Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Hillary Gives Up!
Vanity | 2/22/08 | DWPittelli

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.


TOPICS: Politics/Elections; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: clinton; dumbvanity; hillary; stupidvanity
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-273 next last
In the interests of full disclosure, I do not support Hillary Clinton, or indeed the Clintons. 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, but I think it has more to do with their being unusually dishonest and crooked for politicians at their level. (I voted against her – for Obama – in the primary, and would vote against her in the general election, but I do not know if I can vote for either Obama or McCain in the general if that is the choice.)
1 posted on 02/22/2008 5:46:15 PM PST by DWPittelli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: DWPittelli

I’m not voting for any of them in the general election. The handwriting is on the wall and it shows McCain getting about half the votes Hillary is losing with.

In my opinion, voting for a losing McCain is only encouraging the GOP further leftward so I’m writing my conservative choice in come November.


2 posted on 02/22/2008 5:50:30 PM PST by cripplecreek (Just call me M.O.M. (Maverick Opposed to McCain.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DWPittelli

I think you are reading too much into this...


3 posted on 02/22/2008 5:50:35 PM PST by BlueNgold (... Feed the tree!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DWPittelli

Let’s see if she can fill the tables.


4 posted on 02/22/2008 5:54:05 PM PST by Clara Lou (~sigh~ '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
"I’m writing my conservative choice in come November."

Ditto...no more taking what the RINO-RNC tells us is all we can have....as a candidate.

Conservatives who support RINO's do NOTHING to get the message out to the RNC.

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.

5 posted on 02/22/2008 5:55:45 PM PST by traditional1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DWPittelli

Last nite she was begging for the VP slot. Watch it, Barry.


6 posted on 02/22/2008 5:56:21 PM PST by dbacks (Taglines for sale or rent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dbacks

I think she was too.


7 posted on 02/22/2008 5:57:18 PM PST by Clara Lou (~sigh~ '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: DWPittelli

she is broke and of game time.


8 posted on 02/22/2008 5:58:01 PM PST by camas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DWPittelli

she is broke and of game time.


9 posted on 02/22/2008 5:59:28 PM PST by camas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clara Lou

Her “when” she becomes president has become “If” she becomes president.


10 posted on 02/22/2008 5:59:41 PM PST by cripplecreek (Just call me M.O.M. (Maverick Opposed to McCain.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: traditional1

President or vice president doesn’t really matter.The difference is only a matter of timing.


11 posted on 02/22/2008 5:59:54 PM PST by arthurus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: DWPittelli

What if nobody comes?


12 posted on 02/22/2008 6:01:03 PM PST by bert (K.E. N.P. +12 . Never say never (there'll be a VP you'll like))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DWPittelli
Like many of the Dems who gave Bill a pass, she tolerated him because she believed that he might be useful to her politically. That was partly true. However, it is a tight race with no room for error.

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.

Will be interesting to see the post-primary debates. When McCain will try to look conservative and Obama will have to defend himself under heavy scrutiny.

13 posted on 02/22/2008 6:01:56 PM PST by dhs12345
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dhs12345

I just want to watch Hillary slither away under some rocks.


14 posted on 02/22/2008 6:04:37 PM PST by AGreatPer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: dbacks

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.


15 posted on 02/22/2008 6:05:55 PM PST by sport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: DWPittelli

I’m not sure why you wouldn’t support John McCain from your standpoint as a liberal. McCain is conservative on many issues but also quite independent and even liberal on some issues. At least Mccain has done something in his life unlike Obama or Hillary.


16 posted on 02/22/2008 6:05:55 PM PST by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

I know what you’re sayin”

You would think that after the Marxist pr*cks at the NYT dumped on McCain, he would’ve come out and dumped all over the purse-carrying ***holes at that rat newspaper.

If I were McCain, I might have said something like: “Screw these communist ***holes at the Times. That’s all they are - goosestepping pr*cks. They have a problem with me, meet me and my .357 magnum in the parking lot. “

Of course I’m not running for president, so I don’t need to hold my tongue.....


17 posted on 02/22/2008 6:07:04 PM PST by sergeantdave (Governments hate armed citizens more than armed criminals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: dhs12345

I think Obama’s lack of a record is an asset to him.


18 posted on 02/22/2008 6:09:05 PM PST by cripplecreek (Just call me M.O.M. (Maverick Opposed to McCain.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: DWPittelli
fat lady sings

Fat lady is about to sing in Texas...

19 posted on 02/22/2008 6:09:12 PM PST by Snickering Hound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DWPittelli

My reading of it is that the clintons will hold a fundraiser anywhere there is money.


20 posted on 02/22/2008 6:09:59 PM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DWPittelli
"Hillary is now more interested in getting her $5 million back than she is in maximizing her chances of winning."

