Hillary Gives Up!

Vanity | 2/22/08 | DWPittelli

[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.

[fightinJAG]

I have every confidence that our country will survive.

[Junior_G]

I am willing to consider that this might be due primarily to my antipathy to their ideological position, or even to subconscious sexism on my part...

Man, stop being such a pansy.

[fightinJAG]

But that doesn’t feel good!

[meadsjn]

So I’ll ask you the same thing, just who should the Republicans have nominated?

The better question is, "How can we better the Republican candidate be selected, such that the greatest number of Republican voters will support the winning candidate?"

There are several good answers to this question, as well as several good answers as to how NOT to do it.

One better solution would be to hold the earliest primaries in states with historical high percentages of Republican voters, which coincidentally tend to be the more conservative states. Those with primaries limited to registered Republicans should top the list. Otherwise, non-Republicans tend to vote in the primaries for candidates that conservative Republicans would not support.

Some of those traditional conservative states would be Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, and Montana. Last in the season would be those states that allow cross-over voting, whether in caucuses or primaries.

We know that the state parties decide their dates, but the national party has some influence over those decisions. In recent decades, the RNC has exerted their influence to ensure that conservatives have less chance of getting elected.

[Steve Van Doorn]

"I have every confidence that our country will survive."

There are two things in the near future that makes me not so sure.

1. Kosovo - Russia almost created a nuclear war against us in the last Kosovo war. Now things are heating up again in Kosovo will we have a leader that supports Muslim terrorist again and against Russia which are also fighting the terrorist?

2. If it is McCain should someone with his temper be so close to the nuclear football?

[meadsjn]

It's really late:

The better question is, "How can we better select the Republican candidate, such that the greatest number of Republican voters will support the winning nominee?"

[ElPatriota]

...It’s not personal. It’s not about personal principles, it’s about winning within the agreed-upon rules...

It's incredible how certain principles makes us different. You are different from me. The "Republican" label does not do much for me these days. Not even "Conservative" does the trick. I am a "Social-Conservative," ('conservative' + Social Values)and that sort of represents me best and my views.

The point is, unless we come up with another group or party, I and many like me are stuck in this group for now. And we like the others have to have to courage of abiding by our principles even if they are not shared by many in this so called "Republican/Conservative" group.

I agree that your points seem valid, for your group; I just don't seem to identify with your group... And that is the dilemma for Social Conservatives now. I agree something has to happen because I am tired of fighting with my own 'friends.' :) Oh well.

[ElPatriota]

...An adult knows when to get on board and help row the boat...

Why? I don't know, but reading this made me burst into laughter... LOL

Don't meant to offend, but it just seems so "condescending," that it makes me laugh... sorry.

[ElPatriota]

...In my opinion, voting for a losing McCain is only encouraging the GOP further leftward<

I'm with you....

What is it, what some of us see this so CLEARLY? :)

It does make you wonder whose views/interests, some of our people here REALLY represent.... hmmm.....hmmm....

Tell me people, what could be more simple principle than this:

"If I want to be taken 'seriously' (means paying attention to my views/opinions), I must show ABOVE ELSE... That I will not 'compromise' on those principles."

Because if I DO "_________________________________(you enter the rest of the sentence :)___________________"

[DWPittelli]

"Why the fancy, self-endowed title? [i.e., Classical Liberalism]"

I am not responsible for the gaps in your education. "Classical liberal" is a term long used in the United States, and is what was meant by "liberal" for more than a century before socialist-leaning Democrats appropriated the term in the United States because it sold better than "socialist" or even "progressive."

[LearnsFromMistakes]

On the other hand, Obama is an unknown. Rush called him a “Magical Mystery.” Which is a handy strategy to a point, until he has to commit himself one way or the other on the issues.

At what point does he have to commit to an issue? He is a Democrat. He can say one thing today, another thing tomorrow. And it isn't a big deal. He can get elected, pick a third option, and be reported as a brilliant politician. What he does and what he stands for matters nothing to his voters...or his fan base of tv reporters.

[DWPittelli]

"What’s wrong with being a Conservative?"

Nothing is wrong with being a Conservative, but to call me such would be at best approximately correct, by the most common readings in the US today, just as calling a libertarian a conservative would be a rather crude approximation.

To call me a libertarian would be closer, but many libertarians have a much greater aversion to government at all levels than I do. I do think that the US Constitution, properly read, would prevent many currently common exertions of federal power; I do not think it prevents most exertions of power at the state level. This makes me also a federalist. I am opposed to all sorts of things done by my state (Massachusetts), but wasteful state spending and intrusive state government would not bother me much in a system, as envisioned by the Founders, where states were free to compete and innovate largely free of federal power.

