Should Hillary Drop Out?

There's a lot of talk these days about how Hillary Clinton should bow out gracefully and clear the way for Barack Obama to claim the Democratic presidential nomination.

As Charlie Cook points out in the National Journal, "The hand-wringing today is over a nomination process that some say has gone on too long, but just four years ago, it was over a process that seemed to begin and end in Iowa. ... One state voted; the nomination was basically settled."

Four years earlier, Cook observes, "the process went on for all of two states. Once Vice President Al Gore beat former Sen. Bill Bradley, D-N.J., in New Hampshire (Bradley had not seriously contested the Iowa caucus), the nomination fight was over. Two states voted; the nomination was settled.

"All around we could hear the moaners and groaners fretting that not enough voters had had a chance to have their say, that Iowa and New Hampshire had grown too important, and that nominations were over before candidates were fully vetted."

It's being treated differently this year. Obama is perceived as the inevitable nominee, and his supporters want Clinton to drop out of the race so Obama can focus his attention on his Republican foe.

"So people fret when the process is too brief, but they despair when they see it going on too long," Cook writes. "What's wrong with having the voters in more than a handful of states participate in the process? Did deciding the Democratic nomination in Iowa or New Hampshire give the party an advantage?"

I'm inclined to agree with Cook. The Democratic Party finally has what people have been saying it needed for years -- a competitive campaign in which many states, not just Iowa and New Hampshire, get to render their verdict on the available choices.

It is, after all, early April. Pennsylvania's voters are scheduled to vote in about three weeks, and a few more states are scheduled to hold primaries in May. The convention is in late August. There's plenty of time.

If nothing else, suggests Maureen Dowd of the New York Times, Clinton is doing Obama a favor by toughening him up now.

Assuming, of course, he doesn't wither under the pressure.

"One of the most valuable lessons the gritty Hillary can teach ... is that the whole point of a presidential race is to win," writes Dowd. "Winning has no margin of error, as the Democrats should have learned by now. ... Hillary’s work is done only when she is done, because the best way for Obama to prove he’s ready to stare down Ahmadinejad is by putting away someone even tougher."

Unless Democrats decide they prefer a candidate who is already tougher than Ahmadinejad.

And that's the point of democracy. Everyone gets to participate in the decision.