Why Barack Obama fears a sudden end to Hillary Clinton's campaign

"The Democratic race now moves to West Virginia," Jay Leno noted during his monologue Thursday night on "The Tonight Show." "Today, Hillary Clinton claimed she always wanted to be a coal miner. But those dreams were dashed when she was forced to attend Wellesley and Yale."

The political focus now does, indeed, shift to the Mountaineer State for its primary there next Tuesday. And then Kentucky and Oregon and Puerto Rico down to the very end in Montana on June 3 when springtime there is just weeks away.

The Times' not-so-old political pro, Mark Z. Barabak, had an interesting conversation with another not-so-old political pro, Tad Devine, a Democratic strategist who cut his presidential political teeth in the 1980 Jimmy Carter campaign. Later he worked in the unsuccessful presidential efforts of Al Gore and John Kerry. Devine is not involved with any candidate this time around.

But the way he sees the inevitable delegate math in favor of Barack Obama and the current Democratic race ending is, counterintuitively, the worst thing that could happen to the Illinois senator in....

this marathon and often bitter struggle between the two Democratic survivors is what so many party members are already unthinkingly clamoring for: Clinton to drop out right now. ASAP.

Why?

Because with her name still on the ballots, she'd be very likely to go on and win in West Virginia anyway, even as a dropout. And maybe Kentucky too, given the demographics in both places. And possibly Puerto Rico as well.

How would that look if at the end of the Democratic race the winning candidate with clearly the most delegates and popular votes went down to defeat against a candidate who isn't even in the contest anymore? Ouch! That would tend to overshadow his expected wins in Oregon and Montana.

In fact, although little noticed because the Republican race had long been over, Sen. John McCain, the presumptive GOP nominee, won his Pennsylvania primary with 73% of the vote. To be sure, thousands of Republicans crossed over to vote in the more interesting Democratic contest for whatever reason.

But put another way, the surefire Republican nominee lost about 27% of his own party's vote to a candidate who had long since dropped out (ex-Gov. Mike Huckabee) and a Republican rebel who never really had any chance of winning (Rep. Ron Paul).

"If [Obama] lost to a candidate who's withdrawn, that would hurt him a lot," says Devine. "And there's a good chance that could happen."

Better, he figures, for the former first lady to remain in the race a couple more weeks at least, as long as she recalibrates her rhetorical cannons at McCain and President Bush, instead of her party's new presumptive presidential candidate.

That would, of course, require at least a tacit admission of defeat by Clinton. Let's all hold our breath for that to happen.

Obama seems to recognize this. At a fundraiser in Washington's Union Station last night with cheese and crackers and fruits for a minimum $1,000, he told supporters, "The nomination doesn't take place in August -- it takes place until August."

-- Andrew Malcolm

Photo Credit: AP

Comments

[John]

Hillary must get out of the race sooner than later to save her face and the Clinton legacy. Enough of this prolonged distractions and divisions with the Democratic Party. The Democrats must now unite with Obama!

[sweets]

Will the Republican Candidate, Senator McCain be and his party be smart enough to run the former Democratic Vice Presidential candidate of Mr. Global Warming himself as their own Vice Presidential Candidate to pick up Clinton supporters/voters after Obama nomination?

[dave]

though immensely moderate, without a modicum of modesty, preliminary quasi-modo-nominee by vice or virtue of decree - mccain aka the presumptuous... and then there is, running for PRESIDENT, RON PAUL, wise 'rock of ages,' young at heart, and brilliant mind.
in looking for betterment, it makes sense not to repeat the negative examples, but look for positive solutions;
and it makes one wonder, how long will a hundred million educated people, at behest of nebulous 'authority,' stop to count at THREE - when clearly there are FOUR PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES left in the race? and who's to say you're not free to assess in depth what each one of them is up to, and then - vote your conscience and the future of your country, and the freedom of your mind? in the end, it's up to you.

[maz hess]

Hillary owes to her backers and investors to stay in this race till to the convention. On the other hand her first steps in national politics were campaigning for George McGovern in 1972. He lost the election under her eyes in the end because he was forced before to fight till to the convention. The earliest memories are the dearest. That is why I would bet that she will not going on fighting to the convention. Because in doing so she would betray the young idealistic woman she once had been. That was also what McGovern yesterday tried to tell her. But she didn't get to the phone.

