It's Hillary Clinton's Fault if Democrats fail to win the White House and hold Congress

[stevenleser]

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_steven_l_080316_it_s_hillary_clinton.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 16, 2008

By Steven Leser


The most potent force standing in the way of a Democratic win in 2008 is the deteriorating unity in the Democratic Party. That could change but that is the biggest issue for Democrats right now. Whether or not the fractures in the party can be healed remains to be seen, but the person who is at fault for those fractures is Hillary Clinton.


Hillary is at fault for several reasons, but the biggest one is that it has been obvious since February 6th that she is not going to win the nomination. Most party leaders and pundits were predicting (correctly as we now know) that Obama would win the next eleven states in a row and this is the day after Obama had a massive victory in the February 5th Super Tuesday contests. Any other candidate would have quit at that point. It is the height of hubris and selfishness for Hillary to have continued. That she continued guaranteed that the race would degenerate into negativity and the politics of personal destruction.


If you are familiar with recreational athletics, you probably have heard of something called a "mercy rule". See http://www.momsteam.com/alpha/sports/basketball/basketball_mercy_rule.shtml and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercy_rule . A mercy rule is a rule that says if you have a contest where the leader is ahead by a certain amount, the chance that the individual or team that is behind can reverse the situation is so improbable that it makes sense to stop the game and declare the individual or team that is ahead the victor. There are several important reasons beyond the probability of the reversal of fortunes to end a contest like that. If you read the first article I linked above it has a sentence that makes the point well:


"In addition, in many cases, the number and intensity of fouls increase, thereby putting player safety in jeopardy."



There is a tendency for people to get frustrated to the point where they act out in an ugly manner when they are losing. The several weeks of contests that Obama won in a row increased the frustration and anger level in the Clinton camp and that of her supporters to the point that all they want to do is "foul" Obama. From the perspective of the Obama camp and his supporters (as well as many neutral observers), in the last six weeks, Hillary and her campaign & supporters have thrown every nasty innuendo and accusation they could drum up at Obama. Hillary even went so far as to tout the attributes of the presumptive Republican nominee over Obama, a fellow Democrat. Disgust at the tactics of the Clinton campaign and her surrogates has inspired at least three articles of mine, http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_steven_l_080305_hillary_clinton___th.htm and http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_steven_l_080218_hillary_clinton___de.htm and http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_steven_l_080314_hillary_presses_obam.htm .


Although most people recognize that a lot of what is said in politics in general and campaigns in particular is rhetoric, particularly the attacks, there are a fair amount of people that believe them and form lasting opinions based on the things that are said. When the race for the nomination is all over, Hillary will endorse Obama and many of her campaign people will go to work for him. That is how little anyone should believe what is coming out of Hillary's camp right now. Unfortunately, the attacks being made by Hillary and her surrogates in addition to the overall tone with which she has conducted her campaign since February 6th will cause many of her current supporters to question whether they should support and vote for Obama in the general election. Hillary is going to have to work hard to convince them that they should support Obama and how she does that is going to be an interesting tightrope to walk considering that she could come across as a liar for some of the things she has said. If she fails to be able to do that, and it is no guarantee at this point that she reverse the damage to the mindset of some of her supporters enough so that she can bring them to support Barack once it is all over, not only will she have cost the Democrats the White House, she will have caused a number of down ticket Democrats in the US House and Senate and state legislatures and governors mansions to lose as well.


I think many prominent Democrats realize this is where we are and are upset at the situation and angry at Hillary. I think that is one of the reasons for some of the more pointed comments coming from Nancy Pelosi, for instance, on a unity ticket. I think she recognizes the danger to Democrats retaining the house and senate and is concerned. The longer Hillary waits to drop out and endorse Obama, the worse this is going to get and the higher the probability of a catastrophic outcome for Democrats on Election Day. Historians will no doubt make the same connections I have made and blame Hillary for the loss if that happens. Hillary's withdrawal from this race is six weeks overdue. It is time for her to regain her grip on reality, put her party and her country above herself and concede the race to Obama.

[Diane R]

1. I agree totally. Just one person could end all this tomorrow. Hillary and her ego need to go away.

[Skip Intro]

2. Obama could end it tomorrow if he walked away.

[FrenchieCat]

5. with his 170 delegate lead?

Why?

Cause some White people might be queezy due to guilt via association of a minister saying things in a way that offends their delicate sensibilities.

