Hillary Clinton just won't quit!

[ravdin]

I think if she continues beyond June 3rd, then it is clearly to damage Obama, so he will lose in November, and so she can run essentially unopposed in 2012.

TAM

Four years ago, Obama was in the Illinois legislature and hardly anyone outside of that state had heard of him.

A lot can happen between now and 2012. Clinton might not get a second chance and I'm sure she knows it.

 

[Rob Lister]

I think it actually may go a little deeper than wanting the VP spot. She's the first serious Presidential candidate to be a woman. She doesn't want to appear to be steamrolled out of this race. She's got a strong core group of women supporters that are looking to her to make set the precedent for future campaigns by women. Hillary isn't going to let herself be taken for granted for that reason alone. I watched Obama's interviews last night, and saw how he was very careful when speaking of her continuing campaign. Smart guy.

This will run through June 3. She will then make a graceful exit, but will leave no doubt that a woman can run strong until the very end. Obama seems to be smart enough not to marginalize her as well. It'll be a good sparring match, but you won't see Hillary play dirty or hurt Obama. In the meantime, more and more voters are registering as Democrats in States that could come into play this November for the Democrats. It's really hard to see the harm.

As I posted a week or two ago, Hillary is a smart politician and isn't going to do anything to hurt her legacy in the Democratic Party. She'll gracefully concede on her own terms though, not Obama's or the media's.

You're post suggests to me she is doing this more as a matter of principle. 'scuse me if I LOL. I doubt she has ever done anything for that reason. Nothing against her specifically, that's the way I feel about almost all top-level politicians. True, McCain is a proven exception to that (re: POW refusing release), but I hate him for different (and less personal) reasons.

I'm voting for Upchurch...and that's that.

 

[Pookster]

You're post suggests to me she is doing this more as a matter of principle. ...

I'm not suggesting she's doing on principle, at least not primarily.

One word: image.

Image is everything to a politician. It gives them quite a bit of clout within their party. It sets them up for future aspirations as well. Look at her past. It's quite telling.

 

[DaChew]

Why should she quit - nobody ever accomplished anything listening to people who told them to quit. Competition is good for the party. I'm certainly no Hillary fan but I just don't get all the people who are telling her to quit. In the first place, if she's going to be President, she needs to show she's not a quiter and in the second place, these people that are telling her to quit, have they not been paying attention the past 12 years? What on earth has led them to believe that Hillary Clinton is going to give up on anything she really wants?

 

[T.A.M.]

Why should she quit - nobody ever accomplished anything listening to people who told them to quit. Competition is good for the party. I'm certainly no Hillary fan but I just don't get all the people who are telling her to quit. In the first place, if she's going to be President, she needs to show she's not a quiter and in the second place, these people that are telling her to quit, have they not been paying attention the past 12 years? What on earth has led them to believe that Hillary Clinton is going to give up on anything she really wants?

If it were not costing the DEM party, and its chances of getting the WH in November, I would totally agree, and to the extent that she runs it until June 3rd, fair enough.

The problem is, if she continues to antagonize and attack Obama, when she knows the chances of her winning are exceedingly slim, then she is doing more harm than good. She claims to have the party interest at heart, so prove it...do the right thing.

I agree with you though, that she likely will not give up, because I think for her, it is all about HER, not about the DEM party. I think if she felt she had a viable chance as an independent candidate for president, she would drop the DEM party now, in a heart beat, and run for president as an independent.

TAM

 

[dudalb]

I really think the Obama campaign had decided that now that Obama is going to be the nominee,and the best thing do is let things run their course, and begin to build the national campaign,which I think Obama has started to do with his North Carolina victory speech and his interview on CNN, in which he is obviously trying to move to the political center as fast as possible.
I think they have decided that any attempt to strong arm Hilary until the Primaries are over would backfire, and just widen the breach in the party, and it is just three week anyway, and with almost all the media giving it to Obama,just ignore Hilary as much as possible and start the groundwork for the Fall Campaing.

 

[T.A.M.]

