Yesterday, Nick Kristof wrote a New York Times column comparing Hillary Clinton's hopeless, fratricidal campaign to Ralph Nader's similar third-party effort in 2000. There is indeed something to the parallel. Clinton's chances of winning the presidency, while not zero, are much closer to Nader's than to Obama or McCain's. (You can find one breakdown of the impossible Clinton math here.) Her rationales for continuing have the same flavor, all full of grandiose rhetoric about the rights of the voters combined with a stubborn refusal to examine the practical consequences in any realistic way.
So, you'll never guess who thinks Clinton should ignore the consequences and stay in the race.