You realize that if Hillary ends up with the nom because of this, she will lose the GE, don't you?

The states she needs to win, she wouldn't.....due to missing voters. You understand this, right?

[WinkyDink]

51. WHY? Oh, because he's so much the better person, you see! For UNITY, don't you know?

[stevenleser]

81. Rewind back to Feb 6th and its more obvious that he is, yes.

Before the race for the nomination was pulled into the sewer by the Clinton campaign.

[chknltl]

6. Yep. The Giants should have done the same.

(Patriots Fan) Oh and :sarcasm:
YES WE CAN!

[stevenleser]

11. If the Giants were down by an amount that was impossible to come back from, then maybe

When were the Giants down by seven touchdowns? Because, having lost Super Tuesday thirteen states to seven and looking at another eleven losses in a row, wouldnt you equate that to about seven touchdowns?

[chknltl]

20. sorry...

I was being sarcastic. I was actually non partisan during that game and quite pleased at how well the Giants fought. They earned that victory against great odds! The post that I was responding to regarding Senator Obama simply walking away, was so offensive to me that I posted my sarcasm quickly albeit without sufficient clarity. I am an Obama supporter through and through. One who plans on meeting many of my fellow DUers on Feb. 12, 2009 in Washington DC when President Obama rededicates the Lincoln Memorial on the 200th birthday of President Lincoln. I can think of no greater day of joy, HOPE or inspiration that has taken place in my 53 years. Fates willing, I will be there!

[ima_sinnic]

8. right--the one in the lead should always quit--what simple-minded CRAP

did you even read the article?
HBilly is in it for one thing and one thing only at this point--HERSELF (well, herself and Bill, without whom she would just be another mediocre, which-way-is-the-wind-blowing, nobody congresswoman). Her lack of loyalty to the Democrats is appalling. Her greed is appalling. Her paid supporters are #*(%&##%

[stevenleser]

9. Is that what that person said, LOL, that is why they are on my ignore list

That is the kind of thing that disqualifies a person like that from being able to participate in a rational argument.

[ima_sinnic]

25. heh--smart move with the ignore list--I guess I'm a glutton for punishment

I have a very small ignore list--I can't stand not knowing what everybody's saying, much to the detriment of my blood pressure.

yeah--in essence, that is what was said--he could "walk away," like that would make sense.

:hi:

[stevenleser]

37. I've given up on the not using the ignore list thing. Way too much over the top stuff from Hillary

supporters. Then they come to this thread and say Hillary isnt the negative one and isnt inspiring her supporters to be negative. Funny isnt it?

[Skip Intro]

13. The point is the race isn't over. No one has won. No one should step aside.

[Exilednight]

52. Obama walking away right now would hurt the Party more. repugs would have a field day......

if Hillary got the nomination by either making Obama drop out, or super delegates giving it to Clinton.

[totodeinhere]

56. Why should he be the one who walks away?

Couldn't Clinton do the same?

[Skip Intro]

97. Yes, either of them could quit and this all would be over. Niether will, yet, and neither should.

But all you hear on DU is that its time for Hillary to drop out. As if she's to be blamed for running. Obama has a significant lead in pledged delegates at this moment, but that is not what is required to win.

But to say Hillary should drop out before the race is over, for the good of the party, and that Obama should never drop out for the good of the party, before the race is over, is bullshit.

[misanthrope]

Since she has already "kneecapped" Obama...

...it doesn't matter at this point.

[stevenleser]

18. And that might be true...

I dont know if the tipping point has been reached. I am concerned that you might be right and it has, but I am not giving up yet.

[Hepburn]

55. I totally agree.

I cannot recall being as disgusted with someone as I am at this time with Hillary Clinton. If the Dems lose in November, IMO, the blame lies squarely at her feet.

:grr:

[niceypoo]

59. When will Obama run on his policy positions?

All we hear is ranting about Hillary, it is all we have heard for months on end. When does the 'hope' start?

Obama has failed miserably to define himself as anything other than 'I'm not Hillary.' There is plenty of dysfunction to go around on both sides.

[stevenleser]

63. That refutes my assertions how, exactly? n/t

[BumRushDaShow]

73. Where has there been "ranting about Hillary" coming from Obama?

The past month since Clinton executed her "kitchen sink" strategy, he has been forced to defend himself and that was the whole point of the kitchen sink - to pull the target of it "off message".

