A Startling Collapse for Clinton, And An Inability to Let Go

Despite a resounding defeat in North Carolina and a slim win in Indiana on Tuesday, Hillary Clinton has promised to remain in the race through the end of the primaries in June. Unless, for some unforeseen reason, Barack Obama’s campaign implodes, there is no real way that she could win a majority of Democratic delegates in that time.

Reactions have been unsympathetic. The New York Post called her “toast” in three-inch-high letters on Wednesday. University of Chicago political scientist John Mark Hansen, one of my favorite political commentators (and a professor for whom I worked as a research assistant while in college) is typically restrained in making broad pronouncements, but even he calls Clinton’s candidacy “over.” With five more superdelegates declaring their support for Obama, the wonderment at Clinton’s motives continues.

So why has Clinton stayed in? There are possible procedural reasons; the Clinton campaign may be negotiating with the Obama campaign for a way to end Clinton’s candidacy with some face-saving measure. For instance, the Obama campaign could pay off the Clinton campaign’s debt. Since much of this debt is owed to Clinton herself, that would practically amount to buyout of Clinton.

The Clinton campaign also continues to hope for an advantageous resolution of the disputed Michigan and Florida primaries. Any resolution would have to be approved by both candidates, though, and Hansen suspects that the candidates will negotiate a solution under which those results are counted, but not in a way that affects the larger outcome of the nominating process.

There is a more emotional aspect, too, in what looks like an inability on Clinton's part to accept her loss. Hansen points out that by other rules (particularly the Republican winner-take-all rules), Clinton would have won. She also would have had a better chance at winning if the Michigan and Florida Democratic organizations had contained themselves and had not moved their primaries in defiance of the Democratic National Committee, since wins in those states would have given her campaign some high-profile victories to counter early Obama successes.

This year’s Democratic race has largely been about plausibility—Obama, after all, became a viable candidate when voters in South Carolina took his victory in Iowa to be a sign that he could win the nomination. From January of 2007, when she said “I’m in to win,” until about three months ago, Clinton was clearly the most plausible Democratic candidate in the contest for the nomination, and presenting herself as the inevitable nominee was a significant part of her early strategy. Although it’s been ongoing for months, the collapse of her candidacy is abrupt in the context of her long claim of inevitability and the near-universal expectation a year ago that she would be the Democratic nominee.

It could be that a still-startled Hillary Clinton just can’t bring herself to let go.

--Jon Bruner

Original here