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.
It’s yours.
Crying without tears.
Sobbing without the quivering bottom lip.
Poor widdle me, I am just a widdle girl twying to do what's best for my countwy. I am just so pwoud to be here, I have come so far, how do I do it, how do I continue, how to I make a diffewence?
Carol Burnett was more convincing in "Went With the Wind."
“We don’t have to, nor can we really, “send a message” to the RNC.
The RNC is not in charge of our lives or our destiny. It has no power to vet candidates, give them permission to run, force people to vote or not vote for them.
The RNC is irrelevant to this enterprise. If conservatives want a candidate, they have to “emerge” him themselves. How did Howard Dean emerge when he was NOTHING on the DNC-scene? From the grassroots. How did Obama emerge when Hildy was THE candidate of the DNC, the Rat elites, the moneychangers, the media and on and on? From the grassroots.
WE have to do this and quit blaming the mythical “They.””
Thank you for your civil answer. I concur.
Name calling? Geez read the anti McCain posts here if you want to see name calling.
What set me off isn't really this topic but the number of posters on FR willing to take their marbles and run home to mommie because the don't like the candidate.
What is also interesting is that not many of them have a viable candidate of their own, they just don't like McCain.
It is not a difference of opinion that sets me off as you say, it is the number that are running home with their marbles because they don't like him.
By the way it is fine by me if you don't respond to me, I kind of imagine I'll make it through the day anyway.
He HAS a record....and a scary one, at that.
It's just not been made known yet.
It will be....the MSM will try to suppress it, but will fail because it's that radical.
Leni
Even though you are not responding to me, I want you to know this is the most rational, intelligent post in this entire topic.
No whining, running away from voting, the frank realization that if we want different candidates we have to get out and vote for them.
I agree 100%
I think the vast majority of those on Free Republic are conservative (at the very least, right of center) and share our common values.
What I believe has happened is that the Republican party, which once was synonomous with conservative, is that it has moved steadily leftward. What started as a "big tent" idea to encourage others join, has had the opposite effect. It has weakened the party, because in order to appeal to a broader base it had to compromise core principles and values.
Here's my challenge. Find the word "moderate" tied to the word "republican" prior to 1985. Today, there are many brands of republicans, some miles apart. I think we see that diversity here at Free Republic.
I no longer consider myself a republican (far too diverse). I cannot identify with Senators like John McCain, Lindsay Graham, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, and Chuck Hagle -- all Republicans.
Today, I'm simply a conservative.
I doubt it. This wicked, lawbreaking communist witch will not give up without a fight.
If she is defeated, she will continue to cause trouble.
In the interest of full disclosure, I would crawl, stumble, or hobble to the nearest polling place to vote against Hillary Clinton.
First, I appreciate that you are debating this in a civilized way. That is what politics should be - give and take & having mutual respect for the other side. Too many times, I have been personally insulted, called names, had dispersions cast on my IQ, told to go away, to just die - or that I’m going to hell because of the way I’m voting.
I am not a one issue voter, nor am I a “100 percenter”, I have compromised on candidates many times through the years. I know there will never be a perfect candidate, even Reagan made lots of mistakes. You start out researching each candidate, I started out supporting Duncan Hunter, I felt he was a good conservative. But he never gained any momentum or showed that he had what it took to win a national election. Then I felt Fred Thompson would be that person - he too, dropped out. Then I gave all my support to Mitt Romney (too late, I’m afraid - I wish I had gone with him earlier). I never liked Huckabee, Giuliani or McCain.
It was only last fall that most all Freepers (with the exception of about 2%) were saying they could never in a million years vote for John McCain. I felt that way & the same about Giuliani - the feeling being that they would take the party in a direction it shouldn’t be going. Last summer, when Bush and Congress tried to get amnesty passed - the American people voiced their strong disapproval & they backed down. Then they tried it again - knowing that about 80% of the people were violently against it. John McCain led the charge against the people. John McCain has proven himself to be a man that does not care what the people he represents want - he will do what he wants & damn all of us.
McCain has shown that he hates the conservatives as a group & now he is changing his tune to get our vote. He is an utter hypocrite and I believe, a danger to this nation.
I can play politics just fine, but not when I feel a candidate does not have the interests of the American people in his heart. In all my years of voting, I have never felt this way about a candidate. I’ve always been willing to say, well this is not who I wanted - but I will support him or her. I felt this way about both George Sr. & George W. Bush. Too liberal for my taste, but I thought they were sincere. McCain is the final straw.
Parties live and die, perhaps this is what we are witnessing. It’s not too late for the democrat party to implode too - especially if Hillary finds some way of forcing her way as their candidate. The dems are just a hair away from this happening to them as well.
Americans, the people that I talk to - are sick and tired of these politicians that have been there forever & at election time - start preaching to us how they are going to change things. What the crap have they been doing all this time? They are part of the problem. It’s Obama’s race to lose at this point - he represents CHANGE to a great many people, not to myself but to many others.
McCain is a sad sick maverick that reveled in sticking his thumbs in his party’s eyes and basked in the lovelight of the New York Times. I’m so cynical at this point - I’m thinking his slimy people probably had that story printed to help him raise money and support. This man has been politicking for so long - he knows every trick in the book. I do not trust him. He would say or do anything to become President - he is a frightening man.
At this point, I am praying that something will happen to him before the election. I know that is a horrible thing to say - but it is for the greater good. This is the only hope that someone else can step up for our party and lead us to victory. I hope a lot of us have learned by now, that we’re not going to get perfection - but for God’s sake - let’s get rid of McCain. The absolute worst candidate we could put up there. A divider, not a uniter. A spoiled scheming foul-tempered corrupt Ted Kennedy suck-up that has authored some of the worst bills ever to come out of Congress.
I thank God that there are still some people that have the courage & conviction to say, “ENOUGH!” This is the only thing that will reverse the course the GOP is taking. This is the only thing that will save the party in the long run. Until enough people are willing to do this, we will continue our downward spiral. History will not be kind to us if we don’t start taking a stand NOW. I hate to sound melodramatic, but people have to know in their hearts that this is true.
I could shut up & line up behind 90+% of who we could have nominated - but no way McCain. It stops here. I will still work hard for good candidates, and will still vote for Republicans down the ballot - but a message must be sent that we will not eat the slop that we have been thrown. MOST of the people have not chosen this man - this is a travesty. The party is supposed to be answering to it’s members - not the other way around. The GOP is totally out of touch with the average person, they are heading down a dangerous road & we don’t like it. They need to be taken down.
If the democrats win, it will be because the republicans didn’t put forth a good candidate - not because a lot of people decided to quit holding their noses and quit drinking the kool-aid. Many people will say, “but it wasn’t the party that voted for McCain, the people did”. Yes - the democrats, independents, and people that think FOX news represents a conservative viewpoint - in just a few states - were the ones that stuck us with this man. A great many of us are outraged by that & are angry that the party we have supported would turn on us as they have.
The GOP has lost this one - just like they did in 2006. Bush picked a Vice President that would not run after him to carry on the legacy. He did nothing to “groom” a successor. He, like McCain - was too busy “reaching across the aisle” and calling those of us who did not like amnesty, “vigilantes” and “nativists”. I am sickened by these people - I want nothing more to do with them. I understand the decision that you and others have made - I know it could not have been an easy one - but I implore you to rethink.
If the Dems win - it will be because the GOP lost.
Maybe not...Ickes, (IMHO) Is a Union (Mob / Lawyer) Thug....would you "trust" him....a common misconception, "honor amongst thieves...."
for how many mil$/bil$"
However, I am not going to vote for Hillary. And nor am I going to vote for McCain.
I understand your concerns though.
The issue here is the future of Republican party. Will it be win at all costs and compromise all important issues. Or will the party regain it’s integrity and its identity.
Heck, I have a tough time telling the difference between the parties these days. Bush was supposed to be conservative. But he is a big spender like the rest. And don’t get me going on his support of the “shamnesty” bill.
Yes, he will have to answer the tough questions.
Maybe not a few years ago. But definitely, these days.
We live in great times.
imho, Hillary realizes she might be losing and by making nice with Obama she wants to lay claim to the VP spot.
Why do you characterize such people as "emotional hotheads"? I've seen at least as many posts on this thread from moderates ranting about those more conservative.
Right now, I'm leaning toward sitting this one out but may wind up pulling the lever for McCain - but I'll be voting with my foot and holding my nose with both hands. McCain has no interest in stopping illegal immigration; he's shown himself to be a big-business bashing Earth hugger in the way he's climbed on the global warming/Kyoto accord; he's certainly no supply-sider; he's the ringleader of the "gang of 14" that squandered the opportunity to ensure that President Bush's conservative judicial nominees received a fair up/down vote; he's sponsored legislation that attempts to crush my first amendment rights; he considers Sandra Day O'Connor to be a splendid jurist, etc. etc..
The problem isn't so much that McCain isn't conservative - it's that he is so far away from conservatism on many crucial issues. It's the old "democrat takes the country to hell in a handbasket, and McCain does the same, except that he phases it in over 5 years" argument. It took a Jimmy Carter to make Ronald Reagan president - perhaps an incompentant Obama administration may give rise to a true conservative alternative. Of course, the other consideration is whether our country could safely endure another democrat administration, especially with a democrat congress. I honestly don't know, and that's what I have to decide over the next few months.
