Okay, Hillary, Enough

I'll admit it, I am among the moderate Democrats who have supported Hillary since Day One of the very long primary season, the one that's lasted since 2005. I voted for her in the California primary, I was pleased when she made her comeback in New Hampshire (my relief came as a surprise to me), and I still think she is the smartest candidate for President in a long time, at least since Carter.

But you may see where I'm going with this. Carter was not a very successful president despite his IQ. And while pro-Hillary pundits can more easily liken Obama to Carter insofar as their presumed Washington "inexperience," the arguments Hillary is spouting now to try to overcome her imposing deficit are becoming increasingly strident and lame. I just absolutely hate her campaign, whoever is trying to direct it, Grunwald or Penn. All the misquotes, the subtle and not-so-subtle digs at her rival, do little to reinforce my admiration for her. A campaign that began with presumptive victory is now stumbling into historical irrelevancy.

Sure Hillary owes a lot to her supporters and to her gender, but cognitive dissonance is carrying her momentum now rather than realism. The pundits now suggest that only a kneecapping, Tonya Harding style, can wrest the nomination from Obama. But should that happen, the injury would be grievous not just to Barack but to Hillary herself, and to the Democratic Party.

It seems that in every election we've come to expect the Dems to produce some disastrous misstep to hand over the election to whatever clueless dolt the Republicans put forward. From Dukakis's strapped helmet to Gore's sigh to Kerry's smug arrogance, it's been a tragedy of errors. Male Clinton only won because of Perot's third-party surge (and the elder Bush's glance at his watch during one debate). This year the clumsy McCain is giving the Dems a lot of leeway, coming up with clunkers every day, though the press has been unbelievably forgiving to him. I cringe to anticipate what kind of damage Hillary might do before the election sides are actually set.

There comes a point when clearheadedness must prevail. Hillary is smart and realistic and must know what her odds are. She can only steal this thing now, through devious means that would almost certainly alienate enough voters, Dems and Reps and independents, to keep us in Iraq for 100 years. There comes a time when surrender and retreat helps all hands. If she were to step down before a damaging convention, the act would be considered heroic. She would still have a major role to play in the party's future, and should Obama lose in November, would be a shoo-in for the next round in 2012.

When Gore held on stubbornly--and rightfully--in 2000, even he knew when the jig was up, and managed to concede with as much graciousness as possible. Good will that emerged from that helped promote his image to the point that millions would likely have swept him into office this year. Hillary should take note of that, and bow to the trend of history that Barack represents. It's not that she hasn't been in the White House for two terms anyway.