She should start an "Hillary Clinton Defense Fund", a sure winner for an infusion of ChiCom cash.

yitbos

21 posted on 02/22/2008 6:11:04 PM PST by bruinbirdman ("Those who control language control minds. - Ayn Rand")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: plain talk

I am not a liberal. I am a classical liberal, which would be closer to a small “l” libertarian than anything else. I believe in a minimal federal government whose budget primarily consists of military defense and a criminal justice system (for those few crimes which are truly federal because they take place in more than one state, or are against a federal institution or property). I do not have a problem with such things as public roads and public funding of primary and secondary education, although I see little scope for the federal government in either.


22 posted on 02/22/2008 6:11:25 PM PST by DWPittelli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
Absolutely.

But eventually he is going to have to show his hand. And decisively, too. Can’t be a flip-flopper.

23 posted on 02/22/2008 6:14:38 PM PST by dhs12345
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: DWPittelli
Thinking about voting Libertarian this year. I’ll write-in if necessary. Don’t like McCain at all.

And I am not a rank and file GOP Republican. I can think for myself.

24 posted on 02/22/2008 6:17:08 PM PST by dhs12345
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: traditional1

***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.***

I hope you like socialized medicine.


25 posted on 02/22/2008 6:17:08 PM PST by kitkat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Snickering Hound

I keep hearing that there are too many Democrats out there who do not want her. Then again I heard that in 2000 in NY. I grew up in the same neighborhood as Chuck Schumer and Ruth Bader Ginsberg and I heard then from some of my former classmates that no one wanted Hillary and yet she won. I’ll only count her out after the DNC Convention.


26 posted on 02/22/2008 6:18:16 PM PST by Bringbackthedraft
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: traditional1
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.

What self serving BS. If the Republicans would lose this election because the some conservatives sat out the election it's a loss for both Republicans and the conservatives who showed themselves unwilling to vote for anyone other than who they think is best. Everyone loses.

On the other hand if McCain wins while some spoiled children with hold their votes then the spoiled children lose big.

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.

27 posted on 02/22/2008 6:18:36 PM PST by billva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: DWPittelli
She is no longer fighting for the nomination.

You are out of your mind. The Clinton's will be fighting for the 2008 nomination until the last vote is counted. The day that they lose the 2008 nomination will be the 1st day they begin fighting for the 2012 nomination. That means Barrack Obama's biggest challenge isn't John McLame, it's the Clinton's who will make sure Obama suffers the same fate as McGovern.

28 posted on 02/22/2008 6:22:18 PM PST by hflynn ( Soros would not make any sense even if he spelled his name backwards)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kitkat

History...

Many of us were angry with Bush “one” and wanted to show our anger by voting for Ross Perot. Perot pulled out of course. However, our anger lost the pres election to Clinton.

However, Republicans won control of Congress shortly after and did many, many great things.

Unfortunately, they lost their way a few years later.

You win some, you lose some.


29 posted on 02/22/2008 6:26:24 PM PST by dhs12345
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: DWPittelli

That bitch will never give up.

It’s a ploy.


30 posted on 02/22/2008 6:27:27 PM PST by bannie (clintons CHEAT! ALLLLLWAYS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bringbackthedraft

You’re right, she’s been running for president for 50 years, she’s not giving up now. If I were Obama, I’d be watching my back. He might come down with that weird skin disease Michael Jackson has. That’ll level the playing field, white women vs. formerly black man.


31 posted on 02/22/2008 6:27:44 PM PST by conservit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: billva
...What self serving BS. If the Republicans would lose this election because the some conservatives sat out the election it's a loss for both Republicans and the conservatives who showed themselves unwilling to vote for anyone other than who they think is best. Everyone loses...

I disagree. If Macaca wins, Social-Conservatives LOSE BIG TIME. Social-Conservatives must show They have PRINCIPLES and the courage to abide by them if they are going to be taken seriously the next time around. Let the 'other' conservatives do what they will... If they are willing to show that they were ALL BARK AND NOT BITE... let them do it. We must be different.

KEEP YOUR EYES ON THE BALL SOCIAL-CONSERVATIVES! :)

32 posted on 02/22/2008 6:29:38 PM PST by ElPatriota (Duncan Hunter 08 -- I am proud to support this man for my president and may be Huck :))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: billva
On the other hand if McCain wins [loses?] while some spoiled children with hold their votes then the spoiled children lose big.

You have a point. But I do have the luxury of living in a state (Massachusetts) which will never make a difference in the general election, so I can withhold my vote with impunity. Further, my problem with McCain isn't that he's not quite a pure enough conservative. McCain Feingold is an abomination to the First Amendment which transcends such categories. Furthermore, I think he's temperamentally unsuited to the Presidency (as are the Clintons). We don't need another rage-aholic in the White House.
33 posted on 02/22/2008 6:32:03 PM PST by DWPittelli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

“In my opinion, voting for a losing (or even winning-BCC) McCain is only encouraging the GOP further leftward so I’m writing my conservative choice in come November.”

I too will be writing in my choice. Where have all the conservatives goon?


