Hillary Should Drop Out if the Margin in PA is?

A fairly persuasive counter argument, and events may well prove you right.

However, my point - namely that there is a rational basis for Clinton to hang in there; that the assertions of some Obama supporters that doing so is "absurd" and utterly contrary to the facts and any common sense interpretation of them - is surely valid. She might indeed win, and pursuing a victory is not the insane, absurd proposition that Roxxy paints it to be.

0 Replies

Not sure if you saw this one (bottom of last page)

sozobe wrote:

By the way, what I've said repeatedly is that I would like it if she dropped out but I don't think she needs to right now or even should, necessarily. I think it needs to be "cleaner" -- it needs to be absolutely patently obvious that she has no way of winning. (Right now it's extremely unlikely but still somewhat possible.)

This will likely happen either in mid-May (after Indiana and North Carolina, if she loses both) or after June 3rd (when the voting is over, and the remaining undeclared superdelegates are likely to start declaring).

In other words, I agree (and just had an argument with Roxxxanne about that in fact).

0 Replies

Hillary stomped Obama in the Pennsylvania delegate count 82 to 73. link

0 Replies

I'll add one more clarification:

I think Hillary has a right to stay in the race, see what happens, and lose fair and square before dropping out, not least to avoid alienating her supporters.

I do NOT think Hillary should be doing the aggressive tear-downs of Obama that she's been engaged in. (See the recent
NYT editorial.)

Those are separate issues, and I'm much more upset with her for the latter than the former.

0 Replies

I can sympathize with your view on that matter, but the fact is that politics is hard ball (to use the metaphor of a prominent Democrat media figure), and that at least some of the "aggressive tear-downs" we see in this game do eventually serve the public interest in revealing the characters of public figures, who, on their side, dedicate huge resources to the projection of inflated images of themselves.

The system works, but on a personal basis it really is cruel and harsh. Interesting that most of us don't focus on that when our opponents are under attack, but do when it our favorites who are on the receiving end.

0 Replies

Remember that the NYT editorial board that wrote that piece ("The Low Road to Victory") is the same board that endorsed Hillary.

0 Replies

Good point, and I take it. The NYT itself is not at all adverse to the low road when that serves its editorial interests. I think some representatives of the current Administration could easily speak to that point. Sadly, human beings are very proficient at hypocrisy.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

I'll add one more clarification:

I think Hillary has a right to stay in the race, see what happens, and lose fair and square before dropping out, not least to avoid alienating her supporters.

I do NOT think Hillary should be doing the aggressive tear-downs of Obama that she's been engaged in. (See the recent
NYT editorial.)

Those are separate issues, and I'm much more upset with her for the latter than the former.

If Hillary had "played nice" there wouldn't be the groundswell of opinion among pundits and bloggers that she get out. These are not separate issues, her negative campaigning is at the heart of the matter. Hillary has a "right" to stay in but hse will accomplish nothing by doing so. Remember when Huckabee stayed in the race after it become all but mathematically impossible to win? People just kinda laughed it off because he was playing nice and not attacking McCain on a daily basis. Of course, the Clinton campaign could end its negative campaigning but that is like asking a leopard to change its spots.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Good point, and I take it. The NYT itself is not at all adverse to the low road when that serves its editorial interests. I think some representatives of the current Administration could easily speak to that point. Sadly, human beings are very proficient at hypocrisy.

That is not hypocrisy, George i.e. an editorial board criticizing a candidate they endorsed.

0 Replies

I'm sure they would agree with you. However, they have shown me no disinclination for the low road when it served their other "editorial" interests. As in most cases involving humans, one person's 'editorial integrity', can be another's hypocritical low road. Point of view is everything.

0 Replies

Hillary Should Drop Out if the Margin in PA is?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know