In The New York Daily News, Hillary (or some campaign staffer) pens an op-ed explaining why she continues to run. Put aside, for a second, the comparisons to 1992, when the primary schedule put California in June and when Bill Clinton had, in any case, effectively closed the nomination in March. Put aside the comparison to 1968, when there were thirteen primaries total, where RFK entered after New Hampshire, and where the nomination would be decided by a convention process that cared little for the will of the voters. Put aside process. Clinton can, and should, finish the campaign. She has come too far at this point to drop out. The issue is the content of her continuing campaign. Were she running on her issues and blasting McCain, most would probably think that a boon -- more free media for Democrats, more focused criticism of McCain. But what Clinton is actually doing is giving wildly misleading speeches trying to poison the well in Michigan and Florida, opportunistically telling the voters of two major states that a decision she supported until it become inconvenient is a reason to believe that Obama and the Party dismiss or seek to repress their votes, and only Clinton cares for their democratic rights. As a message, it's a mixture of toxic lies and scorched earth campaigning. It doesn't help her win the nomination, but it makes the nomination worth a little bit less for the likely nominee. Put simply, it's her message, not her presence, that's attracting criticism. She shouldn't leave the race. But she should stop using her presence in it to rip apart the party and try to push major states out of Obama's column.
