And, No, It's Not Good For the Process

I've seen people write that they're glad Hillary's still in the race because it's good for the process. No, it's not. Two big reasons:

1. She's trying to destroy Obama

Yes, it'd be good for the process for example if it were between Edwards and Obama to be head-to-head, because they don't have the tactics of personal destruction like Hillary does. The more she stays in, the more she attacks him. And if he's not our nominee in '08, he will be in '12 (because if she's the nominee, she will lose), or if you're sanguine, in '16. He'll be 54 in 2016. Destroy him now and we'll lose this year and also in 4 and 8.

Every moment she stays in the race, it's worse for the party.

2. Their Narratives are Negatively Symbiotic

As I wrote before, the wins and losses for both candidates help feed or starve their related narratives of electability. Every loss for Obama will convince skittish Democrats that they can't expect a black man to win. Every win for Hillary shows that she's inevitable so stop struggling and take your medicine.

I will say that the Woman Can't Be a President narrative is weak compared to the American history of racism (as I wrote a few moments ago), but especially in the week following the assassination of Benzair Bhutto.

However, there may be a backlash against Hillary for her tactics which, ironically, will increase the narrative that women can't be trusted with power. Combine that with the anti-feminist message of 'marrying to get power' and Hillary Steinem have just set gender-relations back further than Mitt did for Mormons.

P.S. And because people aren't mentioning this at all... is Nancy Pelosi still chopped liver? I guess having the first female Speaker is nothing compared to Hillary. Ugh.