I don't mean to single you out, but this is a logical argument in which each side can make a defensible case and resorting to name-calling isn't going to move things along in a positive manner.
Both your concerns are very valid.
I guess I take the view that, regardless, like our individual lives, the life of our country will go on so long as the Lord wills it so.
That’s not to say I endorse Christian Fatalism or the view that we have no responsibility to make our future better. We do. But I don’t think we have the ultimate power to ensure our total survival or our total destruction.
That’s not to say we can’t screw things up royally and cause a lot of misery with the latitude we do have.
Sitting out an election and helping elect Hillary or Obama isn't rationale nor logical to me. I reject a strategy of electing dems in the dire hope that the public will later accept a more conservative candidate later. Makes no sense. In the next 4-8 years a large number of SC justices will be replaced. I would prefer McCain to pick them rather than Hillary or Obama.
Elections are ALWAYS about comparative choices as no candidate agrees with a voter completely on issues. We are where we are. No one is happy about that - least of all me. But I vote with my head not my emotions. Elections are not personal - it just business.
I have a feeling we aren’t as different as you may think. We do seem to disagree on how to proceed, but that is the normal state of human affairs.
Labels do nothing for me at all. I have no concern in this process except, come Election Day, hiring the best leader I can get for my country from among the two political viable candidates, one of whom WILL become President and Commander in Chief.
Please don’t imply that I am not abiding by my principles. I am. My principle guide is to do what I think is best for the country, even if it doesn’t feel good.
That also is your principle. We disagree on what is “best” for our country. Don’t let that discourage you.
One thing I would like to point, though, is that for all this talk about how “principled” are the people who refuse to vote for McCain, it’s a real slap in the face to the literally millions of good, decent conservatives-—including social conservatives-—who over the years sucked it up to vote for Republican dopes because there was no other way to get a majority and, thereby, give power to true conservatives from other areas.
I voted for a (R) dope for years, but it got me Newt Gingrich and Henry Hyde in leadership positions and so on.
I took the broader view. My vote was not just for that dope on the ticket. It was for helping to give power to a political party that at least in some aspects was working to advance, rather than destroy, conservative goals.
Yet my holding my nose for this worthy goal is now derided as “unprincipled” by those who seemingly would rather quit the process than do what they can to advance, even by a little bit, goals that are better for our country.
This sounds lofty, but it's wholly off the mark. This is POLITICS, for Pete's sake!
Like it or not, a political party is not a moral person. It is merely an organization, one that exists for the non-moral goal of winning elections.
If you want to be taken seriously in such an organization, you have to show that you contribute to the organization's goal. THAT IS ALL. A football team doesn't draft a player for any other reason than that they think he can and will play well. Nothing else is relevant or taken seriously. Indeed, if the player is constantly yammering about how he will only play if he agrees with the gameplan and so on, the team won't draft him or will look for the chance to cut him or will look for ways to replace him so they don't have to rely on an "unreliable" player. It's all completely pragmatic. So, while they may be valid reasons a person decides to stand on principle, it doesn't follow that the organization does or should give a rip about anything other than the *impact* of that person's decision on the organization's goals. Also, while many here seem to think that the *impact* of their decision to "stand on principle" by refusing to vote for McCain will be that the party will "get the message," "pay attention," "pay the price," history proves otherwise. Rather, the party will move on and try to find a way to win without the quitters. Again, it's just pragmatism.
Bears repeating.
As I said, your position is defensible. However, I disagree that sitting out an election is irrational or illogical. And while you're free to opine that allowing dems to be elected can lead to a more conservative candidate doesn't make sense; history does not bear you out. It was Carter's incompetent, self-loathing, vacillating administration that directly paved the way for Reagan. It not only enabled Reagan to prevail in the general election, but it also allowed him to win the nomination over Bush 41 and a host of moderate contenders. There's also the fact that the klinton adminstration's initial leftward lurch, such as attempting to socialize health care, using the military for social engineering, and raising taxes ("contributions" in klinton-speak) led to the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994. Had we fielded a better candidate in 1996, we would have booted klinton out after one term. As it was, Congress largely kept him in check, though he had the gall to claim the prosperity of the 90s as his legacy (a largely unsuccessful effort since anybody with half a brain could see that he had as much to do with that as a rooster's crowing causes the sun to rise).
However, the point is that both sides are defensible and that good conservatives will be found on each side.
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.