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.
Hillary will never “give up”. Let’s see what happens when Obama’s cocaine-buddy/gay lover takes his polygraph test.
“Either way those who would sit the election out lose all right to call themselves the base of the party.
A real base wouldn’t act so spoiled.”
How do YOU propose we conservatives send the message to the RNC that we want true conservatives? When I was in California, the “base” voted for Awnuld, a man married into the Kennedys and not a whole lot different than McCain. That worked just great, didn’t it?
Much as I would hate to see a Dem in the White House, we might do well to write in the names of true conservatives that more closely share our point of view, suffer through the next Presidency, a then perhaps have the attention of the Party.
I'm with you guys!
Your vote for the Mcainiac will do NOTHING to stop the Socialization of the Medical Insurance industry whatsoever, nor would his winning the election.
The number of weak-kneed RINO's in the Congress now will allow it to become the law of the land.
Conservatives who voted "Republican" for the RINO's all along are to blame; and continue to support RINO candidates that the Republican Party puts up for elections.
Maybe she could get the New York Times to run a hit piece on her too.
Those who go along with the program, no matter what asshat is thrust in front of them as the Party's Candidate, simply rubber stamp the RNC's RINOism, and no change will ever come about, as they can always count on the non-principled votes.
Is there a write-in we can all agree on? Personally, I am strongly leaning towards Rick Santorum. If a write-in candidate received a significant portion of the overall vote, perhaps the GOP would wake up and smell the coffee.
As soon as I heard how she talked about "her" money she loaned to the campaign---remember, this is a woman who itemized donations of used underwear on her tax returns---I knew the day was coming when she would become more frantic about recouping her dough than continuing to run.
That day is here.
Soon, very soon, the Clintons will BBQ Obama with the Larry limo sex tape. Hillary was so nice last night so that Obama (and we) won’t know where the shocking revelation came from.
How in the world did the RNC “tell us” who we could and could not have as a candidate?
Do you have to get permission to run for president?
Did someone force people to vote for John McCain? Was anyone precluded from voting for whoever they wanted to?
I looked up your Wicki link.....big fart....
"Classical liberalism (also known as traditional liberalism[1] and laissez-faire liberalism,[2] or, in much of the world, simply called liberalism) is a doctrine stressing individual freedom and limited government. This includes the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, constitutional limitations of government, free markets, and individual freedom from restraint as exemplified in the writings of Adam Smith,...
For the most part, that is the conservative core.
Why the fancy, self-endowed title...?
Thanks for posting this article.
“Hillary is now more interested in getting her $5 million back than she is in maximizing her chances of winning.”
Yeah. Loaned her own campaign $5 mill.
She wants it back. With interest.
I also thought the Witch was trying to position herself for the VP slot.
If she were to win the nomination, she would have no choice but to select Obama as her VP. Otherwise,too many disappointed voters would just stay home.
Obama, OTOH, would have to do a lot of gut-checks to select her as VP. But it could easily happen. He would just say, sure, we had disagreements, but I’ll lead and she’ll follow and blah blah blah. The big problem is that Michelle seems to loathe her more than Obama does and that’s an obstacle.
I kind of wish Obama would select Hildy as his VP, because she provokes a lot of anti-Hildy votes. I have heard more than one Rat say that if Obama is not the nominee, they are voting for McCain.
I think Obama’s lack of a record is an asset to McCain.
What’s wrong with being a Conservative?
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.