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.
Very well said.
The GOP used to actually care for their conservative base and oddly enough, they won elections during this period. I am going to go indep. also. I don’t feel welcome in the GOP anymore. I will still vote GOP for the state offices and congress if they field good candidates.
Me too.
Dang that was eloquent.
For the record I am not a leftist-liberal, McCain was not my first choice by a long shot. Actually I was not overly gung ho about the whole field. However McCain won, fair and square whether you agree or not and I find him far better than Obama or Hillary.
In case you haven't figured things out yet, it's impossible for any nominee of the party to win without support of people either more conservative, more moderate or more liberal than them.
I hate to break it to you, but I doubt that a nominee from the most conservative area of the party would even have a chance.
But don't let reality get in the way of your rant.
What a shame it has come to this.
We lost the election because of the Iraq war.
Exactly.. better he gets ZERO votes.. That way the RNC and Republibots can't gloss over the loss.. If the loss is bad enough things may change... Damn Osama stole that word.. but I used it anyway.. BUT I'm a moron or I wouldnn't have voted for the Father and both sons, multiple times..
Because a liberal is always going to vote for a real liberal, not a fake one playing both sides of the fence.
You raise the funds where you can.
Where was it ever said that conservatives had to have the perfect candidate. We voted for Bush who was certainly not a conservative’s conservative. However, McCain is from the far left of the GOP party. Maybe you can forget all the ways he betrayed the party as well as conservatives. But I can not. You think conservatives must support the most liberal of Repubs, but moderates shouldn’t have to support really conservative candidates. Exactly how is this fair? Why are moderates never told ‘hey this candidate is a little on the conservative side, but for the good of the party you must support him/her. Why? Why is it alway the conservatives that must ‘compromise’?
Nor I.
I agree with this...so what makes us believe a candidate who wants to stay 100 years is going to win this year? Also, I do believe the odor of corruption in the GOP hurt them badly as well as the war.
I feel really terrible about this election-there are no good choices really. This is the election that conservatives can not win...doesn’t matter which of the candidate win.
Yep, McCain has been pushing his maverick status on the party for the better part of twenty years. Now he will find that when you live as a maverick, you die as a maverick.
Who said moderates shouldn't support Conservatives, not me!
The truth is that every candidate is always a compromise and the conservatives do not have to compromise any more that any other section of the party?
Even the word Conservative is open to interpretation. I am conservative, McCain was not my first choice. However I want the nominee of the Republican party to be someone who has the best chance to win.
All you had to do is read this site during the nomination process to know there was not a consensus candidate, everyone running had critics here. Vocal ones.
So I'm sorry I don't find your argument convincing.
So tell me just who the Republicans should have nominated?
So I’ll ask you the same thing, just who should the Republicans have nominated?
And, with that State's two Senators rooting highly for Obama!!!
Hmmmmm???
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.