap in the face. It’s even undemocratic, given that voters in Puerto Rico, Montana, and South Dakota haven’t weighed in yet.
I find all of this confusing.
When McCain had a large and seemingly insurmountable lead over Huckabee, the McCain campaign, with varying degrees of subtlety, indicated that the senator sure would appreciate it if the former governor got out of the way. He didn’t, and the process continued.
But no one, at least as far as I can tell, suggested that McCain’s signals were somehow offensive. Of course McCain wanted Huckabee out of the way — McCain was winning, Huckabee wasn’t going to be able to close the gap, and McCain didn’t want to commit additional resources to a nominating fight he was very likely to win anyway.
But Huckabee didn’t care and McCain eventually stopped making hints. No one cared, and Huckabee certainly didn’t make his campaign about resisting the forces trying to end the GOP contest.
The comparison is admittedly inexact. Clinton has done far, far better in the Democratic race than Huckabee did in the Republican race. But when it comes to the delegates needed to secure the party’s nod, when Huckabee’s gap appeared insurmountable, the powers that be encouraged him to clear the stage. Similarly, now that Clinton’s gap appears insurmountable, there are some — outside the Obama inner circle — encouraging her to wrap things up.
What I don’t get is why this is considered so insulting and offensive. Some Dems want Clinton to withdraw. Clinton doesn’t want to withdraw. Can’t we just move on?
At this point, it seems like the emphasis on this has become counter-productive. It’s as if the point of the campaign is to keep campaigning, and one of the central tenets of the Clinton effort has less to do with her platform and ideas, and more to do with the fact that she needs to keep fighting precisely because people are encouraging her to stop fighting.
Clinton’s principal opponent, in other words, isn’t Barack Obama or John McCain, it’s people telling her to wrap things up. Given the microphone, Clinton is using it to talk about how important it is that she keep getting the microphone.
I’ve even seen some comments and emails this week from Clinton supporters saying they’re more inclined to vote Republican every time they hear an Obama supporter say Clinton should step aside. Why? First, it’s not Obama who’s saying it. But second, why is this such an insolent thing to say?
Maybe the Clinton campaign holds out hope that hundreds of superdelegates will change their minds and override the pledged delegates. Maybe the party will drop delegates as the metric and, in the 11th hour, decide that the popular vote matters more. Maybe there will be some shocking development before the convention that will shake up the race in unexpected ways.
But in the meantime, of course some in the party want to make it easier for the likely nominee, which necessarily means asking the second-place candidate to stand down. If she disagrees, she can say so, and get back to the race.
I’m probably not articulating this as clearly as I’d hoped. My point isn’t exactly whether Clinton should drop out. What I’m actually wondering is why Dems aren’t supposed to even ask.