[Jake]

This article doesn't make sense. Hillary can't overcome Obama unless she wins 75% of every remaining primary. That's not going to happen. Get over it.

[wilma miller]

As a Scottish woman who was in Chicago for my son's graduation last year I saw the first debates in which all the candidates took part. Hillary Clinton was by far the most able and articulate and Mr Obama was really nowhere.Watching from this side of the world it all reminds me of past Democratic campaigns where they were it seems determined to pick a candidate who wouldn't win the election. The media in this country have also gone overboard for Obama and dismissed Clinton for weeks/months. It all looks quite sad to me though I hope it won't end that way and that he will somehow get those votes in the end. Maybe if she becomes vice presidential candidate?

[phil]

The central thesis of this piece is wrong. Democrats would not continue voting for Hillary in large numbers if she dropped out- certainly not in large enough numbers to let her win. Look at Indiana, where she was supposed to be strong... she won by barely 2%, and she was still in the race.

This piece and the conclusions it draws are wrong.

[IG]

Interesting point. But Hillary was again making remarks about how low income white voters won't vote for Obama and Bill Clinton going around telling people who knows what. I think that leaves more permanent damage to Obama in the general election than embarrassment from losing to an absent candidate now.

[Robert]

As you all must know - Hillary supporters, I being one of them, will NEVER EVER vote for Obama or back him. Wait and see how the liberal messiah is crusified if and when he gets the nomination. Republicans are going to eat him alive and it will be televised.

[Alex]

Sweets, I am encouraged by your suggestion that John McCain should employ Al Gore as his vice-presidential nominee. Can you imagine how desperate and hopeless republicans must be to 1) seriously consider that and 2) think that Al Gore would ever do such a thing.

Hillary Clinton can stay in the race as long as she wants as long as she is no longer ripping apart Obama, her only chance of getting back to the White House.

With the recent congressional wins for democrats in historically very conservative districts across our land, I think we all feel what is coming, CHANGE.

[How Hillary Will Beat Obama and WIN]

News Flash- Clinton drops the DNC, runs for President as an Independent, beats Obama and McCain in the general election. Obama cannot win without her supporters. McCain loses because his stance on war. The United States Economy is saved. GO HILLARY.

[Kelley Ritchey]

This argument makes some sense. We at Political Roads expect the recent primaries to severely restrict the inflow of cash to fund the campaign. But otherwise there is nothing inherently wrong with Clinton staying in the race- particularly if the attacks on Obama are muted.

The gain for the Democrats under such a scenario is more Democratic voters in the Fall without the decisiveness that has surfaced at times.

[Cynic]

Well then, Robert... you and your ilk my well be responsible for four more years of Bush policies and a Supreme Court filled with Neanderthals. Hillary will not win the nomination; her chances are virtually nil. But she will be part of the administration. So vote for a different direction, and hope for a change, or vote for GWB3 and more of the same.

[Technocrat]

"As you all must know - Hillary supporters, I being one of them, will NEVER EVER vote for Obama or back him. Wait and see how the liberal messiah is crusified if and when he gets the nomination. Republicans are going to eat him alive and it will be televised.

Posted by: Robert | May 09, 2008 at 05:03 AM "

So you'd rather have four more years of Republican rule, 100 more years in Iraq, "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran" and a faltering economy still far too dependent on oil to dig its way out of a recession coupled with a president who is in the pocket of oil interests than Obama who shares about 90% of the same views as Clinton?

I ask this with all seriousness: Are you peeved because Clinton got out-manned, out-funded, out-organized, and many times out-classed? I don't understand why hardline Clinton Democrats hate Obama unless it is a case of sour grapes.

[Roger Bruce Feinman, J.D.]

I've been expressing similar sentiments both online and off since Wednesday. Clinton's last best hope is to suspend her campaign, keep her pledged delegates in line, and leave the field entirely to Obama for the next three to three-and-one-half months.

First, she's already made her argument that generational and ethnic divides make Obama's electability in the general questionable, and there's little reason to throw good money after bad to hammer away repeatedly at that same point.

Second, leaving the field to Obama will subject him to the kind of media scrutiny he hasn't had to face during her presence as a foil.

Finally, the public and the superdelegates will be better able to gauge Obama's strength (or weakness), and how he stacks up in their minds against McCain, with Clinton effectively out of the race.

[Jaap den Haan]

Edmund Hillary was the first to reach the top of the Mount Everest. A Tibetan woman has carried the Olympic torch to the top of the world, while at the same time Hillary Clinton who was named after the above admittedly seems to have lost the Democratic presidential nomination in the U.S.

[Jack Straw]

It really doesn't matter when HRC drops out. Obama will never be elected in November. I, like many of the HRC supporters, will never vote for Obama. How can he win w/o FL, MI, OH & PA. Good luck Barry - you'll need it.

[Joyce]

Let me ask you one question;
If the shoe were on the other foot and Obama had Hillary’s numbers – would anyone tell him to drop out? Would all hell break lose if we didn’t count the Michigan and Florida voters for him? Is this Political fear of the black backlash? Are we going to elect a President based on fear or competency?
And speaking of AUDACITY - I can't believe that he plans to CLAIM THE NOMINATION on MAy 20th, this is just shows again how arrogant he is. He can certainly give a good speech but it ends there and ends for the Democrats if he is the nominee
He won't get my vote!

[Judy Brown]

Arrogance is an amazing thing. This Democratic Primary Campaign has produced behavior in adults usually seen in children. To see this behavior, all one must do is wear a Hillary pin, cap, shirt or display a bumper sticker on your car.
The first time I was flipped off I was surprised, same thing the first time another driver cut me off or wouldn't let me merge. I've actually had drivers endanger many of us, to cut in front of me. Then there was the guy @ Costco that screamed LOSER at the sight of my Hillary T-shirt. There are many more incidents. That however, is not the point--the point is all these happenings draw more attention to the supporters of this candidate that has listened to his pastor damn America, associate with William Ayers, and marry a woman who only recently became proud of OUR country. This is a contest for the presidency of the United States, and anyone that believes the patriotic hardworking Americans will elect this man to be our next President are not paying attention.

[Karen chadwick]

Yes we would continue to vote for her, because she is the only person that is running that we trust. So Obama has a lot to fear. Even if obama wins, i will vote for Hillary. Any man that goes to a church for 20 year, based on hatred of our country, is not going to come on with a big smile, and say he didnt know anything. That is bull, and a lot to fear, and i am not living as an american under his reign. NO thank you.

[Mediator]

I think that the polls show that more Hillary supporters would not vote for Obama than the reverse speaks to the level of reason and awareness of the Obama supporter to realize that the direction of the country with a Democrat in the White House is more important than personal differences of the candidates. It is an amazing paradox that those in ignorance about this fact do not see that their stoic backing of HIllary to the point of not voting for the Democrat, are the same people who will be amazed when nothing is solved in Congress, or in the country, simply because leaders won't be flexible.

This has been one of my main attractive qualities of Obama. He is able to relate to a great many people, though he may have differing opinions then they do. He truly seems to strive to understand their motivations, in an effort to find common ground. I think it's a lesson that all of us could learn, and grow from as an example.

One other thing. I feel Obama is a true leader, even without the backing of the win just yet. I have yet to see Hillary have a definitive speech debated across the land, that may live far beyond this election cycle, about any of her supposed drawbacks (Bosnia, Shooting as a child, etc). But Obama commanded the national stage that day when he first addressed Rev. Wright and the racial divide in this country. That is true leadership, regardless of delegate counts, and IMO deserves the office, and the chance to inspire all of us to get along and better ourselves, the nation, and the free world.

[Gloria Cordova, Ph.D.]

It continues to amaze me that journalists and others seem to take to themselves the right to predict what is and what is not the inevitable! The people who are waiting to vote and to have their voices heard determine what is! Let them be heard and let them vote! That is their right!

[mkreyns]

Conversely Obama will have a disatrous end to his campaign due to his scandals. This will all backfire on him.