34 posted on 02/22/2008 6:32:12 PM PST by Blue Collar Christian (If "there are no losers here," then there are no winners here. ><BCC>NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DWPittelli
If she had conceded a week ago, I know of one cop that would still be alive.
35 posted on 02/22/2008 6:35:18 PM PST by gorush (Exterminate the Moops!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DWPittelli
I am not a liberal. I am a classical liberal

Oh, an intellectual. Have fun constantly explaining what a "classic liberal" is. :-) But I fully understand what you're saying. In today's world you are a garden variety libertarian. Thanks for clearing that up.

36 posted on 02/22/2008 6:38:41 PM PST by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Blue Collar Christian

I had also said that I could never vote for McCain, but realize the other choice is impossible to consider. I will vote for McCain because I can not stand the thought of Obama or Hillary in the White House.


37 posted on 02/22/2008 6:38:42 PM PST by seekthetruth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: DWPittelli
I am a classical liberal,..

I do not have a problem with such things as public roads and public funding of primary and secondary education, although I see little scope for the federal government in either...

I had no idea there was such a thing as a "Classical Liberal".

You have told me what you "don't have" a problem with, please do tell me what you do have a problem with...

Very curious........

38 posted on 02/22/2008 6:41:17 PM PST by LasVegasMac (Islam: Bringing the world death and destruction for 1400 years!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: dhs12345

History...

Ginsburg and Breyer didn’t lose their way...

Your anger lost a lot more than the presidency...


39 posted on 02/22/2008 6:41:51 PM PST by BamaBlue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: billva

Not acting spoiled. Some might call it integrity.

If the choice is to vote for someone who is less crappy than someone else, I’ll chose a third option.

And even though McCain has “found God” on the illegal immigration issue, I don’t believe him.

Quote from the Godfather that applies — “You need to have a war every ten years or so to get rid of all the bad blood.”

If the Republican party fractures, so be it.


40 posted on 02/22/2008 6:43:35 PM PST by dhs12345
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: DWPittelli

Hillary will never “give up”. Let’s see what happens when Obama’s cocaine-buddy/gay lover takes his polygraph test.


41 posted on 02/22/2008 6:45:55 PM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: billva

“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.


42 posted on 02/22/2008 6:46:36 PM PST by Blue Collar Christian (If "there are no losers here," then there are no winners here. ><BCC>NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: LasVegasMac
Look up "Classical liberalism" in Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

It begins:

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, John Stuart Mill,[3] Montesquieu, Voltaire,[4] Thomas Paine and others. As such, it is seen as the fusion of economic liberalism with political liberalism.[2] The "normative core" of classical liberalism is the idea that laissez-faire economics will bring about a spontaneous order or invisible hand that benefits the society,[5] though it does not necessarily oppose the state's provision of a few basic public goods.[6] The qualification classical was applied in retrospect to distinguish early nineteenth-century liberalism from evolutions in liberal thought during the 19th and early 20th centuries, especially the "new liberalism" associated with Thomas Hill Green, Leonard Trelawny Hobhouse,[7] and Franklin D. Roosevelt,[8] which grants the state a more interventionist role in the economy, including a welfare state. Classical liberalism is not to be confused with the ideology that is commonly called "liberalism" today in the United States, as "classical liberalism" is actually closer to being a tendency of "conservatism" in the U.S.[9]
43 posted on 02/22/2008 6:51:34 PM PST by DWPittelli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: traditional1; cripplecreek
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.

I'm with you guys!

44 posted on 02/22/2008 6:53:17 PM PST by alicewonders (The Republican Party - gettin' stupider and stupider.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: arthurus
President or vice president doesn’t really matter.The difference is only a matter of timing.

Anyone dumb enough to be POTUS with Clinton as their VP 'one heartbeat away from the Presidency' needs to do some research on the terms 'arkancide' and 'clinton body count'.
45 posted on 02/22/2008 6:55:57 PM PST by JayNorth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: kitkat
"I hope you like socialized medicine."

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.

46 posted on 02/22/2008 6:56:15 PM PST by traditional1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: bruinbirdman
She should start an "Hillary Clinton Defense Fund", a sure winner for an infusion of ChiCom cash.

Maybe she could get the New York Times to run a hit piece on her too.

47 posted on 02/22/2008 6:56:20 PM PST by alicewonders (The Republican Party - gettin' stupider and stupider.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: billva
Get a grip; it's not "spoiled brats" who are telling the Republican Party "ENOUGH OF THIS"...it's those with principle.

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.

48 posted on 02/22/2008 6:58:33 PM PST by traditional1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: sport
He is a fool if he picks Hillary as his VP. If he does he won’t be around 3 months after he is sworn in.

The Clintons are so evil, calculating and arrogant, they will bide their time and 'off' the POTUS exactly the correct number of days into his term so Hillary can serve two full terms in addition to the partial term after his unfortunate demise. If the magic number is 400 days, look for a mysterious heart attack, car crash, plane crash, or suicide 401 days into the presidency.
49 posted on 02/22/2008 7:02:33 PM PST by JayNorth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: traditional1; cripplecreek

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.


50 posted on 02/22/2008 7:02:40 PM PST by Hoodat (Bull Moose Party Member)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-273 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson