The Red Herrings that Boomerang in the Spring

This, from Eugene Robinson's column, "Hillary's Grim Scenario", in tthe May 27th Washington Post

For anyone who missed it, Clinton was pleading her cause before the editorial board of the Sioux Falls, S.D., Argus Leader on Friday. Rejecting calls to drop out because her chances of winning have become so slight, she said the following: "My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. You know I just, I don't understand it."
The point isn't whether you take Clinton at her word that she didn't actually mean to suggest that someone -- guess who? -- might be assassinated. The point is: Whoa, where did that come from?

He later states:

It could be that any presidential campaign requires a measure of blind faith. But there's a difference between having faith in a dream and being lost in a delusion. The former suggests inner strength; the latter, an inner meltdown.

He concludes with

Clinton campaigns as if she knows she will leave some Democrats with bad feelings. That's the Clinton way: Ask forgiveness, not permission. But every day, as more superdelegates trickle to Obama's side, it becomes a surer bet that she will not win. She and her family enjoy good health and fabulous wealth. They'll be fine -- unless, while losing this race for the nomination, Hillary Clinton also loses her soul.

Instead of using Robinson's approach, let's analyze her statement from a more logical point of view and see where this gets us.

Question: Why does a candidate decide to continue to campaign for the Democratic or Republican Presidential nomination when he or she has little or no chance of winning or has been all but "mathematically eliminated", (whatever that means)?

Some Rational Answers:

HUCK: He wants to gain added stature so that he might be considered for second place on the ticket, or in preparation for a future run for the nomination.

PAUL: He has a cause that he is espousing, such as a strong Anti-War stance, that he wants to take all the way to the convention.

HRC: She's a close second, and her opponent may commit some gaffe or some "Summer Surprise" may occur that causes his popularity to crumble to the point where the super delegates will step in and help her gain the nomination. Or some contested delegates may be seated to her advantage.

A more dubious answer:

MEorMAC: She has a cause that she wants to take perhaps all the way to the convention. To wit: She is electable and her opponent is not.

The problem with this reasoning is that it may prove to be self-fulfilling in the likely event that she fails to gain the nomination.

An illogical answer:

RFK: The leading candidate may be assassinated or otherwise "taken out", and she needs to be there to step in as his replacement.

The problem with this answer is that, given this "grim scenario", if she had already dropped out when it occurred, the fact that she was a "close second" at the time she left the race would ensure her selection as his replacement.

So why did she give an answer that sounded to some like "RFK"? Who knows? I heard Obama attribute it to "campaign fatigue." It has become a veritable boomerang "red herring", in that Hillary has been suffering the effects of this distraction, and perhaps undeservedly so. I don't think it was a meltdown or that she is in danger of losing her soul, as Robinson would have us believe.
**************
From the Merriam-Webster online dictionary.

red herring
Function: noun
Date: 15th century
1: a herring cured by salting and slow smoking to a dark brown color
2[from the practice of drawing a red herring across a trail to confuse hunting dogs] : something that distracts attention from the real issue.