I really think the Obama campaign had decided that now that Obama is going to be the nominee,and the best thing do is let things run their course, and begin to build the national campaign,which I think Obama has started to do with his North Carolina victory speech and his interview on CNN, in which he is obviously trying to move to the political center as fast as possible.
I think they have decided that any attempt to strong arm Hilary until the Primaries are over would backfire, and just widen the breach in the party, and it is just three week anyway, and with almost all the media giving it to Obama,just ignore Hilary as much as possible and start the groundwork for the Fall Campaing.

Absolutely. However, I think, through surrogates, you would find increasing pressure on her to get out, if she continues to go negative on Obama...time will tell.

TAM

 

[ConspiRaider]

Well I am a rock ribbed Republican but I think she is probably the toughest woman since Maggie Thatcher and I would have a real battle with myself not to vote for her if she somehow wins the primary. Senator McCain is an honorable conservative Republican but I fear for his health and his ability to be an effective president. She has impressed the hell out of me in this primary campaign.

You know what's amazing, Tex? The Republicans, such as yourself, are making smarter statements about the Dem primary than those who claim to be Democrats. Not only is/was Hillary the Best candidate this 2008 crop - she's also the Toughest.

Notice how when Hillary wins, the screeching for her to quit hits a higher pitch?

These idiotic Obamaniac fools - on this forum and others - who keep insisting that she lie down and quit - miss their own blunderingly stupid meanderings of illogic: If Obama is such a rock solid, sure bet candidate, then why would it matter if Hillary is in the race? Isn't that her business?

But of course: Obamaniacs are living a lie. Deep down in places they don't like to talk about at parties - they KNOW Hillary is the best choice to take the presidency in January 2009. Their insistence she quit is really a revelation of their underlying fears that she'll prevail.

I'm not voting McCain, but not Obama either. The best candidate of all for the 2008 presidential election gets my vote, even if I have to write her in.

Now, stand back and watch the Obamaniacs froth and lather.

 

[Texas]

You know what's amazing, Tex? The Republicans, such as yourself, are making smarter statements about the Dem primary than those who claim to be Democrats. Not only is/was Hillary the Best candidate this 2008 crop - she's also the Toughest.

Notice how when Hillary wins, the screeching for her to quit hits a higher pitch?

These idiotic Obamaniac fools - on this forum and others - who keep insisting that she lie down and quit - miss their own blunderingly stupid meanderings of illogic: If Obama is such a rock solid, sure bet candidate, then why would it matter if Hillary is in the race? Isn't that her business?

But of course: Obamaniacs are living a lie. Deep down in places they don't like to talk about at parties - they KNOW Hillary is the best choice to take the presidency in January 2009. Their insistence she quit is really a revelation of their underlying fears that she'll prevail.

I'm not voting McCain, but not Obama either. The best candidate of all for the 2008 presidential election gets my vote, even if I have to write her in.

Now, stand back and watch the Obamaniacs froth and lather.

Well I will vote for Senator McCain if Senator Obama is the Dem nominee. The messianic aura surrounding him is very unsettling along with is impossibly naive world view.

 

[Tricky]

Well I will vote for Senator McCain if Senator Obama is the Dem nominee. The messianic aura surrounding him is very unsettling along with is impossibly naive world view.

Although you've expressed admiration for her, you haven't come out and said you would vote for Clinton if she won the nomination. If you are probably going to vote for McCain anyway then your announcement is not very important.

 

[Tricky]

I'm not voting McCain, but not Obama either. The best candidate of all for the 2008 presidential election gets my vote, even if I have to write her in.

Now, stand back and watch the Obamaniacs froth and lather.

Did you vote for Nader too?

I truly regret that the two-party system and the absence of "weighted voting" makes it such that you have to vote for the lesser of two evils in order to have your vote mean anything, but that's the situation we're in. There will only be two possible winners. If you don't select one, then you must share the blame (like Nader voters) when the much more "evil" of the two candidates gets elected.

Not frothing. Sighing. Here we go again.

 

[ConspiRaider]

Well I will vote for Senator McCain if Senator Obama is the Dem nominee. The messianic aura surrounding him is very unsettling along with is impossibly naive world view.