Problem is, much to the Clinton campaign's consternation, Obama has not only been able to deftly defend, refute, and point out the truism that silly season was definitely running amok... he was actually able to turn the ugly coming from all sides including the M$M, into a positive message. I.e., he used the lashing out of the losers to illustrate why coming together as ONE America against the divisiveness of both the Clinton and GOP campaigns, is what is needed to heal the economy and get America back on track.

[stevenleser]

76. And look for more of Barack turning it positive...

as he said when he gave interviews about the Wright issue, the good that can come of it is that we can talk in the campaign about how guilt by association has no place in campaigns.

[FrenchieCat]

3. It won't be the first time that they Lost us congress......

but hopefully, it will be the last! We just got congress back....damn!

[BzaDem]

4. This is pretty rediculous.

You are saying "any other candidate would have quit at this point" when she got more votes and more delegates on Feb 5th?

These kinds of statements are so rediculous they make one want to stop reading right there.

[ima_sinnic]

7. more, but not enough to win & now mathematically impossible (nt)

[stevenleser]

16. That is not what I said. Try using my words and then try to dispute my argument

I am saying she had just gotten shellacked 13 states to seven, if I am not mistaken, and then was looking at losing the next eleven states.

The kinds of things that make people want to stop reading is when people incorrectly restate someone elses thesis.

[BzaDem]

86. This is what you said

"Hillary is at fault for several reasons, but the biggest one is that it has been obvious since February 6th that she is not going to win the nomination. Most party leaders and pundits were predicting (correctly as we now know) that Obama would win the next eleven states in a row and this is the day after Obama had a massive victory in the February 5th Super Tuesday contests. Any other candidate would have quit at that point."

You are saying that any other candidate would quit on February 6th, since it was obvious (according to party leaders and pundits). I am saying that is rediculous, because she won more votes and delegates than he did on Feb 5th. Maybe you could argue that she should have dropped out after losing 11 states, but not before solely based on predictions of party leaders and pundits.

[stevenleser]

89. Yes, based on the predictions too...

... I wrote to Edwards who I was supporting at the time, by the way, one week BEFORE Super Tuesday and asked him to drop out because it didnt look like he would win a single Super Tuesday contest and in fact would not do better than third anywhere. I said that for the good of the party AND to preserve his own future viability, he should drop out. I can send you a copy of that email in PM if you wish.

Next?

[BzaDem]

91. Edwards had yet to win a single state, and he came in third in all but Iowa.

Hillary was actually ahead. Is there a single example of a candidate who drops out when they were actually ahead, based on predictions for what is to come?

[anamnua]

10. This is what the classic psychoanalysts call 'projection':

http://changingminds.org/explanations/behaviors/coping/projection.htm

[stevenleser]

12. Sounds like you dont understand what projection is...

Maybe a DUer who has a Psych degree will explain it to you

[Liquorice]

14. Everything is Hillary Clinton's fault, so why would

this be any different? I remember when it was Hillary's fault that John Kerry lost in '04. It's also Hillary's fault every time the right wing attacks Obama. There is always some convoluted way of blaming her, so wouldn't it be easier to just skip all the jumping through hoops and making arguments supporting the same old claim? There's really no explanation necessary. This editorial wastes a lot of words when it is much simpler and to the point to just say Hillary Clinton is to blame.

[stevenleser]

15. Nice attempt at using hyperbole to dispute my assertion. I never said everything. I was specific

I said she will be responsible for the losses in '08 if she does not rectify the mistakes she has made.

Take other people to task if they inappropriately blamed her for things. If you want to challenge my argument, challenge it on its merits, not on the things for which other people blame Hillary.

[Liquorice]

19. You have a position that is not really based on fact, but on interpretation.

I could just as easily make the argument that it is Obama's fault if we lose this year. I could list all kinds of "evidence" to support my claim, and then ask you to refute each point. It is an exercise in futility.

I have been seeing this idea floated lately, by the way, that if we lose it is Hillary Clinton's fault. I think it's a way of preemptively blaming Hillary should Obama get the nomination and lose. But make no mistake, if Obama loses, it will be because HE lost. He will have to shoulder the responsibility for the loss.

[stevenleser]

21. If you believe that, make an argument and yes, I would try to refute it.

But you havent made an argument either refuting my point or supporting your own.

[Liquorice]

22. My argument is that if Obama loses

the GE, it is his loss. It's that simple. He wasn't strong enough to win.

