Senator Hillary Clinton is a very able candidate for the office of Presidency. Through a combination of tactical error and ill-fortune, Clinton is and will be (at the conclusion of the Democratic party primaries and caucuses next week) about 125-150 pledged delegates short of Senator Barack Obama.
Clinton's closing arguments -- she has won more delegates from the primaries (leave those caucuses alone), there is evidence to show that she may stronger than Obama against John McCain in the big states of Florida, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania in the general election (these are based on today's data and it is not reasonable to base the November forecast on today's data,) may be more number of popular vote, and the core constituencies of the Democratic party (e.g., catholics, women, and working class electorate) appear to be more supportive of her candidacy -- are sound and reasonable.
But we can also present several arguments -- all of which would be reasonable and plausible -- in favor of Obama's candidacy.
Therefore, at this point we can argue and debate because there are no definitive answers to any of these arguments.
At the beginning, the rules of the game were set and everyone agreed to it. The Democratic party presidential nomination will be decided by the delegates, and in this metric Senator Obama is ahead (in pledged delegates -- delegates won through elections.) Sure, the super-delegates can overturn and give the nomination to Senator Clinton. That's not unreasonable but it looks most unlikely because the super-delegates have been publicly expressing support for Senator Obama overwhelmingly.
That's where it is.
Then why not suspend the campaign? In fact, objectively Senator Clinton should have suspended the campaign after the Indiana and North Carolina primaries. Why?
Clinton would have, any way, won the West Virginia and Kentucky primaries, and she would equally certainly win the Puerto Rico primaries. Wouldn't it have made Senator Clinton stronger to win these primaries as a non-candidate than as a candidate? Further, if the super-delegates and even the pledged delegates were to confront some extra-ordinary situation or revelations that render Senator Obama as not a viable candidate for the party before the convention in August, the chance that the party will turn to Senator Clinton as its standard-bearer would have not diminished (it probably would have increased) an iota.
In any case, there is a case to be made -- a strong one at that -- for Senator Clinton to complete and contest in all the Democratic party primaries. That does show her determination and strength -- she has been a fighter.
But when the last primaries are over on June 3rd, Senator Clinton should suspend her campaign and let the chips fall where they may.
So what if the Democratic party's presidential nomination does not happen in 2008? There are many good options. If Senator Obama wins the general elections in November Clinton can still seek the Presidency in 2016 -- she would only be about 68 years of age. If Obama does not win the general elections in November, Clinton is most well poised for the 2012 presidential contest. In the meantime, Clinton can continue in the U.S. Senate and/or explore other interests such as governorship of the state of New York though that it not such an attractive office.
Senator Clinton is in a good spot -- that sounds odd in the midst of the current titanic struggle but that's the truth. She has a bright political future -- but she has to tread the needle a bit gingerly now.
No comments:
Post a Comment