Bow Out? But How?
Time marches on, and the race for the Democratic nomination grinds on toward Pennsylvania. Obama’s lead in the delegate count is narrow when comparing the numbers alone, but seems insuperable when the numbers are measured against the delegates to come, and their likely distribution. Mathematically, Clinton is not out; by CNN’s calculation, she could theoretically sail to victory with a whopping 60% of the delegates, if she were to win every remaining uncommitted delegate, win every vote in every primary, and persuade the party to count at full value all those who voted for her in Florida and Michigan. Of course, that kind of imbalance would be deeply unlikely for a candidate of messianic popularity; for a divisive candidate trailing slightly in the polls and disfavored by the press, the chances are effectively nil. It’s more likely Clinton might twist just enough superdelegates’ arms to swing the vote her way, but don’t hold your breath—the superdelegates are answerable to their constituents, and many realize the kind of fallout the party would endure if the general public felt they were overruled in a back-room deal among party insiders.
So Clinton’s chances are slim, despite the narrow margin and diminishing but real hopes for a big Pennsylvania win. Slim enough that some major party figures, like Dean, Dodd, and Pelosi, have been hinting that she should bow out of the campaign. These party notables loudly deny any such pressure, since the appearance of insiders forcing a candidate to quit could also create a fair bit of fallout, but their public statements include some fairly broad hints, and we can only guess what they’ve said behind closed doors.
The presumption behind such hints is that the way the Democratic primaries are dragging on, twisting early enthusiasm into partisan bitterness, hurt the party’s chances in the general election. Perhaps so, but I’m not convinced. A late resolution carries some benefits for the party, as well: dirt exposed now is defused as a weapon for McCain; cameras pointed at the dems are not pointed at McCain; and McCain must wait to find who his opponent will be before attacking. Seven months is a long time to maintain political enthusiasm among the vast majority of casual voters in the absence of the exciting horse race we’ve enjoyed so far. And, of course, she might still win, in which case, she will prove to have been fighting to preserve the party’s choice.
But, for the sake of argument, let us assume that Clinton is hurting the party’s chances, and should step aside gracefully and let the party machine begin gearing up for the real showdown in November. Let us further presume that she has the political smarts to realize it, because she is after all a very smart gal. Let us further presume that she doesn’t really want to sabotage the party just for a fractionally greater shot at moving up from the Senate to the presidency. If you like her, you can credit her devotion to principles and loyalty to her party; if you don’t like her, you can credit her own recognition of how much her political future depends on the continued good will of her colleagues and a keen appreciation of her vanishing campaign chest. Either way, this scenario paints Clinton as willing to do the right thing, and less blinded by ambition than running on momentum and emotional investment. That’s a lot of “if”s, but it’s plausible; I’ve seen this very picture proposed by her supporters and her detractors alike. Maybe we can even throw in a campaign gone sour on bad advice from her managers, and not Clinton’s fault at all, but that’s pushing it.
The question then becomes how to give her a way out of a campaign that’s spun out of her control. It has to satisfy her ambition, for which pundits like to suggest a Supreme Court seat or the role of Senate majority leader, but it also has to save face. If Clinton is indeed too emotionally invested to step away, she needs to be given a way out that looks good to her supporters, but even more importantly to her reflection in the mirror.
That’s tricky. I haven’t seen any serious suggestions, neither in major news outlets nor in the political forums which I haunt. But perhaps I have the solution:
Broker her departure from the primaries with an agreement to count Michigan and Florida voters in a manner very favorable to her campaign, but not enough to tip the election.
As I’ve written before, I don't have much sympathy for FL/MI, but at this point, where no loaf at all has become a distinct possibility, half a loaf might seem much more generous, and may solve the larger problem. If the party credits the generosity to Clinton’s tireless efforts, this would be the exit she needs, as described in the scenario above. She has been posing, rather disingenuously, as the champion of the disenfranchised in Michigan and Florida. Letting her take the credit for giving Michigan and Florida (cough) “fair” treatment would allow her bow out, claiming that she knew she needed to for a while now, but just couldn’t quit in good conscience while she still had to fight in Michigan and Florida’s behalf. (She might come to believe that one, too.) As long as we could trust her to honor the agreement, instead of turning around and breaking it after the numbers are publicly added to her total—a distinct possibility, given that she broke her pledge not to campaign in Michigan and Florida in the first place, nor to count their votes, until they turned out to be for her—it could work.
And then she could wave good-bye, return to the business of the Senate, and we could let the 2008 election enter its final, bloody, hate-filled, one-on-one final stretch.