[stevenleser]

26. So, you and other Hillary supporters will vote for him and support him?

You dont hear anything from fellow Hillary folks that they would stay home? You dont fault Hillary for any of that?

Putting it another way, when we have contests like this one and the one in 1980 and 1968, is it fair to say that one if not both of the leading candidates are responsible for not unifying the party behind one of them so that the election can be won?

[Liquorice]

29. I do not blame Hillary Clinton

for things I find objectionable about Obama, so no. I do agree that both of them must do all they can to unify the party once the nominee is decided. A nominee has not been decided yet, however, and it isn't rational to blame Hillary (or Obama) for possible future events, or to come up with ways in which a possible future event is Hillary's fault.

[stevenleser]

30. So, did you do the research yourself to come up with those things?

Where did they come from? Who spun them a certain way? Who kept them in the media? As the saying goes in Latin, Qui Bono? Who benefited from all of that information and the way it was spun.

You may not realize it, but you are making my point for me.

[Liquorice]

31. Where did you come up with the idea that losing

the GE is Hillary Clinton's fault? Did you come up with that all by yourself? Who led you in that direction? Who benefits from your belief that Hillary is harming the party?

[stevenleser]

32. Very good questions...

I came up with the analysis myself as I do with many of my articles. Thats why I write, because I think that I can come up with some of these things myself and offer fresh perspective. What led me in that direction was this forum and the fact that much of my family and friends are terribly divided to the point of very ugly fighting.

The Party will benefit if the article somehow results in the party unifying, either as a result of Hillary dropping out or the tone changing.

Next?

[Liquorice]

34. The tone has to change in both camps. Obama is no saint. You see

things the way you wish to see them because Obama is your guy, but you think it only goes one way. You do research to support an already-held belief, and then think it is objective. Hillary supporters are being tricked, and you are completely above it all over on the Obama side. It isn't that way, however, and both sides are playing hardball. Both camps will have to unite the party once a nominee is decided.

[stevenleser]

35. Lets come at this the other way...

Lets say you are Barack Obama and it is February 6th. You've just won Super tuesday fairly convincingly. Your internal polling shows that you are a shoo in for the next eleven contests. At that point, do you go negative on the opponent you are certain to beat in the next eleven contests?

Of course not, that would be a stupid thing to do. if you are team Obama on Feb 6th, you want nothing to change. Now, lets put ourselves in the other persons shoes.

You just lost super tuesday convincingly. You are looking at eleven losses in a row coming up. Your opponent has this massive following as a result of being charismatic and having low negatives. You have fairly high negatives.


OK, Liquorice, looking at the situation, for whom does it make more sense to go negative? Is it my Obama bias that suggests that the answer is Hillary? I think Hillary is the obvious answer here. So, knowing that it is more obvious for her, did she?

I think she did. I think they threw everything possible at Obama. I think the Obama camp responded in kind on a number of occasions, but it wasnt because they were trying to make the campaign about that. Hillary was.

[earthlover]

44. It is the character assassination of Hillary's campaign that will hurt

They are not campaigning for Hillary at this point. They are campaigning to destroy Obama.

Realistically, it will be difficult for hillary to win the nomination.

SO what we might have....if the Hillary Campaign is successful in destroying Obama....which is their goal.....would be a destroyed candidate getting the nomination. If THAT happened....and I am not saying Hillary is going to succeed with this....Hillary would be partly responsible for weakening our candidate.

She basically endorsed McCain for crying out loud. She said Obama was not ready to be president or commander in chief AT ALL (didn't say she would be better, said he was just a speech). Ferrarro said that Obama did not earn his successes...translate....he just had them handed to him because he was lucky enough to be born black. They have spread the Muslim rumor. Spread pictures of Obama in native costumes of an African country. All of this is beyond the line, way beyond the line.

I don't think it was obvious on Super Tuesday that Hillary was going to lose. But at this point it is.

The question raised by the OP is how is Hillary going to get her supporters to now support Obama? My worry is that she will not be successful, that she will make a half assed attempt and call it enough. I hope I am wrong.

The continued scortched Earth policy of the Hillary campaign is hurting us dearly. Already MCCain has caught up and moved ahead in the polls. Of note, this happened in OHIO...after the scortched earth campaign...as well as nationally. How big of a lead is McCain going to build up in the next month or two of bashing Obama by our own?

