Clinton will throw anything at her opponents for power.

/I always get a chuckle when she brings up San Francisco values.

This is really a lame argument.

Look, in case you haven't been paying attention, in point of fact Edwards' appeal was never to the white working class voters -- exit poll after exit poll showed no skew in that direction. Maybe he wanted to appeal to that group, but that is not how it played out.

Which renders your already absurdly strained counterfactual utterly pointless.

If the Queen had balls, she'd be the King. But is that a helpful insight?

I don't know about that.  I think part of Clinton's seems free to engage in extreme tactics against Obama is in part because he's truly an insurgent candidate, while Edwards has more establishment creds as a former VP candidate.  

Actually, if it were John Edwards, the whole "scorched earth" line would not be used, as it is totally created and fed by the media along with some help from Obama's team.  This whole line that Clinton has run such a divisive, dirty campaign is a load of crap, and any one who uses their critical thinking skills knows this...!

party would not be worried about losing the general election and charges of racism wouldn't be dividing the party to be easily conquered by the republicans.

Stop playing the race card.

HIllary is the stronger candidate. She has 35 years of experience.

It's a race to 2208 and superdelegates count.  If they want to overturn the pledged delegates, they can do so.

I'm off the clock.  ;)

Let me state my premise up front.  I believe that, if it was Edwards, not Obama, leading Clinton in a similar if not identical way, Clinton would have campaigned much differently, and probably would be out of the race by now.  She probably would have suspended her campaign after the May 6 elections.  She would still have angled for the VP slot, but she would have done it in a more respectful fashion, rather than the arm-twisting method she has tried with Obama.  

What if it were Hillary vs. the Iron Giant?
What if it were Hillary vs. Bert/Ernie?
What if it were Hillary vs. Pat Paulsen?
What if it were Hillary vs. Brett Favre?

What if...what if...

Although I like some of Edward's ideas, I realize that he would never be able to cut it politically. IMO, his opponent would clean his clock easily. I have more respect for Clinton now than ever before; she's proven that she DOES have tenacity. Edwards would have never held up to such srutiny. I don't think he has the backbone.

In your scenario without Obama in the race Hillary Clinton would be getting 80-90% of the black vote, Latinos, and while white blue collar men would go to Edwards, Hillary would be getting the women's vote as well. Edwards would never have made this a close race, Hillary really was "inevitable" without Obama

I wouldn't call it hopelessly behind when there are more votes left than the difference between them. Why should she quit? Who knows what's going to happen between now and August (I'm not talking about the assassination crap).

Sexism is not the only reason, but it's definitely there. However, even without the sexism, one cannot deny the blatant bias in media coverage between the two candidates.

Clarification: in my "what if" scenario, I'm assuming that Edwards is leading the pledged delegate count, using a similar but somewhat different primary road map than Obama.  I'm not trying to see if Edwards would have beaten Clinton.  I don't think he would have.  

My "what if" scenario is only to see if Hillary would be engaging in the same "throw the kitchen sink" campaigning if she was losing to someone like Edwards, and not a truly insurgent candidate like Obama.  

No she wouldn't be launching the same fight b/c Edwards would have a much better chance of winning the G/E then Obama. Period.

It's not a realistic scenario, but the counterfactual raises some good questions.  First, can we agree that Clinton's dogged endgame is something other polticians have done before?  Kennedy in '80 and Hart in '84 sustained last-ditch efforts which were fueled by the same sort of self-righteous anger (and each, in their own way, helped to make the two Reagan landslides possible).

What's odd about this race is how many supporters of each candidate seem to be settling on this idea that the other candidate is simply unacceptable.  And while I can't prove it, I think your hunch is right that identity politics is playing a big role in this.  You have to expand your set of alternate scenarios to get a better sense of what might be going on.

If Clinton were beating Edwards by 100 delegates at this point, and Edwards held on to the convention, would the Clinton campaign be doing everything they could to push him out of the race, make the argument that he was a potential spoiler, and superdelegates had no business even considering whether to overturn the result?  Who doubts this?  Edwards, in this scenario, would certainly have things he could draw on to make the case that Clinton was simply unelectable--and the Clinton's supporters would respond by arguing that this forlorn hope campaign had the potential to spoil the chances for the first serious woman candidate to win.

