Skip to main content

 With respect Senator Clinton, the time has arrived, for you to do one of the hardest things you ever will be called on to do, to step aside. It's understandable you feel the better qualified candidate. No matter what outcome today's elections have, it's time. No matter what your personal belief is that Obama might blunder, how many people within your loyal inner circle tell you you can win; it's not so. Senator, It's time! Please, put aside personal dreams, and understand the damage you now are doing. Your campaign has been hard fought, but ultimately you will loose, playing by the rules as agreed by every candidate. All other courses, that use some artificial path for your nomination, is suicide for the democratic party.  It's time for action, for a purpose larger then each individual person, time to do what is in the best interest of all Americans. Now is the time to make good your offer of unconditional support, for you to show the same energy you have shown in your campaign, and work to heal hurts your aggressive campaign helped fuel. Senator Clinton, you are being respectfully asked to step aside.

Your continued campaign gives John McCain added free time, while causing unfounded questions, about the projected nominee of the democratic party, Barak Obama. You have given McCain a great gift, having you do much of his attack on Obama. It costs him none of his campaign treasury, and any attacks on Obama he might have found risky, you have now legitimized. We know McCain's message offers much of the same failed policy that bush has followed. We can't afford four additional bush years, adding to our problems, both at home and abroad.

If you've convinced yourself that your attacking Obama, toughens him for the republican attack, look how 13 percent of people polled in PA, now falsely claim Obama is a Muslim. That is no accident. --(Yes, we claim to be free of prejudices, but seven years of rove/bush, dividing people with fear for their political gain, on top of the radical Muslim's who were responsible for 9-11, it seems a sizable group of American's view Muslims with suspicion. NO Barak Obama, no matter what the Internet or people's whispers claim, is NOT a Muslim! Still, fair minded Americans can hope with Obama as president, a dialog can be started to show, not all Muslim people are against us.)--

Your continued campaign has been threatening the chance for a democratic president this fall. You now use the same type of tactics, you and President Clinton once claimed, as morally and ethically wrong. Remember when your current supporters; Richard Mellon Scaife among others, financed a  campaign based on false statements, lies, and half-truths? Remember them claiming you and Bill had a hand in murdering your friend, Vince Foster? How much agony did White Water cause you and President Clinton? You now claim such attacks helped make you tough, immune to new destruction you might face. Maybe this is true, or maybe you still have not reached the true depths such efforts can cripple your dreams. One has to wonder why so many radical right-wing voices, Rush, Scaife, and others, all trying to gather support for you now. Can I respectfully ask you Senator Clinton; what amount of time did these efforts distract President Clinton, and youself, from the real problems facing America? The "vast right-wing conspiracy" you claimed as your sworn enemy, you now seek endorsements from . . .  Why?

It's sad watching you work to undermine someone who's inspired millions of fellow Americans. Many have for the first time, a hope that they can change the serious problems we all face. Obama has energized large segments, past democrats would have begged for, most who never felt any hope, that their actions could result in any real political change. Many who are old enough to remember all your husband's Presidential years, now feel violated! Hearing you use the same rove style tactics, we forcefully defended you and President Clinton against, is an insult to those who offered our support.

   Being a white man, I can only observe the fine line a black man in a powerful position, often is forced to follow. Too "white", or "not black enough", and if any anger creeps in, he must be a white hating militant!Too accommodating, he is an Uncle Tom.

Your methods to undermine your fellow Senate colleague, have been feeding on such racial divisions. It's obvious, the divide you have created, has helped build fear of the black man, within some segments of white people, that lived through the civil rights era in the sixty's. Before your tactics, designed to divide people, Obama had no problem winning majorities of the white vote of all ages. You have exploited issues like Wright, "elite", and bitter, working to make the white guy who had a black father, become the BLACK man with a white mother. I'm white, and I call you on this. The demographics of people voting for you, follow this overwhelmingly. It's not by mistake! Now, what are you going to do to reverse this? Your legacy rests on this fact.