10-roger that, Tex. That's what bothered me from the start - this cultish, and as you said - messianic fervor surrounding his campaign. It's twooferish.

What pains me and a lot of other U.S. Democrats is that Hillary / Bill is just EXACTLY what we needed, when we'll need it, and I am referring to their projected deftness at patching together our damaged standing in the world of nations. The world knows Hillary. The world knows Bill. There's an immediate reference point from which to proceed. We hardly, in this country, know Obama - we YANKS! So how in the hell is he going to succeed in a treacherous and dangerous world? If we don't know him - how can they? And won't those who are vying for swift advantages in USA dealings exploit his vast inexperience to the fullest? You bet your ass they will. But the Clintons? Nope. They wouldn't even try.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

You know what's amazing, Tex? The Republicans, such as yourself, are making smarter statements about the Dem primary than those who claim to be Democrats. Not only is/was Hillary the Best candidate this 2008 crop - she's also the Toughest.

Notice how when Hillary wins, the screeching for her to quit hits a higher pitch?

These idiotic Obamaniac fools - on this forum and others - who keep insisting that she lie down and quit - miss their own blunderingly stupid meanderings of illogic: If Obama is such a rock solid, sure bet candidate, then why would it matter if Hillary is in the race? Isn't that her business?

But of course: Obamaniacs are living a lie. Deep down in places they don't like to talk about at parties - they KNOW Hillary is the best choice to take the presidency in January 2009. Their insistence she quit is really a revelation of their underlying fears that she'll prevail.

I'm not voting McCain, but not Obama either. The best candidate of all for the 2008 presidential election gets my vote, even if I have to write her in.

Now, stand back and watch the Obamaniacs froth and lather.

Um, you are the one frothing. I am just going to stand back and:

 

[ConspiRaider]

Did you vote for Nader too?

I truly regret that the two-party system and the absence of "weighted voting" makes it such that you have to vote for the lesser of two evils in order to have your vote mean anything, but that's the situation we're in. There will only be two possible winners. If you don't select one, then you must share the blame (like Nader voters) when the much more "evil" of the two candidates gets elected.

Not frothing. Sighing. Here we go again.

Hey Trick, how are ya buddy?

I didn't vote for Nader, but - don't laugh - I actually DID vote for Ron Paul in 1988. That's because I knew Saint Ronald was unbeatable, so I took an offramp into the Libertarian Party for awhile. Then returned to the Democratic Party in 1992, with Bill C.

I believe in the effectiveness of a protest vote. I won't NOT vote, because voting is the only way we the people get to "speak" in a manner which counts. And if what I have to say in November is that the flubbing, large-states-disenfranchising, self-bashing, caucus-riddled-primary-holding, quitter-pleading, trouble-threatening U.S. Democrats don't deserve my vote for their candidate: I consider that as valid as any vote cast. I'd be proud to write in Hillary's name. This thing was HERS, Trick. But we Dems couldn't live with a sure bet to overturn the Bush Horror. No - we had to gum everything up, just as we did in 2000 and 2004. You and me should be running the DLC, not the bozos in charge now.

 

[kallsop]

(Obama) is obviously trying to move to the political center as fast as possible.

Surely Obama won't be cynically moving to the center to fool the voters? I'm shocked I tell you, shocked.

 

[Texas]

Although you've expressed admiration for her, you haven't come out and said you would vote for Clinton if she won the nomination. If you are probably going to vote for McCain anyway then your announcement is not very important.

I would probally not vote if it was between McCain and Clinton. I would feel the country would be in good hands with either. I have a visceral distrust of Senator Obama and his commitment not only to be POTUS but more and more his penchant for running for President of the World. I want the POTUS to be respected by the world not loved. I also want a POTUS that always places the interests of this country ahead of his image in the rest of the world. I for one do not think seeing the "Arab street" dancing in the streets or any other American adversary upon his election as particularly the good thing many of his supporters do.

 

[ConspiRaider]

I agree with you though, that she likely will not give up, because I think for her, it is all about HER, not about the DEM party. I think if she felt she had a viable chance as an independent candidate for president, she would drop the DEM party now, in a heart beat, and run for president as an independent.