This whole idea that the front runners don't try to push the also-rans from the race--that there is something unseemly about this--of course, is nonsense (and Edwards, in this race, would be the also-ran without mitigating factors).

Okay, so what if Edwards were ahead and Clinton wouldn't quit?  We might have a situation similar to the one we have now.  A precedent which hasn't been brought up much is Jesse Jackson's two runs in '84 and '88 (Clinton mentioned this around the time of the SC race, and, I think, got lambasted unfairly for it, though I'm still not certain his motives for doing so were entirely pure).  Anyway.  Jackson, can we agree, never stood a chance to  win.  And yet he campaigned all the way to the convention.  Other Democrats both diminished the importance of his campaign (in many circles it was regarded as something of a joke), but no one really applied pressure on him to leave.  And Jackson, we should remember, had no difficulty backing the eventual nominee both times.

Jackson's campaign was one of racial affirmation and a bid for respect--there's no reason why, in a fair society, an African American should not be able to run for president, and I'm going to prove not only that someone can do this, but I'm also going to demand, and get, the respect which society confers on those whom make this bid.  Al Sharpton and Carol Mosley Braun, we should remember, did something similar in later years, though they didn't make quite the same splash.  Sharpton was another person, though, who campaigned to the end.

Hillary Clinton's campaign, can we agree, is a bit like this.  It's a curious situation, because unlike Jackson 1) Clinton had a real chance to win; 2) she's a leader of one of the mainstream wings of the party (and whether people like this or not, she will be held accountable for how her actions affect the broad fortunes of the party in November, and should be); and 3) there was never any doubt that Jackson's supporters would back the Democratic ticket in the fall.

Would Edwards try to get Clinton out of the race in early June?  I don't think so.  The big difference here, I think, is that Clinton's supporters, I suspect, would have been much more likely to back Edwards as the eventual nominee (ie. not seem him as some sort of usurper or candidate who had played unfairly).  And while I can't prove it, I do think there is a racial subtext to this (Edwards would be the mainstream white guy from the South--nothing new here).

So let's move on.  In an Edwards/Obama race where the first was leading the second, would Edwards try to force him out, and would Obama take it to the convention?  Yes, and, I suspect, no.  First, I don't think this race would have gotten nearly so mean.  Second, Obama is a young guy, and very much, I think, would want to maintain his political viability in future years.  Third, issues of identity politics wouldn't be quite so much in play (in part because Jackson has done the dignity campaign before).  Fourth, I think Obama, frankly, would see the writing on the wall--there's simply no chance that superdelegates would swing the election to him if he were the also-ran in the pledged delegate count (and I read a racial subtext in this as well).

If Clinton had a lock on the pledged delegate count right now, btw, I think this race would be over, and for the same reason.  I mean, c'mon--who are we kidding?

What about an Obama/Edwards race where Obama was ahead?  It's possible Edwards would try to pull a Gary Hart.  I have no doubt people would be dumping on him, though, they way they did on Kennedy and Hart during this previous races (and are on Clinton right now).  Didn't stop them.  My hunch, btw, is that the fuel of identity politics will be enough to sustain Clinton's march to the convention, and this will also prevent people within the party making the case that she should withdraw in mid-June (even though, with hindsight, it's totally clear the party should have spiked the floor challenge by Kennedy, and they essentially did this with Hart just before the convention).

Three more comments.  Kennedy and Hart did enormous damage to their presidential aspirations by pursuing their respective endgames in the way they did (while neither, technically, were blocked from getting close to the nomination again, it's just a fact that many Dems were very happy when circumstance conspired to make this impossible).

Second, if a huge floor fight breaks out and the Dems lose as a result, the likely beneficiery of this will be whomever can convince those on both sides of this rift that they had nothing to do with it (those who think Clinton or Obama could come back after a Dem defeat are kidding themselves).

Lastly, who doubts the day will one day arrive when two women fight it out for the nomination in a race this close?  Ai yi yi.  But really, the dynamics would probably be similar to what happened in Carter/Kennedy and Mondale/Hart.  This is just poltics.  Politicians have big egos.

I'm hoping the Dems dump this system which has superdelegates, though, and binds pledged delegates to their candidates, because it's the combination of identity politics and a candidate's hope that there might exist a court of last resort which has thrown fuel on this fire (and because the Dems are likely to have more races like this, they need to set firm standards by which a candidate to claim a clear and definitive victory, with no chance of appeal).  W/o that think it's quite possible the party will lose many elections over this sort of thing.