[charleschaplin]

The talking-heads were as giddy like apes! Oh, my goodness─ this “madness” or the “frenzy” that seized the media people after Sen. Obama’s win in North Carolina reminds me of the same madness and the flag-waving frenzy that seized us as we marched into Baghdad. It’s sobering to remember these are the same media people who cheered us into the quagmire in Iraq, now doing the same song and dance thing for Sen. Obama. Some of it Sen. Obama deserves but most of it done with such vulgarity and such gaudiness, if I were Sen. Obama I would cringe, for their poor taste for one, and secondly, believe me you don’t want some of these people to be on your side. But on the whole, I am afraid for sake of our country, when I think what’s ahead for us! What I fear is when people are acting so irrational and when their reasoning and logic is so lopsided, usually there’s a big let down or a tragedy around the corner! The American media has become a fertile ground for most irrational observers. They do a spectacularly poor job of interpreting the meaning and significance of events. They are not skillful independent observers who are trying to inform and educate the public, so that we in the public make informed choices. But these people are doing their political hatchet work, masquerading as reporters, observers, and commentators. I don’t know where the news organizations find these people. You don’t know what their qualifications are for what they are entrusted to do where they were educated and what they studied. The way they spin things! Some of them even lack the basic skills observing event and making a right kind of inference, like a doctor making a diagnosis! While they themselves spin out of control, they forget there are several sides to an issue or an event. Soberness and good judgment has gone out of fashion and replaced by fantasy and image consciousness. What a prescription for a tragedy of Shakespearean proportions! The irrationality of our media is a terrible misfortune for our whole country. If Sen. Obama wants to clean up “Washington politics” first of all Sen. Obama should try to convince the big media establishment to do some house cleaning. Since the media is supporting him, I don’t think Sen. Obama thinks there’s anything wrong with the media. That why Rev. Wright called Sen. Obama “a politician.” Sen. Obama knows that he has some ways to go to secure his nomination by getting the necessary number of delegates, which he has not been able to accomplish so far. He needs super delegates as much as Sen. Clinton does. And long before the contest was even half-way over one talking-head after another in the media started demanding Sen. Clinton to drop out! Sen. Obama’s win in North Carolina gave him a chance to look good in the aftermath of a long losing streak of most important states like Ohio, Texas, Pennsylvania. It was obvious that N. Carolina vote was primarily along the racial lines. 92% of Black Americans voting for Sen. Obama but 40% white voters. But I am astonished by the rather vulgar exaggerations and hype of the media to make it look like the nomination race was over, when Sen. Obama has not even reached the needed number of delegates! They go to extremes to illustrate their points! For example Lee Cowen of NBC upgraded “North Carolina” to the category of a major battle-ground state! But obviously Sen. Obama again lost the Reagan Democrats, elderly voters, working Americans, women and so on. And without them he can’t obviously win the White House, even if he’s the nominee. That’s how desperate these media people are to promote and prop up Sen. Barack Obama, and spin even a rather many sided event into “a big deal” for Sen. Obama. And at the same time even big deal for Sen. Clinton get slighted and dismissed. All Democrats should support Sen. Clinton just to demonstrate the fact we don’t tolerate such unfairness in a democracy such as ours! Remember these are the same people who took us over the cliff in Iraq. I like to invite the readers to go to Real Clear Politics. com and do their own research and find out what’s really going on. On one on one, if you take major battle ground states, such as Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan Sen. Clinton is doing much better against John McCain than Sen. Obama. Sen. Obama may have some delegate lead, but he’s not doing as well as the media wants you to believe. And of course DNC is full of spectacular losers like John Kerry, Jimmy Carter, Ted Kennedy, Bill Richardson, and Joe Andrew and many, many others who helped the Republicans to stay in power and devastate our country in their own special and creative ways. They just might do it again! They just might do it again, and help facilitate George Bush's 3rd term by nominating Sen. Obama. In the last analysis, I think, that's why the media is supporting and overwhelmingly cheering for Sen. Obama and trying rid of Sen. Clinton as soon as possible; they know that Sen. Clinton is the real threat to the Republicans. They know Sen. Obama can’t win the big race.

[Ron]

Hey Robert.... The good thing about the internet is there is such a thing as spell check.... you might want to start using it. I would like to think that you are a Democrat, but I don't think so. If you belonged to our Party you would know that the most important decision that the next President will make is appointing Supreme Court judges. If you still want to vote for McCain, you have no understanding of the political system.... so you must be a Republican pretending to be a Democrat, as long as no one can see you.