One good reason for Sanders to stay in the campaign is that HRC still needs to practice her answer to the Goldman Sachs speeches.  Before diving into her problems, it’s worth saying I’m sympathetic to HRC on transcripts.  If they even exist, releasing the transcripts can only drag her down.  Here’s how those speeches are structured (with ding!s to indicate passages that Sanders and Republicans can run with forever):

1. Thank you for the invitation.
2. Obligatory reference to how great it is to be Goldman Sachs (ding!)
3. Obligatory praise for being the people at the gas pumps of the economy. (ding!)
4. Obligatory compliments on Goldman Sachs’s unparalleled excellence at something (Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding!)
5. Optional (usually for high-tech or scientific research):  Self-effacing humor about how poorly you understand what they do or how amazed you are at what they do. (ding!)
6. Speech about women entrepreneurs.
7. Calls for unity
8. Thanks.

She could compliment the clean bathrooms at Goldman Sachs and we’d turn it into something about privilege – not accurate, not fair, but anything to highlight the cozy relationship.  Short of going in there and doing a BLM-style protest at Goldman, anything she says will put her in hot water.

But, the real problem is that HRC still doesn’t have a good answer for the contributions.  The best we hear is that nobody can demonstrate a moment where the funding got a specific outcome.  When Sanders failed to come up with a damning quid pro quo during the Brooklyn debate, HRC supporters did a “neener neener, see?  You got nothing!” dance all over the internet.

But that argument doesn’t do much for her.

Political donations are pretty simple:  when you’re a citizen of no name, you give money to people you expect to do things you’d like to see done; BUT when you’re a donor of name and fame,  you give money to … people you expect to do things you’d like to see done.  Trump

I haven’t been able to think of a good answer for her to give to Sanders (fellas?), and I think she’s going to have a much harder time answering Republicans who she will want to blame for the 2008 crisis.

It might be good to practice more answers on Sanders.  Kind of like Rocky learning to box right-handed in Rocky II, giving a clear, decisive, non-defensive answer is going to be a clumsy and unnatural thing for a while longer.  And she’s gonna need something when she’s debating a Republican about the financial crisis.