I'm assuming you're NOT trying to suggest that her staying in has anything to do with race (there have been a number of "what if they were white guys" diaries, so it's tough to get my mind off that suggestion).

Given that, I think her behavior would be largely the same.  If anything, since Edwards IS a white guy, there'd be less identity based animosity, and I think the reasoning for her to get out (that she's hurting the likely nominee) would be less because of it.  

On the other hand, if her staying in is TRULY because she believes Obama can't win the GE, then that might have disappeared against Edwards, thus making it more likely that she'd get out.  It really all depends on her motivation for staying in NOW, and how that might change in "what if" world.

she hasn't used scorched earth, one could argue that when Axelrod sent the KO rant to everyone in the press that was scorched earth, but it didn't scorch any earth, it turned on him and harmed Barack.  She's run a great campaign, I've been proud to support such a fearless and dedicated candidate who takes the high road, who does not smear and mock.  

Edwards had no chance against her, he wasn't willing to stoop that low as to attack her character, at least not in the way that Barack's campaign has done.  Barack has inspired real hate. I even get hate messages, and right here, so inspiring has he been.  A real unifier is Barack.  That's why he'll never invite her on his ticket if he's the nom, even though 70 percent of dem's want that, and even though he's running as a bottom up leader, one who takes direction from his base.  Pretty sad, no?  He's rather lost to McCain than unite the party in the way most of us want to be united.  

Edwards would have destroyed her had Obama not stolen his thunder. Edwards always wanted the race to be between him and Hillary. If Edwards was set to be our nominee now we'd be looking at a landside victory in the general. We'd have the strongest and most progressive candidate of the bunch. A huge opportunity has been squandered this year. We could have elected a new FDR in a landslide and instead we're gambling big time.

If it was as close as it is why would the situation be any different? Edwards wouldn't be having the same kind of demographic issues Obama is, however, and he wouldn't have made the kind of polarizing, insulting and divisive comments that Obama has made.

didn't  really hold back against Edwards when he was in the race. Apart from differences in demographic politicking, I expect she would run exactly the same type of race as she has- because it's all about reinforcing a specific image she constructed before it became a two-way race.

Why the hell she decided to play the "experience" candidate in a "change" election in the first place is anyone's guess.

Short answer: yes.  She desperately craves power, and will say or do anything go grasp it.

If anyone actually remembers pre-Iowa, Edwards had a very realistic and likely chance to win it - Obama actually looked as if he was going to go into third place. Let's assume Edwards wins Iowa, Obama second, Clinton third. That would likely wipe out any momentum Obama would get, and most of the support he gained post-Iowa in New Hampshire would have gone to Edwards. In New Hampshire, it would have likely been 1) Clinton 2) Edwards 3) Obama, with the unions lining up behind Edwards for Nevada, finishing 1) Clinton 2) Edwards 3) Obama. Here, since the race dynamic wouldn't have existed as much, Edwards would have picked up 15-20% of blacks in South Carolina, Clinton around 35%, and Obama the remaining - Edwards wins his birthstate narrowly. Hillary wins Florida convincingly.

In Super Tuesday, there's 2 scenarios - Obama stays in and Obama drops out. If Obama stays in (which I think is more likely), he would have siphoned enough of the black vote to ally Edwards wins in Georgia, Alabama and Tennessee; Edwards would carry Oklahoma, Missouri, North Dakota, Colorado, Minnesota, Idaho, Utah, Alaska, Kansas and maybe Connecticut and Delaware - Hillary taking the rest (and maybe some smaller caucuses like Idaho/Utah), with Obama winning Illinois - he drops out.

Mid-February contests are generally favorable to Edwards - yet not overwhelming like they were to Obama, Hillary wins in DC, Maryland, Hawaii, Maine, Virgin Islands (maybe) and Abroad, with Edwards winning Louisiana, Nebraska, Washington, Wisconsin and Virginia. On mini-super tuesday, Hillary wins Rhode Island and Texas, while Edwards wins Ohio, Texas caucus and Vermont (narrowly).

After this, Edwards wins Wyoming while Hillary wins Mississippi. Edwards wins Pennsylvania - albeit narrowly, then goes on to win resoundingly in North Carolina and Indiana - Hillary drops out.