The TPM blogging tools really suck, in particular the lack of editing features for correcting errors on posts. I've decided that It just isn't worth the time and effort to pull together more than a cogent few sentences when the whole endeavour can be ruined by the poor website tools.

By not upgrading their software, TPM is encouraging the sort of thing I've seen a lot here lately: tiny, content-lite posts offering little more than a few sentences and perhaps a link. TPM Cafe might as well be a chat bulletin board circa 2003.

Kudos to the intrepid TPM fans who blog anyway despite the poor tools. But this blogger is going elsewhere until the fixes come through.

If you haven't been living under a rock over the past few months, you know that Hillary Clinton has been taken a serious beating from the mainstream media and the liberal blogosphere because she has stayed in the race despite overwhelming odds.

A fairly typical heated response from an Obama supporter was Andrew Sullivan's. On June 3 he wrote:

The speech tonight was a remarkable one for a candidate who has lost the nomination, though not remarkable for a Clinton. It was an assertion that she had won the nomination and a refusal to concede anything to her opponent. Classless, graceless, shameless, relentless. Pure Clinton.

Now -- only about 24 hours after Obama was projected the winner of the Democratic primary by the AP and all the major news networks -- the Clinton campaign has made its suspension official, and it has also said it will keep its promise to endorse Obama.

It is time for Democrats to take a deep breath, calm down, and be grateful that the process is coming to a close. I think Ross Douthat of The Atlantic set exactly the right tone:

It would probably been better for the party if Hillary had conceded defeat somewhat earlier ... But I think that once a few months have gone by, at least some of outrage that Hillary Clinton has generated among liberal pundits by campaigning to the bitter end in a race that she ended up losing by just over a hundred pledged delegates and roughly half a percent of the popular vote will seem, in hindsight, faintly hysterical.

Tom Bevan also presents a considered, reasoned reaction to Clinton's decision. He writes:

Clinton clearly could have been more gracious on Tuesday night in acknowledging Obama's achievement, and she could have used softer language in describing her campaign. On the other hand, as a candidate who spent the better part of two years campaigning and who won 18 million votes across the country fighting her way to what was for all intents and purposes a tie, she also had ample justification for touting her accomplishments and for not conceding immediately on Tuesday night - despite what others may have wanted.

Sullivan, however, is not taking back anything he's said. He digs in deeper, responding to Devan:

And historically, losing candidates concede after the last primary has delivered an insurmountable victory to his or her opponent - and usually long before. Those were the rules the Clintons set for Jerry Brown back in 1992; they are rules everyone else follows. I see no reason to acquiesce to the delusions and pathologies of Clinton entitlement. 

However, the facts are not on Sullivan's side. History teaches that Obama supporters who find themselves angry with Clinton for staying in the race have lost perspective.

It's true that many presidential candidates drop out when it seems their odds of winning are insurmountable (think Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, etc.) But at least since Super Tuesday, it has been obvious that the Obama v. Clinton contest was altogether in a separate category.

Most careful watchers of the race have predicted for several months that neither Obama nor Clinton would have enough pledged delegate votes to "go over the top" and secure enough delegates to win the nomination. For this scenario, there is only one close historical analogy: 1984's race between Walter Mondale and Gary Hart.

Like 2008, the 1984 race featured two Democratic frontrunners who finished the primary season without either candidate securing enough delegates to win outright. Therefore, vice president Mondale, leading in the pledged delegate count, worked the phones for superdelegate support.

Meanwhile, Hart, Mondale's opponent, argued that superdelegates should overturn the results of the primaries because he was the superior candidate. He argued that polls showed him the superior general election candidate and that he won late primary successes -- blowouts in big states like California -- that he should be the nominee.

Of course, Hart's arguments failed to win over the superdelegates. Mondale won the Democratic nomination with the help of a pledged delegate plurality and a few dozen superdelegates.

So, students of history, when did Hart drop out of the race? After Mondale named himself the victor, Hart challenged: “Welcome to overtime. It is not over.”

In fact, Hart took his race for the White House all the way to the Democratic convention in San Francisco. On June 3, 2008, Hart told the New York Observer:

“I think what I really was motivated by was the overwhelming sense of my delegates that they had worked very hard—some of them for a year or a year and a half or more—and that they wanted me to be nominated and to demonstrate their support even if I could not get the nomination,” Mr. Hart said.

Thus, as any objective observer would remark, it seems there are some key differences between 1984 and 2004: First, unlike Hart, Clinton faced tremendous pressure from the media, party elders, DNC officials, not to mention relentless criticism by the liberal blogosphere, to surrender early. Second, unlike Hart, Clinton has not responded by forcing the contest into "overtime".

By historical standards, Clinton has ended her campaign speedily. This is not to deny that she is certainly due for criticism for many other reasons -- for example, by continuing to wage certain "negative attacks" against Obama even as her chances seemed hopeless. But critics who say she overstayed her welcome in the race are subjecting her to historically unprecedented criticism.
d

Just like this year, neither candidate had accumulated enough pledged delegates during the primary season to claim an outright delegate majority. Thus, it fell to the superdelegates—some 568 of them back in ’84, the first year such a species existed—to put one of them over the top.

But again, just like today, their commitments were flexible; they could pledge themselves to one candidate and flip to the other for any reason at any time, right up until the convention roll call. And, as with Hillary Clinton and Michigan in recent days, Mr. Hart was threatening to challenge the seating of bunches of Mondale delegates over a dispute that had simmered for much of the campaign.

