Letters to the Editor
-
Clinton has what Gore and Kerry lacked in challenging the Republicans
Another Salon article, "Why Hillary Clinton should be winning" makes a compelling case that Clinton would be winning if the Democratic nominating process were set up like that of the general election. It further points out that Clinton is strong in large state primaries, which are important for winning the general election against McCain. Thus, there is logical, practical, and rational reasons for Clinton to persist in her campaign.
This demonstrates that Clinton has the tenacity and strength (call it stubbornness if you want) that Gore and Kerry lacked in '00 and '04. Had Gore pushed for a complete Florida recount in '00 instead of graciously conceding to Bush in '00, Gore could have won that election. Similarly, if Kerry had stood up to the Swift Boat campaign with a simple message of "I served in Vietnam", highlighting Bush's lack of service, he could have won in '04. Kerry should have pursued recounts as well, but didn't. In both cases, the Democratic candidate graciously conceded "for the good of the nation", exactly what Republican strategists were counting on.
The fact that Clinton is willing to go against popular (and media-fueled) opinion to fight for the best possibility of a Democratic win in November tells me she has the tenacity required to take on the Republicans. The question is, does Obama have the presence of mind to recognize Clinton's advantage in a general election? If so, does Obama have the humility (which Clinton is faulted for lacking) to concede to Clinton to ensure a Democratic victory in November?