Thursday, April 24, 2008

Hillary Clinton: Fork Her, She's Done

It was quite a while ago I said to stick a fork in Hillary, she's done. She hasn't followed my advice, sad to say. Now she is REALLY done. She would have to win 67% of the 9 remaining primaries to take the lead in popular vote or delegates. If she won 50% of the next 2 primaries, Indiana and North Carolina, she'd need 85% of the vote of all remaining primaries. And it would be a minor miracle if she pulled off 50% in those two states since Obama is in the lead in both, into double digits in North Carolina.

She is doing a "win at any cost" strategy and flinging out negative ads like crazy, all in the hope that Obama will make some kind of major blunder - something far worse than anything that's happened so far - or that she can convince the Super Delegates that she stands a better chance in November against John McCain. I figure the odds are better for me winning the Lotto.

This has become very sad. When all this started I was excited to see Hillary campaigning for president. John Edwards was my guy but I would have been happy to vote for any of the top three, in fact, ANY of the Democratic candidates, except maybe Mike Gravel. Now I don't like her and don't want to vote for her at all. I think she has gone so far into the negative that she has hurt herself more than Obama and has damaged her standing in the party. If she quits now she might have a chance at top party leadership in the future, like Senate Majority Leader, but the longer this goes on the less chance she will even have a political career.

But let me make one think very, very clear: If she does manage to get the Democratic nomination I WILL vote for her in November. Nothing can be worse than McCain being president, that cannot be allowed to happen. And we know the pubs are going to cheat and try and steal the election like they have in the past, the only way to stop them is show up and vote for the Democratic candidate in overwhelming numbers. So all of us MUST vote for whoever that candidate is, no matter what. And when it comes down to it I actually do think Hillary would make a good president, I just wish she knew when to quit.

9 comments:

Db0 said...

Nothing can be worse than McCain being president, that cannot be allowed to happen

I would never, for the life of me, understand this mentality.
Voting for the lesser evil if voting for evil nonetheless.

This is the kind of thinking that makes your two political parties so arrogant. They know that come hell or high water, it's one of their candidates that is going to win.

KevinBBG said...

That only leaves one solution, not voting. I'm very curious to hear how you think this is going to change anything.

Db0 said...

It also leaves the solution of voting for the smaller parties.

KevinBBG said...

That's what put George Bush in as president. Anyone who votes for a third party has automatically voted for the Republican candidate.

Db0 said...

That's what always puts someone in the office. Both sides of a bipartisan political environment make the same statement to their voters, effectively saying to them:

"If you don't vote for us, you're might as well be voting for the other party"

Thus the situation stays as it is, nomatter how corrupt both parties become, one of them will always be voted, which does not allow any incentive to fight corruption.

As noone is voting for the minor parties (because of this mentality), the minor parties never manage it.

In 4 years time, when Billary has managed to screw things up royally as a corporate shill, people will have forgotten about Bush and they will be voting Republican only because they do not want another Democrat, not because Rethugs are better.

PS: I think what put Bush as president is the blatant coup of the election process which Americans let pass...

KevinBBG said...

And after all these years of third party people saying this their percentage of the vote still remains in the low single digits. I figure 30 to 40 years of really hard work will get them to the high single digits.

In other words, it's the same as not voting.

For good or bad we have a two party system and have to work within it. Some remarkable things have still happened within that system, it just needs the average person joining up with the party at a state level and getting involved to change it into something that works for the people.

A friend of mine did that a couple of years ago and in a very short time is a district leader and a super delegate and is in the process of changing the party in her state to a large degree.

Another friend went out and campaigned for a progressive candidate and got him elected, pushing us one step closer to what we need the party to be.

All we need is thousands more doing this. Most of America are progressives (even if they don't know it) and the Republicans would never win anything again if large numbers of people got involved. Instead at least 40% stays home which has allowed a small but vigorous percentage of the population to hijack the country.

A third party vote is the same as staying home. Unless you are a Libertarian, then you SHOULD stay home because Libertarians are worse than Republicans. Part of the reason Republicans went so bad is because they adopted so many libertarian ideas.

Db0 said...

And after all these years of third party people saying this their percentage of the vote still remains in the low single digits. I figure 30 to 40 years of really hard work will get them to the high single digits.
In a country were 40% of the people are apathetic of who rules them, then it is understandable.

A third party vote is the same as staying home. Unless you are a Libertarian, then you SHOULD stay home because Libertarians are worse than Republicans. Part of the reason Republicans went so bad is because they adopted so many libertarian ideas..

If that 40% voted for what they really wanted, instead of not-voting because none of the parties represent them, then you would certainly have another party in the game.
Also, not voting is not the same as voting for a small party. Voting for a small party makes your vote count for the percentage. I do not know much about US politics but if you have 100 votes, of which 35 vote republicans, 25 democrats and 40 none, then republicans obviously have 58% of the votes and democrats 41%
However, if those 40 had voted for a small party, Republicans would have 35%, Democrats 25% and the small parties the rest.

Not voting skews the result even more in favour of the winning party.

In the end, I'd rather vote for a small party, even if that means that there is a miniscule change of chance that the party I hate more will win. However when the result is just who will fuck me less in the arse, then it does not matter anyway. I'll still be fucked.

KevinBBG said...

I didn't say Hillary was going to fuck me or anyone, if you read the original post you will see that I think she would make a good president, I just don't like her, and I think Obama has the possibility of being a revolutionary president, which Hillary can't be.

So you are beating a strawman, one you made up because you aren't here and don't understand how our government works. But if a Republican gets to be president again this country is done for. And you better brace yourself because we will take you with us. It's already happening, in fact.

You need a Democratic American president as much as I do.

Aquaria said...

I've long said that Hillary's problem with this primary has been that she's campaigned like it's 1992/1996, rather than today.

She thinks triangulation is still a good strategy, she still thinks that inane attacks about non-issues are normal, she still thinks she can pretend to be accommodating to conservatives while backhanding the liberals who will be doing the actual work of getting out the vote.

I'd vote for her if I had to. But only if I had to. I'm not wild about Obama, either, but I won't be holding my nose to vote for him like I would be with Hillary.

She can take her slash-and-burn campaign like it's 1999 bullshit and get the fuck out of here.