  Your claim that Barak Obama is "an elitist", is an example of how unethical and harmful your campaign has become. Every time you call Obama "an elitist", I'm sure you know the image you create in peoples minds. It's an image of Obama being somehow out of touch, that no matter how wrong and unjustified, he is forced to address it, while it works to reduce his chances as a promising candidate to win the White House. Obama, after graduating from Harvard Law School, being elected by his peers to a position of great honor: the editor of The Harvard Law Review, I would assume he was offered many choices, from the best well paying "elite" top law firms in the nation. Instead, he chose to use his skills helping others, taking a low paid public service position in Chicago, working one-on-one, helping those loosing their jobs in the steel mills. This illustrates the full degree of foolishness, calling a black American, who I'm just guessing, very few black American's feel any connection to any "elite" group, at least in the way your tone suggests. Calling Obama an "elitist", speaks more of you, then any words he's used. Yourself having graduated from another top "elite" institution, Yale Law School;  your claim "to be just one of y'all folks", is as empty as it is sad. Making "elitist" a bad word, is just as wrong as those who claim "liberal" has some darker meaning. John Stewart spoke for many saying, he wants someone elite, "he wants someone smarter then him in the White House!"

   How shallow your pandering photo-ops have become, when in reality, you are very far removed from most of our day-to-day lives. Honestly, when was the last time you stopped by the grocery to buy something for dinner? You have become an example of politics as usual, showing what problems are faced, when working for real political reform. A change in politics as often practiced in Washington, will define the ability we have to make real progress towards change.

    Who would be surprised watching a future orchestrated photo-op, out to prove your newly issued "testicular fortitude" as a reality . . . I we hear you say . . . "let's all go a shoot'n our guns, when we'all git us down'n there holler". What y'all say we git us an iron city, n sum shoot'rs , over at'ur  Billy Bob's af'er w'all blow dem cans to da liv'n shit?" I mean no disrespect, I just wish to illustrate how silly it's all become.  

When you use the words a tired Obama offered, seeking understanding of one group of Americans, by another group; in a way you know to be wrong, you only add to the cynical politics, that damages us all. When you place added burdens on a talented fellow democrat, crippling his effort to introduce himself to people, who don't know him well, and may be working to overcome hidden racism, healing as a scab years ago, but picked at by you for political gain. Barak Obama has shown how classy he really is! He could make the arguments against your actions, but it seems he's trying to be the better man, to practice what he has been preaching. Your actions show why you, a person who should be adored by most, has earned such a negative polling. You can't blame that on the VRWC. You must blame yourself!

With the all the time and hard work you have given this campaign, with the strong passions of many people supporting you, combined with your personal long held hopes, dreams, and inner drive; we can only guess how difficult that it must be, to face the need to withdraw from this race. Since your finishing a close second place, the unrealistic hope of any chance, any new opening to exploit, even when it's only fiction and smoke, it seems to have caused flawed thinking within your campaign. Watching you now use any argument your campaign finds, hoping to strip the nomination from Obama, reminds us what sorry excuse-after-excuse, bush has justified our blunder in Iraq with. It is no less sad when you keep changing what a win really is, damn the rules agreed upon.

It's time for you to work  in helping Barak Obama, become our next president. It's your time to step aside, as the other candidates have before you. That is the hard, but only patriotic action available to you now. That is what service you can now offer our nation. Barak Obama has shown great leadership, running a historical campaign, with spectacular organizational ability, an awesome amount raised, in small amounts, from  everyday inspired Americans, and overcome the benefit you had, as the long time party insider. He has overcome the odds, using the rules as agreed on by all parties when this race began. Now, I again respectfully ask you Senator Clinton, Please step aside, and follow your pledge to heal the wounds you have created,  between so many good people. Thank You!
I wrote this early Tuesday morning, not knowing what the nights returns offered. I wrote it asking for some understanding just how damaging a failed campaign could be, when still using the tactics that only served to cripple the nominee over issues . . .well, issues that really are not issues. I want to be clear, I have respect and hope, that all people who desire a better world, and our place being more responsible within it. If I offended anyone with some of my pleas for Clinton to stop her winning at any cost style, that was not my intent. I do feel, if the polling from some states . . . PA, OH, etc. . . showing  a clear divide, with Clinton getting support from white people, many who are 45 - 50 and older, and who can remember the unrest we faced as a nation, when understandably the black citizens who we share our country, where then fighting for many basic human rights. It's hard to imagine for many not old enough to remember, but it was only 40 short years ago, a beaten LBJ, used his remaining political capital after the death of MLK, to push through congress his last civil rights bill, the Fair Housing Act. Until it's passage, most mortgages and deeds, had limitations on what people were considered acceptable to sell or rent to. I forget the exact percentage, but it was well over 50% I believe, that limited sale to black people, and often Jewish people. I suspect Clinton, intentional or not, by focusing on issues that stir old fears and possible prejudices among white people who remember those turbulent times. I'm white, and old enough to remember, but support Obama without any doubts. I have had several white people my age or older, that have offended me with comments regarding voting for a black man. I'm sure Barak understands this more then I ever will, but it seems a real possible reason for his needing to work so hard to gain rust with that group. My point was to build a dialog for re-building the confidence of any people who we can win back. I also was asking, not that Clinton's campaign to remember this can happen, and hope enough voices, super delegates, and others, could request her campaign be more sensitive of this problem, and to think how she can reach those supporters in her promise to help unite us. I apologize if my tone was a little harsh, but it was written before her hard night, and probability she will find her actions and direction taken, now created through circumstances. I have my fingers crossed in hope!    

Originally posted to ZeroVoices on Tue May 06, 2008 at 06:34 PM PDT.


Will Hillary do the right thing by stepping aside?

1%2 votes
34%45 votes
8%11 votes
31%41 votes
9%12 votes
6%8 votes
0%0 votes
0%1 votes
8%11 votes

| 131 votes | Vote | Results

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Oh come on, have class. Give her til 3am! (6+ / 0-)

    It's the decent thing to do...

  •  Hillary. Bill. Please. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:


    John McCain: Like Hope, But Different.

    by malharden on Tue May 06, 2008 at 06:38:28 PM PDT

  •  Sorry, but ... (0+ / 0-)

    ... I think she's settled in for the long haul; that's what this new delegate count fantasyland thing is about.  I know it's not rational, but what about these last few weeks has been?

    As of May 6, only 272 delegates needed for Barack!

    by RadicalGardener on Tue May 06, 2008 at 06:41:02 PM PDT

  •  You lost me (0+ / 0-)

    at "respect"

    •  I WAS trying to be better then (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Using Respect, I was trying to rise above the really bad choices she has made in he efforts to derail Obama. If, on the other hand, she fails to head my respectful plea . . . along with millions of others, all bets are off!

      "It has been astutely observed that any statement frequently repeated in public assumes the status of fact" -- 1972 Shafer Commission

      by ZeroVoices on Tue May 06, 2008 at 07:20:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Keith called it. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Marlyn, rogereaton

    She'll have to be dragged out screaming, like Eunice Burns in What's Up Doc?...

    So long as men die, Liberty will never perish. -- Charlie Chaplin, "The Great Dictator"

    by khereva on Tue May 06, 2008 at 06:41:52 PM PDT

  •  Senator Clinton - (0+ / 0-)

    You don't have to spend the night.  We'll respect you even more in the morning.

  •  She'll Keep Going Up To The Convention (0+ / 0-)

    The Clintons think they have a divine right to take the nomination, and Bill has an ego the size of Planet Earth.

  •  Every time someone says "with respect..." (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    ... or "IMHO", you know they mean just the opposite.

    p.s.  what do you mean with your tag, "testicular fortitude"?  Something about your masculinity, or...?

    You looked better on Facebook...

    by Page van der Linden on Tue May 06, 2008 at 06:53:24 PM PDT

  •  I think it is going to take several of her (0+ / 0-)

    hacks from her campaign to tell her that it's time.  People like Mandy Grunwald, Lanny Davis, Terry McCaulife to make the case to her and Bill that she has more to gain by getting out gracefully now.

    No way that she'll even take the phone calls from Gore, Reid, Pelosi, Edwards, etc.  

  •  Nobody Has to Convince Hillary of Anything. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    highacidity, Marlyn

    Hillary isn't going to listen to anybody telling her to drop out, especially not you or me.

    Thing is, we don't need to convince Hillary.  We only need to convince a hundred or so superdelegates and/or the people giving Hillary money.  No matter what Hillary thinks, if her donors think they are throwing money away and damaging the Democratic party then the mother's milk of politics will dry up.

    Give up on convincing Hillary.  There are two messages worth repeating:

    To the superdelegates:  It's time to make up your minds.  All you are doing by delaying is giving John McCain a huge gift.

    To Hillary's donors:  No matter how much you love her, a dollar for Hillary is really a dollar for John McCain.  We know you are disappointed, but it's time to accept the facts and move on to November.

    Editor of the Harvard Law Review vs. Mr. 894 out of 899. How has having a stupid President worked out the last eight years?

    by Tod on Tue May 06, 2008 at 06:59:43 PM PDT

  •  A respectful closing would be best for all of us. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Here's a window for a dignified exit with a group hug by the larger community. If that can happen, I'll be on board just so we can move forward. Thanks Senator Clinton, we look forward to working with you in your continuing role as a centrist Democrat in Congress.

    If she stays in and continues to evolve into a Republican, there will be no civility or apology.  It really is time to go.

    "I can't be part of a famous hippie commune. I have a career to think about" - Candy Crowley, 1973

    by MadCityRag on Tue May 06, 2008 at 07:01:31 PM PDT

  •  With all due respect, get over yourself (0+ / 0-)

    I'm sorry to burst your bubble, Mr. keyboard pundit, but I don't think your spilling of your ego onto the computer screeen is going to suddenly magically make up the woman's mind to withdraw from the race. If and when it ultimately is time to do so, she will.  The woman is tenacious, a tooth and nail political fighter, but she is in the end, a politician, and politcians who are at all worth their salt (and I think it is only respectful to have the honesty and humbleness to acknowledge that she is) is by nature pragmatic.  The woman is not a fool, and she is not some sort of demon as some of the more vicious and paranoid on this site would like to delusionally think.  If, ultimately, the "handwriting is on the wall" and the race reaches a point where it is unambiguously over, then I have all confidence she will step aside.  She doesn't need your pushing.  

    And for all the wailing and gnashing of teeth about how her continued participation in the race is "hurting the party," I can't help but point out, as an outsider, that the recent primaries have brought out record turnouts in what could be in November key states. Registration of new voters is huge, as is general interest and engagement of democrats in the political process.  Compare the democratic turnout to the Republican turnout for all the recent primaries.  Do you honestly think there would have been nearly this kind of turnout, nearly this kind of media attention to the democratic race if it had been down to one horse, as most of you on this site would have preferred to have been the case as of February?  Is it a bad thing to have this kind of reawakened excitement abouty the democratic party in a state such as North Carolina?  Will it be a bad thing in Kentucky?  West Virginia? Montana?  South Dakota?  Was it a bad thing to get democrats excited in Ohio, the state that decided the last election?
    Compare the republican turnout in these primaries to the democratic.

    As an outside observer (as a Canadian, I can only watch somewhat helplessly, as much as America's fate affects my own country's) I think you should be happy about this excitement.  If this energy is turned usefully, it bodes well for November.

    My final piece of advice for this post, as it is already getting long. I don't know if this site's members are in any way representative as a cross section of Senator Obama's hard core supporters.  But if you claim to represent his supposed message of hope and positivity and bridge building, I would suggest you all take a long hard look in the mirror and consider modeling better these sorts of virtues by reaching out in a far less caustic way to the supporters of Senator Clinton. For all the talk about Clinton's "negative attacks," the tone I have seen on this site in the past weeks is often nothing short of vicious.  The followers of Senator Clinton are not monsters, they are not "rednecks" or "racists."  You all diminish only yourselves in these sloppy attempts to deflect blame from your own candidate's failings in reaching certain demographics.  These people are everyday Americans with legitimate hopes and dreams and concerns, and they are democrats, just like yourselves.  They support many if not most of the same goals as you do.  They simply think that Senator Clinton is the best person to reach those goals.  These people deserve to be heard and represented.  