Yet again, you are displaying your vast lack of political instinct concerning American presidential elections in general, and Hillary Clinton in particular.

Hillary Clinton is NOT going to run as a 3rd party candidate or as an indie, don't you know that? She is a dyed-in-the-wool U.S. Democrat. Didn't you hear her when she said she would be supporting Your Hero if he gets the nomination? Or did you conveniently tune that out because it didn't fit your justification for hating/bashing her?

 

[boloboffin]

So just to watch ConspiRaider's head explode, I'm an Obama supporter who thinks Clinton should stay in the race as long as she likes. Doesn't bother me a bit. I notice that it doesn't bother Obama either.

In fact, I don't think Clinton could back down now even if she wanted to. It's an interesting position for her to be in. They will work out a graceful way for her to exit the stage. After all, she would have been a great president and we would have been lucky to have her. Who knows? We still might.

Here's the thing that I'm surprised that our Republican and right-wing friends here at JREF haven't picked up on yet (or if they have, I've not read it). I've been taking my peculiar vantage point in the Great Clinton-Obama Supporters War to reflect on the nature of Bush Derangement Syndrome. It seems to me that this vicious demonizing of the candidate you don't support is just the mindset of BDS carried forward. The parallels are just inescapable.

And ConspiRaider, the behavior I've seen you exhibit in this forum make you Exhibit A.

 

[ConspiRaider]

Here's the thing that I'm surprised that our Republican and right-wing friends here at JREF haven't picked up on yet (or if they have, I've not read it). I've been taking my peculiar vantage point in the Great Clinton-Obama Supporters War to reflect on the nature of Bush Derangement Syndrome. It seems to me that this vicious demonizing of the candidate you don't support is just the mindset of BDS carried forward. The parallels are just inescapable.

And ConspiRaider, the behavior I've seen you exhibit in this forum make you Exhibit A.

First of all - why do you think I care what "Exhibit" you think I am? I got your exhibit.

Secondly, I'm "viciously demonizing" Obama? Oh I am, am I? When and where did I call him a devil? Want to point that out to me? You won't be able to because it never happened. But of course that didn't stop you from accusing me of demonizing Obama.

No, you know what I'm doing? I'm supporting Hillary Clinton. PERIOD. But you cannot handle that - you'd rather accuse anyone who does not share your Obamania affliction of being a "demonizer". Pathetic.

 

[Tricky]

Hey Trick, how are ya buddy?

Hangin' in there.

I didn't vote for Nader, but - don't laugh - I actually DID vote for Ron Paul in 1988. That's because I knew Saint Ronald was unbeatable, so I took an offramp into the Libertarian Party for awhile. Then returned to the Democratic Party in 1992, with Bill C.

That's a little different. Ronnie really was unstoppable. Frankly, I think that's why they nominated Ferraro for VP. They knew they couldn't win anyway, so they were building up some points for future elections. Also, if you are in a state that is never in doubt (as Texas has been for many years) then you can vote for whoever you like, since the electoral system will make your vote meaningless if you don't vote for the winner.

Maybe that's the case with you this year, but this is going to be pretty close, I think. It's a bad time to be "making a statement".

I believe in the effectiveness of a protest vote. I won't NOT vote, because voting is the only way we the people get to "speak" in a manner which counts. And if what I have to say in November is that the flubbing, large-states-disenfranchising, self-bashing, caucus-riddled-primary-holding, quitter-pleading, trouble-threatening U.S. Democrats don't deserve my vote for their candidate: I consider that as valid as any vote cast. I'd be proud to write in Hillary's name. This thing was HERS, Trick. But we Dems couldn't live with a sure bet to overturn the Bush Horror. No - we had to gum everything up, just as we did in 2000 and 2004. You and me should be running the DLC, not the bozos in charge now.

Well I feel just the opposite. I think Hillary is the one who is more likely to flub things up and lose to a Republican. Frankly, I think she'd make a better president than Obama, but she would be less likely to get the chance. There are too many Clinton haters in this country. A lot of them are in my family.