Clinton -- The New Kucinich... or the New Nader?

Senator Clinton and her supporters are sounding more like my man Dennis Kucinich -- not on real universal health care, alas, but on why she should stay in the race until the very end. You don't tell the runner in second to give up, said one supporter on SDPB's Dakota Midday yesterday. You don't quit just because it looks like someone else is going to win. You keep running, keep fighting, keep adding to the conversation and giving voters a choice.

I would be curious to rewind the tape and find out how many of Senator Clinton's supporters offered the same defense of Dennis Kucinich in 2004, who was still campaigning against Senator Kerry at this point in 2004 and didn't endorse the presumptive nominee until July. Kucinich could at least claim to offer some clear and discussion-worthy differences from Kerry that were worthy of voters' consideration: the differences Clinton enunciates as her justification for remaining in the race are mostly personal -- electability, experience, being a fighter, etc.

Perhaps an even more potent comparison would be found in considering what Clinton has said about Ralph Nader's Presidential aspirations:

“His being on the Green Party prevented Al Gore from being the greenest president we could have had, and I think that’s really unfortunate. I think we paid a big price for it. I’m pretty sad about that,” Clinton told reporters on the campaign plane as she was en route to several appearances in Rhode Island and Boston.

Clinton was unaware, until questioned about by reporters, that Nader had announced Sunday morning on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that he had decided to enter the 2008 race, and she was clearly surprised at the news.

“Well that’s really unfortunate. I remember when he did this before. It did not turn out very well for anybody, most especially our country,” she said. “This time I hope it doesn’t hurt anybody. I hope it’s kind of a passing fancy that people don’t take too seriously” [Beth Frerking, "Clinton Slams Nader over Presidential Bid," Politico.com, 2008.02.24].

Indeed, how dare someone with little chance of winning divide the voters and cost the frontrunner the election....

Speaking of frontrunners, remember the good old days when Clinton was that frontrunner? Take a look at today's historical chart of the Real Clear Politics Poll Average for the Democratic Presidential nomination: Clinton peaked at 48.5% in October 2007, around the time Senator McGovern endorsed her. Obama was actually down from some initial buzzy ratings, around 21%. Seven months and millions of dollars later, Clinton hasn't managed to build any support. Her numbers have stayed stuck in the same 40%-45% range all this time. Obama, meanwhile, has produced a return on his investment, evidently drawing a lot of the undecideds and folks like me whose preferred candidates dropped out.

As a Kucinich man and as a June 3 South Dakota primary voter, I can't tell the second-place candidate to drop out. But understand: Obama is going to win in South Dakota and Montana in June, in Denver in August, and nationwide in November. If Clinton has something to add to the conversation about different visions of policy and mission for America, by all means, bring it on. I will respect that effort... but I will expect Clinton and her supporters to accord the same respect to the Kuciniches and Naders who will offer voters differing visions and choices in future elections.

p.s.: Kucinich remains an uncommitted superdelegate... have you called Dennis lately, Hillary?

----
Update 2008.05.25: Another hint of the Clinton-Nader parallel appaers on Dr. Blanchard's corner of SD Politics.