Author Topic: Pure Clinton  (Read 818 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Pure Clinton
« on: June 04, 2008, 08:18:50 PM »
The speech tonight was a remarkable one for a candidate who has lost the nomination, though not remarkable for a Clinton. It was an assertion that she had won the nomination and a refusal to concede anything to her opponent. Classless, graceless, shameless, relentless. Pure Clinton.

Her narcissism requires that she deprive her opponent of a night, or a second, of gratification or attention. And she has now won, in her Bush-like version of reality, 18 million votes. Her invitation for her supporters to email their suggestions to her website is pure theater, a way of keeping herself in the spotlight and maneuvering her delegates to demand a second spot on the ticket. The way she is now doing this - by an implicit threat, backed by McCain, to claim that Obama is an illegitimate nominee if she does not get her way - is designed to humiliate the nominee sufficiently to wound him enough to lose the election.

Either way, she is clearly intent on getting Obama defeated this fall if she is not offered the vice-presidency. And if she gets the veep nod, the way she has gotten it will allow her to argue that a November loss was not her loss. It was his. And she will run again in 2012.

She will not go away. The Clintons will never go away. And they will do all they can to cripple any Democrat who tries to replace them. In the tent or out of it, it is always about them. And they are no longer rivals to Obama; they are threats.


an Andrew Sullivan Commentary
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

modestyblase

  • Guest
Re: Pure Clinton
« Reply #1 on: June 04, 2008, 08:30:06 PM »
The speech tonight was a remarkable one for a candidate who has lost the nomination, though not remarkable for a Clinton. It was an assertion that she had won the nomination and a refusal to concede anything to her opponent. Classless, graceless, shameless, relentless. Pure Clinton.

Her narcissism requires that she deprive her opponent of a night, or a second, of gratification or attention. And she has now won, in her Bush-like version of reality, 18 million votes. Her invitation for her supporters to email their suggestions to her website is pure theater, a way of keeping herself in the spotlight and maneuvering her delegates to demand a second spot on the ticket. The way she is now doing this - by an implicit threat, backed by McCain, to claim that Obama is an illegitimate nominee if she does not get her way - is designed to humiliate the nominee sufficiently to wound him enough to lose the election.

Either way, she is clearly intent on getting Obama defeated this fall if she is not offered the vice-presidency. And if she gets the veep nod, the way she has gotten it will allow her to argue that a November loss was not her loss. It was his. And she will run again in 2012.

She will not go away. The Clintons will never go away. And they will do all they can to cripple any Democrat who tries to replace them. In the tent or out of it, it is always about them. And they are no longer rivals to Obama; they are threats.


an Andrew Sullivan Commentary

Why should she concede? I wouldn't.

The Clintons have been a powerful force in the party, moreso than any couple in American history. If Obama the Socialist gets the nod, she will not sell her party out and will do everything she can to get him in office. This anti-Clinton sentiment is way out of hand.

If she were a man her diligence, strategic prowess, etc. would be positives, not negatives.

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Pure Clinton
« Reply #2 on: June 04, 2008, 08:46:48 PM »
Why should she concede?

She can't win.  She doesn't have the #'s


I wouldn't.

Personally, I'm glad she hasn't either.  Go Hill


If she were a man her diligence, strategic prowess, etc. would be positives, not negatives.

If she were being realistic & objective, she'd concede and passionately advocate that all her supporters, turn to support Obama.........yesterday
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

modestyblase

  • Guest
Re: Pure Clinton
« Reply #3 on: June 04, 2008, 08:50:08 PM »
Why should she concede?

She can't win.  She doesn't have the #'s


I wouldn't.

Personally, I'm glad she hasn't either.  Go Hill


If she were a man her diligence, strategic prowess, etc. would be positives, not negatives.

If she were being realistic & objective, she'd concede and passionately advocate that all her supporters, turn to support Obama.........yesterday

She should fight to the end. It's what any respectable man would do: fight to the death for what one believes. Its the foundation of pathos-subjective humanity at its best. Why should this be any different?


Amianthus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7574
  • Bring on the flames...
    • View Profile
    • Mario's Home Page
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Pure Clinton
« Reply #4 on: June 04, 2008, 09:46:18 PM »
Why should she concede? I wouldn't.

She just did.
Do not anticipate trouble, or worry about what may never happen. Keep in the sunlight. (Benjamin Franklin)