If Senator Clinton was presenting her case, being ‘extremely businesslike’ and ‘pressing her point even when it seemed as though things were not going her way’ by presenting her ideas on how to improve the economy, America’s image and prestige with the rest of the world, or the political system, then there would be far fewer calls for here to end the campaign. While she IS doing those things, she is also engaging in a whole host of other activities designed at tearing her opponent down — activities that are completely counter to the reasonable viewpoint you expressed. In short, she is participating in ‘politics as usual.’

What she fails to understand is that most of America does not LIKE politics as usual. Many people have surrendered to it as a necessary evil. And they support Clinton as the candidate most experienced in the dirty side of Washington and who is most likely to survive a battle with the Republican forces of darkness. In any other election, it would be a compelling argument.

In this election, we are hearing a voice telling us that government does NOT have to be about fighting and scandal and survival in a fight to the death. Perhaps it is desperation on our part, but we want to believe. Senator Clinton’s politics as usual are not welcome to the part (the majority) of America that wants to believe in the better nature of our fellow beings. As Mr Copeland states, “I’m beginning to lose hope in our political system. And I’m very sorry to say, it’s of my most humble opinion, that your campaign is dragging the country down.”

THe voices asking Senator Clinton to step aside are exactly asking her “to forfeit so the other team can conserve its strength to play someone else.” Because it is not supposed to BE the other team she concedes to … she is supposed to be on the SAME team. Should a coach of a Varsity and Junior Varsity team see that there was so much intensity in a SCRIMMAGE game that his star players could become injured before the real game began, by all means, he or she should stop the scrimmage. And that’s what Senator Clinton is failing to comprehend. This is not the game. It is the scrimmage. It is practice. It is tryouts. You do NOT want to bang up your own teammates before the real game begins.

If she were behaving like Governor Huckabee, calmly conceding that the cause was hopeless, but that it was necessary to give the party a choice, she would be tolerated in the same way Governor Huckabee was tolerated. The attitude would be ‘It’s her money and she can throw it away if she wants to.’ But that is not her approach. She is playing to win, no matter how hopeless and what the cost to the rest of her team. In your baseball analogy, it is certainly not against the rules. Yes, she is allowed to pursue means and the politics of her choice, no matter how distasteful. But if the little league rules allowed the opposing team to carry bats on the field and swing for the other players’ knees, we would be foolish to continue to support the game.

At the end of the day, it’s really difficult to tell in such a complicated case as Hillary Clinton–daily complicated by her connection to Bill.

Surely, there must be a better way for the primary process in general.

I doubt in November, if Obama loses, folks will be saying “It was all Hillary’s fault.” But a nasty fight till August would not be good for anyone.

Thanks for your great comments.

It seems to me the fundamental quarrel here is with the process as much as it is with the person.

It does not help, though, that Senator Clinton invites such fervent criticism.
When I read some reactions to her, I am reminded of a tape I used to show my legal writing students every spring. Two advocates, one male and folksy, one female and extremely businesslike, were making arguments in the Florida Supreme Court. Without exception, every year I showed the tape, some student would say that the woman was a b*tch. (Sometimes they would use the Barbara Bush-ism “I can’t say it, but it rhymes with rich” — which Barbara said in another long-ago presidential campaign involving a female vice presidential candidate. But I digress.) When pressed to say why, most of them would basically say it was because she demonstrated qualities that they would want in an advocate, if they needed one — that she was extremely firm, that she took herself and her case seriously, and that she kept pressing her point even when it seemed as though things were not going her way. In other words, if she had just had a…Y chromosome…she would have been perfect. Instead, she was something that rhymed with rich.

Say what you want about Hillary; a lot of people support her. Among other things, some of us still think that her proposals for dealing with domestic and international issues tend to be more detailed and better thought out than Senator Obama’s. (Of course, it can be hard to find information about their substantive positions — it’s much more fun for the media to hold endless panel discussions on whether Chelsea Clinton should have answered a question about Monica Lewinsky, or to replay a tape of Senator Obama’s pastor over and over.) We may wish she came with a little less baggage, but we still believe she is the better qualified candidate.

Are elections in the U.S. too expensive? Yes, hideously. Does the primary season go on too long? Yes, it does. But as long as the process allows candidates to continue campaigning for the nomination, why should any candidate who still has money and support be expected to stop? And why should the Democratic party voters in the states that have not yet voted be deprived of a voice in the outcome, when the race is so close?

I would love it if a few of the voices clamoring for Senator Clinton’s concession speech would go to work after this election for a less expensive and less protracted primary season for BOTH parties. Senator Bill Nelson says he is going to introduce legislation to reform the primary system. I am not holding my breath for things to change.

Senator Clinton has a much better chance of being the nominee than I did of prevailing the last time I filed a brief on behalf of one of my indigent clients. Yet I continue to do what I do because I believe it is right, it is necessary, and in some case, someday, I might just make a difference for the better. (I hold few illusions about whether I do that from day to day.) The reality of our criminal justice system is that most of my appeals will lose. But I try anyway. It might save the state of Florida a lot of money if I didn’t, but there are larger reasons to keep trying.

Aidan’s Little League team was down by ten points for most of their game Saturday, but they still played until time was called. One of the other team’s players was hit by an errant pitch. Maybe he’ll be sore in their next game and won’t play as well. But there is no rule that the team that’s behind has to forfeit so the other team can conserve its strength to play someone else.

These are imperfect analogies; I haven’t been able to think of a better one yet. Let me know if something brilliant occurs to you. ; )

One more thing. I really believe that a lot of the talk about this primary “pulling the party apart” or being “bad for the country” is either melodramatic or, in the case of some media outlets, wishful thinking. After all, what would be better for ratings, conventions like those in the last cycle (which fewer people than ever watched) or conventions where blood might be drawn? The reality, and this is just my opinion, is that there are a small number of supporters of either Democratic candidate who will not vote for the other, but the vast majority can see clearly enough to tell that John McCain would be the wrong choice. They will vote for the Democratic nominee, and seeing that person win will be all the “healing” they need. Especially if, as I hope will be the case, whoever loses the primary will be out there stumping for the winner. Let’s not get so engrossed in the melodrama that we forget that what’s tearing the country apart is the current leadership, or as Garrison Keillor would say, the Current Occupant. What’s bad for the country is the Current Occupant’s attacks on civil liberties, on access to government, and on transparency and accountability to the people. And that’s just for starters.

IMHO the Democrats are destined to lose unless Clinton stops now – if she wins they surely have no chance in the real election – if she looses then she will have done interminable damage to the party in the meantime.

In the UK context it would like having a compulsory party leadership contest before every general election.

Thanks for this