To Leave, or Not to Leave.

The truth is, Hillary Clinton can never satisfy the public. If she left the race at any point in the past, she’d be brandished a quitter. Suffice to say the critics would brand it as ‘proof’ that she could never be the Democratic nominee. Stay? She’s selfish, stubborn, and ruining Barack Obama’s chances. But do they supersede her own? Bonita Silva asks.

More is at stake than just a Democratic nomination and potential to be the next President of the United States of America. It may be hard to believe and potentially on the melodramatic side; but pointedly true.

It’s inevitable to note that the campaign has been defined in part by race and gender. Supporters of both camps have been wielding the appropriate issue to their advantage claiming any criticisms are based upon an institutionalised discrimination. Hillary claims sexism is part of the pressure mounted on her to quit.

Granted, this is somewhat true. Politics is undoubtedly a big boy’s club – particularly when it concerns Presidents and/or Prime Ministers. John Edwards didn’t face calls to quit the Democratic race during his campaign despite severely low chances of winning the nomination. Critics could have easily dismissed his campaign as wasting key delegates. If Hillary were the opposing male candidate, most would agree that the same calls would not be waged with such enduring vigour.

Secondly, for the most part of Obama's and Clinton's contest, it wasn’t like John McCain and Mike Huckabee. It was a real contest: real in the sense that both candidates were equally poised at taking the nomination at several stages. Numerically, intellectually, charismatically and policy-wise, Obama and Hillary faced equal prospects and chances. On the road to the convention, either candidate had a legitimate chance at clinching the right amount of delegates (for what was a substantial and extensive period). Yet the calls to quit have plagued the latter half of her campaign.

Though mounting pressure can have its adverse effects. Undoubtedly the pressure has only hardened Hillary’s resolve and resilience. One thing is certain: she’s going nowhere.

Admittedly, she’s managed to overstay her welcome. Option one would be to quit altogether and retreat in humiliation. Option two involves a stronger conviction and belief in her reasons for being there. Either option poses problems at this stage. Although the latter has prevailed, it’s no longer in Hillary’s hands to change the outcome. Super-delegates have failed in their responsibility to make their choices known, to end the race, and subsequently end her current humiliation.

She has still managed to garner immense turnouts and gain support from key constituents and groups that Obama is failing to register with. Where she leads over such a key demographic (that of the white, middle class, middle aged voters), critics should be weary of dismantling her efforts and discrediting her style. She’s earned her right to be standing where she is.

There’s not a single doubt that ego protruded in the way of a successful campaign. With a ‘Clinton’ brand name, she acted in a manner that suggested she was entitled to and deserved the nomination because of her ‘experience’ and all would assume – her family name. An exit of any means is now rendered ungraceful: but it’s now the super-delegates responsibility to quell that humiliation and let their choices be known.

“This is one of the closest races for a party’s nomination in modern history,” she mused. It’s true, and let the rightful candidate earn each vote to clinch the nomination.


Photo: Daniella Zalcman's Flickrstream