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 previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 261-273 next last
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]

To: DWPittelli
Von Mises
51 posted on 02/22/2008 7:03:08 PM PST by alrea
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: dbacks
I didn’t hear the entire debate but I did hear the end and she *was* buttering up Obama. The ONLY reason she would do this is to get the VP spot on his ticket. What a nightmare ticket that would be. Good Grief!
52 posted on 02/22/2008 7:04:19 PM PST by Ditter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | 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 is no longer fighting for the nomination.

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.

53 posted on 02/22/2008 7:05:39 PM PST by fightinJAG (Rush was right when he used to say: "You NEVER win by losing.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: alicewonders

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.


54 posted on 02/22/2008 7:07:12 PM PST by cornbreadmuffin (I WANT NEWT FOR PRESIDENT....I WANT NEWT FOR PRESIDENT....I WANT NEWT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: traditional1

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?


55 posted on 02/22/2008 7:07:47 PM PST by fightinJAG (Rush was right when he used to say: "You NEVER win by losing.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: DWPittelli
Am I supposed to be impressed by your title or what.........

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...?

56 posted on 02/22/2008 7:09:29 PM PST by LasVegasMac (Islam: Bringing the world death and destruction for 1400 years!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: DWPittelli

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.


57 posted on 02/22/2008 7:10:11 PM PST by UCANSEE2 (Just saying what 'they' won't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dbacks

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.


58 posted on 02/22/2008 7:10:47 PM PST by fightinJAG (Rush was right when he used to say: "You NEVER win by losing.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

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


59 posted on 02/22/2008 7:12:22 PM PST by fightinJAG (Rush was right when he used to say: "You NEVER win by losing.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: DWPittelli

What’s wrong with being a Conservative?


60 posted on 02/22/2008 7:13:59 PM PST by Shortstop7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 261-273 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