    If the democratic party expects to win in November, the people who support Senator Clinton are going to have to be on board. However you count it up(count caucuses or don't, count Michigan and Florida or don't, use this or that formula to count caucuse votes, this or that to assign delegates in Michigan - it's beside the point), Clinton has gotten roughly the same number of votes as Obama, roughly similar number of delegates, and have won states worth roughly similar numbers of electoral votes in November, with roughly equal total populations.  I say this not to argue one way or another about how far to continue this race, but to get it through all your heads that the woman represents a very large constituency which can not be taken lightly, and can not afford to be alienated.

    Much as you dislike to hear it now, a hard pragmatic political truth is that assuming that Obama does carry this through, Clinton is more likely than not to be his running mate.  These SD's may very well flood to Obama, but these are politicians, and politicians don't give anything for free.  They see some of the demographic splits in the results, and they are going to pressure Obama on this point in exchange for their support.  So you'd better get used to liking her, or at least tolerating her to the point where you can cheer a ticket with her name on it.  
    I'm sure you're not going to be complaining about Clinton's tough-edged agressiveness when she's aiming at McCain, and I'm sure you'd appreciate Bill's help barnstorming rural areas this fall for the cause.  

    My overall point.  Despite the heatedness of the campaign, take a moment to remember that the supporters of Clinton are human beings just as worthy or representation as you, and that, regardless of the level of fight in recent weeks, you're all on the same side.  Chill out and start to follow your own candidate's optimistic rhetoric.

    •  I undersand your position . . . but . . . (0+ / 0-)

      With all due respect, get over yourself
      I'm sorry to burst your bubble, Mr. keyboard pundit, but I don't think your spilling of your ego onto the computer screen is going to suddenly magically make up the woman's mind to withdraw from the race.

      I may have taken a forceful tone in my diary when mocking Clinton's pandering and use of political ruses to gain support, in much the same way bush and rove have done, but my attack wasn't meant to be personal . . . your comment however . . .  

      The woman is tenacious, a tooth and nail political fighter, but she is in the end, a politician, and politicians who are at all worth their salt (and I think it is only respectful to have the honesty and humbleness to acknowledge that she is) is by nature pragmatic.

       You make some good points!

      a) No doubt, The woman is tenacious, a tooth and nail political fighter

      b) I'm not sure why I need "humbleness" to "acknowledge . . . she is . . . a politician". I respectfully agree, she is a politician.

      c) There is no doubt she is smart and a skilled politician, and yes she is often "pragmatic", practical using the facts to make her choices. It's how she chooses to use them in ways that damage another candidate she claims to be closely allied, that has bothered me.

        Her pragmatic use of facts and reality can be questioned when examining her ploys to gain votes by using old tricks. Offering cash that really isn't there to voters hit by financial woes, as she did when trying to fool people concerned about gas prices, trying to believe a "gas tax holiday" would give them relief. This idea is not only wrong in it's premise, she knows there would be no hope for making it happen, even if it would help.

         She is "Pragmatic" in her use of political tricks, but I suggest it's this type of politics that makes so many American's cynical about politics. It's one reason why Barack Obama's message has been so successful. Obama is pragmatic in the sense, he understands facts in a practical thoughtful way, but it's his ability to use these facts in ways that tell American's the truth about the problems we face, in a direct honest way, that sets him with a select group of great politicians. His rejection of the same gas tax holiday supported by Clinton and McCain, both trying to get a few votes, was refreshing in it's honesty over pandering.

      The woman is not a fool, and she is not some sort of demon

       I never said or thought the woman was a fool or demon. My tone was  a little vicious, but it was not intended to be personal. My point, to address and add another voice in hope of her understanding the damage she has been doing, with her tactical use of rove/bush style politics against Obama. At the same time, to Obama's credit, he decided to pass on making similar attacks against her, even though he has many obvious issues to choose from. This is the difference between the politics he wants to use leading us, and others like McCain, who has changed his stand on almost every issue he made his reputation on.

      . . . as some of the more vicious and paranoid on this site would like to delusionally think.  If, ultimately, the "handwriting is on the wall" and the race reaches a point where it is unambiguously over, then I have all confidence she will step aside.  She doesn't need your pushing.

