By Ryan (Politics Editor)

After 11 straight losses since Super Tuesday, the Clinton campaign is on the ropes. Though it may be depressing for Clinton supporters to face, the possibility of her dropping out after March 4th is very real. The inspiration of New Hampshire might still reinvigorate hope of a comeback in some, but even if Clinton manages to bag Ohio, dropping out may be her best course of action.

It is said that money makes the world go round, and in political campaigns no truer words are spoken. Contributions to Obama in recent months have filled the coffers and due to this Obama currently trounces Clinton in advertising. Especially in Texas where Obama is dominating the airwaves. News forecaster, Hubdub is predicting that the chances of Clinton winning in Texas are slim. Hubdub and others like it have been accurate predictors of the primaries so far.

But why should she drop out? Yes she’s losing primaries, yes she’s losing money, but why should she really dropout? The answer is Nader! Yes that wily 60 something year old is at it again. He ruined Gore and now he’s ruined Hillary. It would seem the outspoken consumer rights activist really has something against the former Clinton administration…

So how is this possible? Well, we can all agree that to a certain extent Clinton is a more divisive candidate than Obama. If Hillary were to run against McCain in 2008, the Nader factor would come into play. In a divisive campaign Nader pulls votes from Democrats, not Republicans. With Hillary only winning by the slimmest of margins in match ups against McCain, Nader’s siphoning of Democratic votes would turn an already polarized electorate lethal. Clinton would not be able to get enough votes to beat McCain due to Nader. In tight states like Florida, McCain would win by the smallest of margins, but he would still win.

Thinking tactically, Democrats, which ever candidate they favor, should support Clinton dropping out after March 4th. Not because of her policies or her message but because of the baggage carried with the Clinton name. This divisive factor compounded by Nader’s siphoning are to blame. With Obama, it’s more likely Republican votes can be stolen. Additionally independents, usually a mainstay of McCain, have shown increased support for Obama. To ensure a rerun of 2000 doesn’t occur Democrats must think about the most plausible way of winning, and as of now that way is Obama.

Track Clinton v McCain in a head to head: If Clinton is nominated, who will win the Presidency?

Track Obama v McCain in a head to head: If Obama is nominated, who will in the Presidency?

Popularity: 16% [?]