Barack: "Well, at least you didn't say mimeographed !"
Hillary: "Snxrxrxkkk..."
Posted on 02/22/2008 5:46:14 PM PST by DWPittelli
Hillary Clinton hasn't publicly conceded the Democratic nomination to Barack Obama, of course. But I have seen a significant new piece of evidence indicating that she has given up, that her actions show she is no longer acting primarily to win the election, but rather to position herself better if she loses. (Psychologically, her closing speech last night has been widely discussed as possibly hinting at the same thing.)
What's the news? She has sent out invitations to Massachusetts supporters that she will be in Boston this Sunday (Feb 24), holding a fundraiser dinner (a $5,000 per table “Conversation with Hillary” that is “In Support of Hillary Clinton for President”). Now she could hold a fundraiser just as easily in a state that still has a primary to come. But she is instead in Massachusetts because whatever differential in cash she can get by being in Boston instead of in Texas or Ohio (or Rhode Island, where she will be earlier in the day) more than outweighs the advantage she could get in votes by showing up in a still-relevant state.
The other interpretation of this news is that she's so broke that she must maximize income even at the cost of not being in relevant states with upcoming primaries. This is different, but almost as good news for Hillary's opponents to right and left – and almost as disheartening to her supporters. It is at least as telling on this score as the news that she has recently loaned her campaign $5 million of her "personal" money.
Most likely, both things are true: Hillary is now more interested in getting her $5 million back than she is in maximizing her chances of winning. She is no longer fighting for the nomination.
Barack: "Well, at least you didn't say mimeographed !"
Hillary: "Snxrxrxkkk..."
I agree with your theory, but don’t see it being borne out by the facts.
Were there no conservatives in the 32 states that had voted by Super Tuesday?
Since then, did conservatives take the opportunity to vote for the more conservative candidate(s) or not?
It just seems clear to me that if conservatives really did not want John McCain as the nominee, they were smart enough to know they had to vote for one of the other guys running.
Either they didn’t rally around one of the other candidates or there are actually very few conservatives (depending on one’s definition) in this country.
I don’t see how you can say conservatives “were not allowed to help choose the nominee.” It’s not a conspiracy. It just happens if a candidate at whatever point a candidate happens to get enough votes. The Witch and Obama are still at it neck and neck, but that’s very, very unusual in history.
I actually heard Lindsay Graham say on teevee that this was precisely WHY McCain should be the nominee.
He said since certain conservatives were unable to nominate a candidate to their specifications, and, therefore, were threatening to bail, the party had to find a candidate who could attract Independents and Reagan Democrats. To wit (according to Lindsay), John McCain.
The "conservative base" turned in dismal numbers in support of the more conservative candidates, starting with the most conservative getting the least and pathetic amounts of votes.
Of course in that situation the nominee is going to end up being one of the less conservative candidates. And of course the team will try to win with replacement players.
Man, if you think the GOP “decided to rig the primaries for Rudy,” I’ve got a bridge in the Mojave for you.
Exactly how were the primaries rigged for Rudy or McCain?
Please, I sincerely want to learn your evidence for this assertion. HOW was this done?
You would turn our entire government over to the Rats, including putting them in charge of national security, because of McCain-Feingold?
Where would that be? Please advise.
I wont vote for McCain either. The GOP can regroup and offer conservative candidates.
Romney wasnt my first choice but at least I could have voted for him. McCain, hildebeast and huckster will be thrown into history’s garbage dump and we can fight another day.
I’m not ready to count out the Clintons. We’ve seen these two slither away from so many jams over the years, but there’s no denying those two are as close to political oblivion as they’ve ever been.
Thank you for your work and passion over the years. It has not be for nothing.
I wish more people cared little for the fate of the Republican Party-—and more for the fate of the country!
What I mean is: so many here talk about the election in terms of its impact on the GOP, destroying the Republican Party, blah blah blah. In the end, who cares? It is what it is.