[stevenleser]

66. Exactly right, and by the way, McCain isnt just gaining on Obama...

he is gaining on both. The circular firing squad going on in our party, engineered by the Clinton campaign is going to absolutely kill us for the GE. We may have already passed the tipping point to where it cannot be fixed as one responder suggested, but we definitely have to cut it out right away if we are going to salvage this.

[Window]

17. Great cogent, rational analysis.

Kudos for your writing skills.



:kick:



:thumbsup:

[stevenleser]

28. Thank you!

:hug:

[Window]

45. Thank YOU!

I will be digging up all of your articles.


:kick:

[Double T]

23. More obama BS.

I would NEVER vote for BO if he becomes the Democratic nominee. How many mistakes do SOME Democrats need to make before they wake up?

[stevenleser]

27. And I'll bet many Hillary supporters believe that now and furthermore, I'll bet

that most Hillary supporters who feel that way have come to that opinion in the last six weeks. Maybe not you, but most who feel that way.

By the way, that means that I am right and my thesis is not BS.

[joeprogressive]

49. Then you may not post here after the primary. So let me say goodbye in advance. n/t

[Double T]

57. I checked the rules and there is NOTHING about a requirement.........

to be a DNC Democratic Party lemming in order to post; sorry to disappoint.

[stevenleser]

62. That person didnt say that, but if you read the rules that Skinner has

at the top of this forum, they make it clear that if you attack the nominee once the nomination is decided, you will get tombstoned.

[Double T]

85. If I must march lockstep with the DNC, I'll be taking an EXTRA LONG vacation.

[stevenleser]

87. Whatever you feel you need to do, the rules are clear. If you attack the nominee you will be gone

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[stevenleser]

33. Thanks a lot, that pic is going to give me nightmares

;-)

[Perry Logan]

36. It's all Hillary's fault? That's new.

[stevenleser]

65. Nice argument challenged post. Do you do that often? (n/t)

[elleng]

38. This is silly.

Hillary and Obama both must inform their supporters that the bickering thats going on will have the result of losing the presidential and congressional elections for democrats; 'WE' all look and sound like fools.

[stevenleser]

67. As I said to another responder...

Lets come at this the other way...
Lets say you are Barack Obama and it is February 6th. You've just won Super tuesday fairly convincingly. Your internal polling shows that you are a shoo in for the next eleven contests. At that point, do you go negative on the opponent you are certain to beat in the next eleven contests?

Of course not, that would be a stupid thing to do. if you are team Obama on Feb 6th, you want nothing to change. Now, lets put ourselves in the other persons shoes.

You just lost super tuesday convincingly. You are looking at eleven losses in a row coming up. Your opponent has this massive following as a result of being charismatic and having low negatives. You have fairly high negatives.


OK, Liquorice, looking at the situation, for whom does it make more sense to go negative? Is it my Obama bias that suggests that the answer is Hillary? I think Hillary is the obvious answer here. So, knowing that it is more obvious for her, did she?

I think she did. I think they threw everything possible at Obama. I think the Obama camp responded in kind on a number of occasions, but it wasnt because they were trying to make the campaign about that. Hillary was.
----------------------------------------------

So, assuming my above argument makes sense and that it was Clinton who started the whole trajectory of the campaign going negative, what would you have Obama and his supporters do in that event? Allow Obama to be swiftboated by the Clinton campaign? Because that is what it would have been to not respond in kind. I vowed after this happened to Kerry that I would never sit by while someone did this to one of my candidates again.

[elleng]

72. Kerry was not swiftboated by another Democrat,

you recall.

It may not be clear to you that continuing the animosity is destructive, to both candidates, the party and the goal of winning in Nov. Reminds me of my kids: She started it; NO She started it! Get outta here, NO DINNER FOR EITHER OF YOU.

I suggest that you try to solve for the goal.

[stevenleser]

77. Nope, I will never stand by while one of my candidates is swiftboated again

you asserted that Obama wasnt swiftboated by Hillary, but you did not make an argument for it. Are you saying that Hillary hasnt attacked Obama multiple times over the last six weeks? Are you saying that her surrogates havent pushed several of the nastier things to come up in this campaign?

The "She started it is childish" angle will always serve to set up the object of a negative campaign as a punching bag. I dont buy it. We all know why this campaign turned negative and we all know from what the Swiftboaters did to Kerry that it works if you sit by and take it.

[elleng]

82. I stated that Kerry wasn't swiftboated by another Democrat.

I am not saying anything about who said what about whom over the last six weeks, but that the supporters of each have become terribly nasty, in such a way that there are serious questions whether the Dem party will be able to function again, and win in Nov.