       I don't believe I'm paranoid, I admit my tone was blunt for a reason, and I don't think delusion is really a problem on this site.

        Clinton's actions  have been slow in reading when "the handwriting is on the wall". I submit, unless she could destroy Obama, with issues that cause voters to question their support of him, using the political tools I'm ethically against, she has been without an honest path to nomination for some time. Without using tactics to damage an ethical man, Clinton's chance of overcoming his lead has been statistically small. If she chose to stay in the race, and followed a positive honest debate of the real challenges we all face, I would not have been writing this diary.

      if you claim to represent his supposed message of hope and positivity and bridge building, I would suggest you all take a long hard look in the mirror and consider modeling better these sorts of virtues by reaching out in a far less caustic way to the supporters of Senator Clinton.

      I do not claim to speak for Barack Obama in anyway! These are my views!

      I have zero problems with most of Clinton's supporters, it is her use of political tactics used so well be bush/rove, that I fault her for . . . along with those in her campaign, who also embraced such methods. I have respect for any of her supporters that have not tried to destroy Obama for political gain.

        Honest debate is a good thing. Seeking to use every dirty trick you feel able to sneak past people, playing to their fears and prejudices to destroy good people, I feel is wrong. These ways are calculated and well understood, by all professional political operations. IMHO, their usage result in many of the issues we now face as a nation, possibly are able to cause the effects to Canada you mention, and muddy our policy around the world.

      I never claimed to speak for Barack Obama! I do feel he has been remarkable in turning the other cheek when cheap-shotted, and he is without a doubt, a more measured man then I am.

         I do hold ethics in huge regard . . . which takes me back to my original point . . .  I stand by my premise that she has done more harm then good recently, by using old political games to advance her candidacy.

         Of course voter excitement is good, but I would much rather have it created by a debate that is honest. If the time and money, Obama has been forced to use to address Clinton's attacks, could have been used to frame the large differences America will face if McCain is elected, it would have been a much better use of time and money, and still could have brought large numbers of new voters. McCain follows a policy of confrontation and blustering threats as bush has, that is a sharp contrast to the hope Obama offers our nation.
       McCain has been riding free for the most part, and Clinton caused a serious distraction in talking about the issues, by using old political tricks, to put smoke in front of facts. She has caused people, who through life experiences find it challenging to vote for a black man, to be more afraid to vote for Obama. She's been working the issues that make them a little uncomfortable. (Sadly, I've heard a number saying just that among people I know!) I believe candidates working towards a similar goal, should respect those they are running against. She lost sight of that.

       John Edwards started speaking on the positions that both Obama and Clinton now have adopted; had many committed supporters, with a good organization built; facing two historical candidates that captured the media's attention, he couldn't get enough media coverage to compete, no matter how spot-on his message was. He put much effort, hopes, and time, into his quest, though many still argue he would have done well in some other states, he stepped aside when faced with reality. He chose NOT to destroy those he feels are working with good ideas for America. Clinton has taken a different path, that I feel is unfortunate.

       The example of Sydney Blumenthal, a respected surrogate of Clinton's, with a long time connection to her and President Clinton, who is credited for coining the term, "vast right-wing conspiracy" as a label for the powerful interests who worked against both Clintons. Now, working for Hillary, he's been using the same right-wing sources he's denounced, to attack and raise doubts about Obama, by forwarding  their ranting to a list of media voices.   That is a symptom of all that makes politics often fail, both for my country, and the side effect it might have on yours, and so many others.

        Bottom line, you missed my point, I was NOT blaming her supporters, I was asking her to rise above the politics she has been recently using. I also have no illusion she gives any concern to my thinking. I do hope any remaining super delegates, facing a hard choice to NOT back someone who might be a friend and long associate, instead do what many feel is good for the country: support the candidate who has played by the rules, and by that measure will be the nominee for president. It's not an easy call as Bill Richardson can offer, but it is the right thing to do . . . In my opinion!
      Sorry you found it so upsetting!    

      "It has been astutely observed that any statement frequently repeated in public assumes the status of fact" -- 1972 Shafer Commission

      by ZeroVoices on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:22:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site