There are those who argue that, given his decisive defeat in
NY, Sanders should drop out of the race and leave the field to Clinton. In his
new column, Frank Rich makes some telling points about why it's to Hillary's advantage
to have Sanders in the race.
He writes:
A coronation may be what the Clinton campaign now wants, but
I’d suggest that Clinton has more to gain by staying in a dialogue, a debate,
with Sanders, and ultimately forging some kind of communion with him and, more
important, his voters, in real time.
. . .
Sanders pulling out now, or soon, would deny her that
opportunity, allow Trump to monopolize the national stage all spring, and
reinforce exactly the sense of entitlement Clinton needs to avoid if she is to
start to reclaim a positive public image.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/04/why-clinton-shouldnt-want-bernie-to-bow-out-yet.html
Frank Rich, once the necessary lion of the NY Times op-ed
page, has been vacuous or repetitive of late for nymag, but this makes perfect
sense to me.
But what about later on, when Clinton runs against Trump,
and, baruch hashem, beats him handily? What is Sanders to do?
I think his defeat frees Sanders; it frees him to organize
and agitate for the causes he believes in passionately. It frees him to galvanize
a movement, which I hope he does. He has liabilities as a candidate, which do
not translate into liabilities in movement building. So far as health care
goes, for example, he can fight for universal coverage better within or at the titular
head of a movement than he has been able to as a candidate or would ever be
able to as President.
Bernie should not drop out but should keep it coming up to
and beyond the presidential election.
No comments:
Post a Comment