[stevenleser]

84. In that case, I agree with all points...

... I think the point is where the blame lies and what can be done about it and what should have been done six weeks ago.

[C_U_L8R]

39. I'd say it's OUR fault

for entertaining the Clinton political machine for so long.
Shame on us for not recognizing we'd get the exact same divisive result as before.
And now it's up to us to show them the door.

[the other one]

40. What about Nader? Won't it be his er\\fault?

Sorry. Add me to your ignore button.

I can't stand Clinton, but Obama leaves me flacid. Neither one of these two can beat McCain, so you guys should start coming up with your excuses right now. Hmmm...Obama blames Clinton! Perfect!

[stevenleser]

58. If the Dems pull it together enough to make it close and then lose by the margin Nader gets, then...

yes, it will have been Nader's fault. Right now Nader is the lesser danger. As I said in the beginning of my article, that could change, but right now, party division is the biggest issue.

[aquarius dawning]

41. It couldn't have anything to do with the fact that Obama is a shitty candidate to be President

Could it?

[stevenleser]

68. Nope, guilt by association and other crap that the Clinton campaign has pulled

works on everyone. That would include her, by the way. And no, it isnt a person's fault or a black mark on their character if someone you have known for a long time and even trusted or got advice from does something bad.

It is more damning to Clinton that she did this after just having gotten shellacked in the biggest contest, super Tuesday and when both campaigns internals showed Obama with an obvious victory in the next eleven contests. As I said, any other candidate facing such a reality would have dropped out. Even Huckabee never faced eleven losses in a row before dropping out. Huckabee also stayed too long, but he was VERY careful not to try to tear down the nominee of his party.

[rpannier]

42. It's everyone's fault if we don't

This blame-game idiocy should be at an end, but of course it's not.

We have had the strongest slate of candidates running since 1960 and instead of looking at that, we've allowed this to become about us and the candidate -- not about the country.

This country is in a seriously bad way and it's not moving in the correct direction, yet... here we go again. If we don't win it's 'blah's' fault.

We are the larger of the two parties.
The economy and the war in iraq are issues that favor us.

How about if we try focusing on getting our collective acts together, stop whining about 'If we lose in November' and move on.

More people are swayed by what a friend, neighbor or co-worker says about a topic, then what a politician says.

Fact is...
If we lose it's because the Dems didn't get out in force and vote.
If we lose it's because we didn't get out there and talk to people.
If we lose it's because we didn't get people to the polls.

It's NOT because of Clinton or Obama

[pajjr]

43. I disagree

We have a pretty bad primary system. I do not feel you can blame either one of them. They both have a good shot at this primary. I think Hillary would do much better in the G.E. I can see how the republicans will attack ,this stuff will define him. Hillary staying in there is the only shot we have at getting the white house.

[JTFrog]

47. No they don't both have a good shot. Hillary cannot win period. No amount of fuzzy math is going

to change that. At some point she will have to concede this fact. So why is she being so stubborn about it and trying to bring the party down instead of facing the cold hard facts?

It's obvious she's already playing her cards for 2012. She is counting on the American people to go back into their little sleep world and forget about the monster she unleashed this last year.

[onehandle]

46. Hey look. It's the guy who says that Clinton supporters at DU are trolls.

He can't read this because even though I'm not a Clinton supporter, I'm on his ignore list.

Why? Because I suggested that a person who labels opposition trolls, just can't take real discussion.

Why would anyone listen to a person like that.

I suppose that after the election, he'll want to label "clintonites."

Maybe with a big yellow Star of David?

[DemVet]

48. Yeah, it's Hillary's fault she doesn't wish to give the Nomination to...

...someone that's rather inexperienced and still wet behind the ears when it comes to National and International issues.

[stevenleser]

74. Yes, it is. When you have lost, you have lost, whatever you think of the opponent.

The decision to turn this ugly was Hillarys. The decision to stay in too long was Hillarys. Huckabee also stayed too long, but he was very careful about how he did it. He didnt go negative on McCain, he went positive on Huckabee.

[Ino]

50. Excellent article

But I'll be very surprised if Hillary supports Obama after he gets the nomination. If she cared about the party she would have withdrawn by now. It's ALL about HER, and I can see her conceding but not endorsing, hopefully doing her sulking in silence, hoping 1-term McCain wins so she can blame that on Obama and run again in 2012. If Obama beats McCain, she'll be a thorn in his side from her Senate seat and never miss an opportunity to oppose or criticize his efforts.