I am equally appalled that the federal government presumes to undermine California's approval of medical marijuana as that it presumes to tell the states what their abortion laws should look like -- and I would be equally appalled if the federal government took the equally presumptuous but opposite position on each (i.e., requiring states to allow medical marijuana, and forbidding states to allow abortion).

[DeaconRed]

"IF the Democrat wins the election, it's not because the Republican Conservative voters let the Party down, it's because the Party let the Conservative voters down, period."

AMEN
I have thought long and hard and there is NO WAY I can vote for MCLAIM! ! !

[billva]

..An adult knows when to get on board and help row the

boat... Why? I don't know, but reading this made me burst into laughter... LOL

Don't meant to offend, but it just seems so "condescending," that it makes me laugh... sorry.

Not to worry and no need to apologize. I know exactly how you feel every time I read one of these I'll never vote for McCain, then when asked who they would nominate don't have an answer.

I'm glad to have made your evening relaxing with a good laugh.

[billva]

The better question is, "How can we better the Republican candidate be selected, such that the greatest number of Republican voters will support the winning candidate?" There are several good answers to this question, as well as several good answers as to how NOT to do it. One better solution would be to hold the earliest primaries in states with historical high percentages of Republican voters, which coincidentally tend to be the more conservative states. Those with primaries limited to registered Republicans should top the list. Otherwise, non-Republicans tend to vote in the primaries for candidates that conservative Republicans would not support. Some of those traditional conservative states would be Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, and Montana. Last in the season would be those states that allow cross-over voting, whether in caucuses or primaries. We know that the state parties decide their dates, but the national party has some influence over those decisions. In recent decades, the RNC has exerted their influence to ensure that conservatives have less chance of getting elected.

Some pretty reasonable possible proposals as to what to do in the future.

But it still leaves unanswered the question as to who you would have nominated.

It also begs the question as to why the Republicans would listen to someone took a hike during the election?

[Ann Archy]

He is a fool if he picks Hillary as his VP. I don’t think that he will but stranger things have happened. If he does he won’t be around 3 months after he is sworn in.

UNLESS it's a Joe Lieberman situation. Gore DIDN'T pick Lieberman...the MEDIA did!! The press put out the info at 6:00 AM, and they told Joe he was going to be VP but Gore didn't call Joey until NOON!!!! Six hours of PANIC at the Gore house!! He couldn't get out of it because the Jews would be mad, so he was stuck.

Just watch to see if this scenario plays out with the Democrats again this time!!

[seekthetruth]

“I admire you greatly for taking this stand. You will not be rewarded for it here, I’m afraid. But I believe you are doing the right thing for your country. Thank you.”

Except for the Freepers who have supported McCain or Huckabee from the beginning, we all have gone through seeing our “favorite” candidate lose and drop out. I went from Hunter to Fred to Romney. Once Romney endorsed McCain I even had hope that Huckabee would push on, keep McCain from reaching the goal, and cause a brokered convention. I realize it isn’t going to make any difference and McCain will be our nominee.

Going back on what we say isn’t easy. When it was clear that McCain was going to be our nominee, I was sick. In my frustration I had even said I would vote for Obama over McCain. Later I softened it some and thought about doing a write-in of Fred knowing that doing that would only help Obama or Hillary win in November.

I hope those who feel voting for McCain would cause as much damage to our country as Obama or Hillary will realize that is ridiculous. Four years of McCain would be better than one day of Obama or Hillary! I will be voting for McCain in November and will consider my vote a vote AGAINST Obama or Hillary.

[seekthetruth]

“The GOP decided I was irrelevant when they decided to rig the primaries for Rudy. Another Rhino-McCain won.”

I just do not see how the GOP rigged the primaries. Seems to me the MSM had more influence in pushing various candidates through more coverage. When it gets down to the line, it is the votes that count. We conservatives had too many “favorites” and did not rally behind one candidate enough to make it happen. There are still many who are supporting Huckabee but seems many are doing so only to push for a brokered convention. Now it appears that even with a brokered convention the nominee will be McCain.

Perhaps not voting for McCain will send a message to the GOP, but it will also send Obama or Hillary to the White House. I rather skip sending any message to the GOP! I WILL hold my nose and vote for McCain in November and will consider my vote a vote AGAINST Obama or Hillary.

[Blue Collar Christian]

I read back through my posts searching for the trigger that set off your name calling and less than civil language. It looks to me that you are quite the on-line tough guy. We are supposed to be adults here, and a differing opinion from yours does not a “spoiled brat” make.

I will not respond to your posts in the future with anything more than the sound of crickets...you...bully...you...(me crying, calling my mom)

[P.O.E.]

Have already heard pundits saying what a great Senator she is (thus hinting she should stick with that job going forward).