And so, just after Mr. Mondale staked his claim in St. Paul, Mr. Hart made his own declaration from Los Angeles: “Welcome to overtime. It is not over.”

Hart pressed his campaign all the way to the Democratic convention in San Francisco. On June 3, he said:

“I think what I really was motivated by was the overwhelming sense of my delegates that they had worked very hard—some of them for a year or a year and a half or more—and that they wanted me to be nominated and to demonstrate their support even if I could not get the nomination,” Mr. Hart said.

Thus, there are two major differences between Hart's campaign and Clinton's campaign: First, Clinton faced far more pressure to drop out of the race before the end of the primaries or the convention. Second, in the end, Clinton has not declared that the game will continue into "overtime".

In short, criticism that Clinton overstayed her welcome in the race is historically unprecedented. Angry Obama supporters -- and even many embarrassed Clinton supporters -- have good cause to reconsider their hostility.

Blah

DECEMBER 13, 2000

SPEAKER: ALBERT GORE JR., VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, DEMOCRATIC PARTY PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE

Good evening.

Just moments ago, I spoke with George W. Bush and congratulated him on becoming the 43rd president of the United States, and I promised him that I wouldn't call him back this time.

I offered to meet with him as soon as possible so that we can start to heal the divisions of the campaign and the contest through which we just passed.

Almost a century and a half ago, Senator Stephen Douglas told Abraham Lincoln, who had just defeated him for the presidency, "Partisan feeling must yield to patriotism. I'm with you, Mr. President, and God bless you."

Well, in that same spirit, I say to President-elect Bush that what remains of partisan rancor must now be put aside, and may God bless his stewardship of this country.

Neither he nor I anticipated this long and difficult road. Certainly neither of us wanted it to happen. Yet it came, and now it has ended, resolved, as it must be resolved, through the honored institutions of our democracy.

Over the library of one of our great law schools is inscribed the motto, "Not under man but under God and law." That's the ruling principle of American freedom, the source of our democratic liberties. I've tried to make it my guide throughout this contest as it has guided America's deliberations of all the complex issues of the past five weeks.

Now the U.S. Supreme Court has spoken. Let there be no doubt, while I strongly disagree with the court's decision, I accept it. I accept the finality of this outcome which will be ratified next Monday in the Electoral College. And tonight, for the sake of our unity of the people and the strength of our democracy, I offer my concession.

I also accept my responsibility, which I will discharge unconditionally, to honor the new president elect and do everything possible to help him bring Americans together in fulfillment of the great vision that our Declaration of Independence defines and that our Constitution affirms and defends.

Let me say how grateful I am to all those who supported me and supported the cause for which we have fought. Tipper and I feel a deep gratitude to Joe and Hadassah Lieberman who brought passion and high purpose to our partnership and opened new doors, not just for our campaign but for our country.

This has been an extraordinary election. But in one of God's unforeseen paths, this belatedly broken impasse can point us all to a new common ground, for its very closeness can serve to remind us that we are one people with a shared history and a shared destiny.

Indeed, that history gives us many examples of contests as hotly debated, as fiercely fought, with their own challenges to the popular will.

Other disputes have dragged on for weeks before reaching resolution. And each time, both the victor and the vanquished have accepted the result peacefully and in the spirit of reconciliation.

So let it be with us.

I know that many of my supporters are disappointed. I am too. But our disappointment must be overcome by our love of country.

And I say to our fellow members of the world community, let no one see this contest as a sign of American weakness. The strength of American democracy is shown most clearly through the difficulties it can overcome.

Some have expressed concern that the unusual nature of this election might hamper the next president in the conduct of his office. I do not believe it need be so.

President-elect Bush inherits a nation whose citizens will be ready to assist him in the conduct of his large responsibilities.

I personally will be at his disposal, and I call on all Americans -- I particularly urge all who stood with us to unite behind our next president. This is America. Just as we fight hard when the stakes are high, we close ranks and come together when the contest is done.

And while there will be time enough to debate our continuing differences, now is the time to recognize that that which unites us is greater than that which divides us.

While we yet hold and do not yield our opposing beliefs, there is a higher duty than the one we owe to political party. This is America and we put country before party. We will stand together behind our new president.

As for what I'll do next, I don't know the answer to that one yet. Like many of you, I'm looking forward to spending the holidays with family and old friends. I know I'll spend time in Tennessee and mend some fences, literally and figuratively.

Some have asked whether I have any regrets and I do have one regret: that I didn't get the chance to stay and fight for the American people over the next four years, especially for those who need burdens lifted and barriers removed, especially for those who feel their voices have not been heard. I heard you and I will not forget.

I've seen America in this campaign and I like what I see. It's worth fighting for and that's a fight I'll never stop.

As for the battle that ends tonight, I do believe as my father once said, that no matter how hard the loss, defeat might serve as well as victory to shape the soul and let the glory out.

So for me this campaign ends as it began: with the love of Tipper and our family; with faith in God and in the country I have been so proud to serve, from Vietnam to the vice presidency; and with gratitude to our truly tireless campaign staff and volunteers, including all those who worked so hard in Florida for the last 36 days.

Now the political struggle is over and we turn again to the unending struggle for the common good of all Americans and for those multitudes around the world who look to us for leadership in the cause of freedom.

In the words of our great hymn, "America, America": "Let us crown thy good with brotherhood, from sea to shining sea."

And now, my friends, in a phrase I once addressed to others, it's time for me to go.

Thank you and good night, and God bless America.

END