I hope I'm wrong!

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

53. How Dumb.

Seriously. Dumb.

Nice divisive stupidity though.

[stevenleser]

60. Your logic astounds me... not

if you have a real argument to make against the content in the article, wake me up.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

64. You Make A Real Argument First.

Then I'll reply.

Such divisive stupidity.

[stevenleser]

69. I made enough for various other people to address specific points.

The fact that you cannot makes it clear to me that I am right.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

71. Using An Echo Chamber To Give Yourself A Pat On The Back Is A Bit Dumb Too, Ya Know.

Such divisive stupidity.

[stevenleser]

78. I agree, Hillarys stupidity is divisive and her divisiveness is stupidity. Next?

[Cass]

54. Personally I blame Hillary that my corned beef recipe turned out terribly

last night.

The race is tight, particularly when Florida is factored in. She has every right to stay in if she chooses to do so. If we want early presumptive nominees then we need to have winner-take-all primaries, not proportional delegate allocation.

[annie1]

61. If dems can't win then they're pathetic and so is the voting public, not b/c of hillary.

have people lost their fucking minds? now savior obama even has a scapegoat if he loses the GE, hillary. wow. pathethic.

[stevenleser]

70. And that disproves anything I said how, exactly?

I'm sorry that reality is frustrating to you to the point that you cannot address my points. Its frustrating to me too. Its possible we are already passed the tipping point to where our GE prospects, to include many downticket candidates, are doomed.

[Zynx]

75. The idea she should have quit after Feb 5 and that any other candidate would have is silly.

No candidate would have.

[stevenleser]

79. Really? Can you cite an instance in either party where someone has stayed after 11 straight defeats?

Queue the jeopardy music...

[rodeodance]

80. silly---so the voters COUNT---you have been MOCKING Hill for that--Now SUCK IT UP

[stevenleser]

88. By the way, someone responded but they are ignore, can someone tell me

the main thrust of their response, at least if there is anything 'there' there...

[Zynx]

95. Feb 5 wasn't after 11 straight defeats.

After Wisconsin there is a case to be made. However, very few candidates have dropped out in such a position in terms of votes and delegates. Someone would have to find a case of a candidate dropping out who is so relatively close in delegates.

[Cha]

83. Thanks for your analysis and interesting

article, Steven. hilary and her lawyers are too busy messin' with Texas to bow out with dignity.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5107384

This isn't about the Democratic Party with the clintons..it's about them exclusively and they wouldn't want to tell their grandkids that they didn't go down every avenue to get themselves back in the seat of power no matter what it cost the Democratic Party or America.

Call me an optimist but, I think, they're doing more damage to themselves which is a good thing for our country.

[stevenleser]

92. My pleasure!

Glad you liked it!

[Cha]

94. OTOH, Obama is a proven vote

getter for Dems.. He campaigned for Bill Foster who won denny hastert's old seat and campaigned for Dems in 2006 where he was credited with helping out immeasurably.

[rpannier]

96. Just a bit of info on the Foster race

1. The Chicago Tribune endorsed Foster... The Tribune has almost never endorsed a Democrat. This endorsement had nothing to do with Obama

2. The week before the election Fosters' opponent was caught on video mocking Fosters' speech impediment -- this was part of the reason for the Tribune's endorsement of Foster

3. The republikkans were unable to persuade any of the people they wanted to run in this district.

This was further proof of how feeble the republikkan party is in Illinois.

[Cha]

98. And in addition Obama made an ad for

Foster. :) Thanks for the info.

[rpannier]

99. And that no doubt helped

Everything came together for Foster.

Good omen

[shadowknows69]

90. 100%

This should have been done weeks ago. Ending it in June or later is going to be disastrous.

[Armstead]

93. I agree. The primaries are Round One. Hillary shouldn;t have hurt her own party.

A primary ought to be different than a General Election. \

A general Election is a Zero Sum Game. The winner takes it all, the loser gets nothing.

But a primay is round one. Presumably the winning and losing candidates still shere the same ultimate goal, which is to put a member of their party into office.

Hillary should have bowed out gracefully when it became clear that she couldn;t win without getting nasty and dividing the party.

She chose to do that to satisfy her own personal ambitions at the expense of the Democratic Party.