It’s there to BE USED by people. If it goes away, our ideals and convictions and passion remain. We will find another way. But for now, we are a nation with two major political parties. We will remain so. Maybe not the parties we have now, but two major parties.
Why walk away from that reality? Use it, as best you can.
You are right that Reagan was an aberration. But that should tell us something we learn from, not discourage us. Too many here hold up an unrealistic standard-—Reagan, whoever-—and quash anyone who does not meet it.
It would be far better to accept that politicians in general are mediocre or worse, and politics stinks, literally. But here we are; it is what it is. We have to USE IT as best we can to do what’s best for our country.
It’s dirty and nasty-—why are some surprised that it doesn’t “feel good” having no choice but to hire some of these dudes for our national job openings?
Why don’t more people realize it’s not about “feeling good” about one’s vote. If you’re on the hiring committee at work and a list of candidates is presented and someone is going to get hired, you don’t bail on your job because you don’t like any of the candidates. You hang in there and try to get the best of those available.
It would be helpful, I think, if people could view hiring a Commander in Chief the same way. It just has to be done, even when it’s nasty and doesn’t feel good.
And how did that work out for the country?
And what makes you think that the GOP will learn the lesson this time?
And why are you willing to take the risk that the GOP won’t learn the lesson and that our country will suffer because of it?
Why are you so concerned about what happens to the stupid GOP and whether or not the “GOP pays the price,” rather than being concerned about our immediate and long-term national future?
If there were more than a few conservatives, however you are using that term, why didn’t they get us “their” nominee already? Or at least have him running close to the top?
HOW did “they” ensure that a moderate candidate was nominated?
I really need you to explain this to me. Thanks.
You really didn’t address my response to you. Is there not a moral imperative to stop a greater evil?
Thank you!
I thought it was the voters who decide the nominee of their party. In fact, I'm sure of it.
On a related note, I see here that many people say even though they will undermine the Republican candidate by refusing to vote for him, they still care about having a GOP-controlled Congress.
How do we do that? We have to put together a majority.
What does that mean?
It means we have to elect a certain number of people with (R) behind their names. Period. When you reach that number of (R)’s, you have the majority. And you have a lot more power.
What does this mean in practicality?
To get to that magic number, all across this land, good, decent conservatives have to hold their nose and vote for RINO congresscritters as a way to get a majority so that true conservative Republicans from other areas can become committee chairmen and so on.
The very people these quitters are wailing against are the people who have sense enough to see how their vote fits in to the big picture of our country’s government.
For years I lived in a moderately conservative district and, if I voted Republican, I had to vote for a real dope. I did so. Why? Because I knew that for guys such as Newt Gingrich and Henry Hyde and so on to get into positions of leadership, they had to have a majority.
They needed those (R)’s, and I voted with the intention of helping them, and thereby the nation, not the dope I was voting for.
And it worked.
Is this chopped liver?
Is it not a show of reprehensible ingratitude for some now to say they are, essentially, too good to vote for a RINO when good, decent conservatives all across this land consistently make this “sacrifice” for the greater good?
How do they really think we made a majority except for a lot of good people holding their nose?
It’s the losers that must compromise.
No matter who is in the party, the idea is that we stick together and vote for the nominee. It’s just like a union, where people agree that if a decision is made to strike or whatever, they all go along with it, even if they hate it, because that’s the only way to accomplish anything long-term.
If a conservative, as you use that term, had been nominated, you can be sure there would be the same calls for “unity” and for moderates and everyone else to support the nominee.
Conservatives only seem to be asked to do this more often because (1) they have consistently been unable to emerge a candidate to their liking, and (2) they have consistently been the ones loudly proclaiming that, since they didn’t emerge a candidate to their liking, they are taking their marbles and going home.
I don’t think Hillary is ready to give up. There are still too many primaries ahead.
If you don’t want a Rat to win, you must vote for the other guy.
Just like on American Idol!
If we had a national primary day and John McCain still won the nomination, would you vote for him in the general election?
If not, then apparently your complaint is not about a “flawed primary system,” but simply about the result-—the fact that your fellow voters chose McCain.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.