I Cancel My Hillary Contribution Plan, She Takes My Money Anyway
Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 07:50:56 PM PDT
A few weeks ago, I posted a diary saying that I had canceled my monthly contribution plan. I told them to cancel my contribution plan almost three weeks ago. I never got a response to my email, so I assumed that they had taken care of it. But today I looked at my bank account, and for this month she had taken my money anyway. I am guessing that they just ignored my email and kept taking my money, which, if true, is probably illegal.
I have spent most of this campaign season supporting Hillary, and critizing Obama. If you don't believe me, read some of my past diaries here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here.
My reasons for canceling my monthly contribution came from an article I read. In the article, her campaign made clear that they don't care who wins more votes or more delegates. The advisor (Harold Ickes) suggested that they are going to take the nomination to the convention, even if they keep losing.
Sen. Hillary Clinton is ready to fight for the Democratic nomination all the way to the Democratic National Convention in August if that’s what it takes
and
But Ickes also made it very clear that Clinton would not give up without a fight -- no matter what happens in the upcoming primary battles with Sen. Barack Obama.
It is becoming increasingly clear that she is willing to take the party down, rather than conceed. Here in Texas, people always told me that she was a power hungry b**** who would do anything to win. I didn't believe it, until now.
One thing that is worrying me is the increasingly negative tone in the campaign. Most (all) of the negativity is coming from Hillary, not Obama. If she takes this to Pennsylvania, she will probably keep trashing him. Ultimately, when he finaly emerges with the nomination, he will be too crippled to take on McCain.
I think she hates him, for taking away from her what she always felt she was entitled to. Her hate may very well blind her. She very well will take an enormous amount of pleasure by taking him down in the general election, if he does beat her. If she does destroy his chances in November, she can come back in 2012 and say that she had warned us all along.
It had appeared in polls, going back to 2001, that she was unbeatable for the democratic nomination. And now look at the pathetic state of her campaign. I am also increasingly disliking Bill Clinton, which is something that was absolutely unimaginable just a few months ago. The Clintons are willing to take the party down, if we deny them what is "rightfully" theirs.
Ickes also said in the article:
They see a tied ballgame.
Despite being 130 elected delegates behind (at the time), and almost 100 TOTAL delegates behind, they saw a "tied ballgame".
Hillary seems to have a lot in common with Bush. She surrounds herself with a small circle of advisors. The insular nature of her inner circle, which is held together by loyalty rather than performance (as we learned with Solis Doyle), shields her from reality.
She probably believes that it is a "tied ballgame". She said today that the popular vote and delegate count right now is "inside the margin of error." That is an odd statement, since there is no "margin of error" when it comes to actual votes cast. And even if there were, it would be difficult to use that excuse now, when Obama leads Hillary by almost 1,000,000 votes.
Nations dominated by fascist leaders tend to be easy to defeat in war. The fascist leaders are ideologues, disconnected from reality. Therefore, their non-reality based decision making system tends to be ineffective. The same thing may be happening with Hillary. She is so certain that she is brilliant and right, and convincing her that she is wrong is difficult.
It is difficult to convince her that, for example, voters who are not blue collar, white, older, big state democrats matter. Once the ideology sets in (because she loses most other groups), it becomes self sustaining. She makes calculations off of that, such as ignoring most states between February 5 and March 4. And she has no problem in staying in and bringing the party down, because she wins the only group that she thinks matters.
It was also difficult to convince her that Patty Solis Doyle, who was unqualified and ineffective in her job, should have been fired long ago. The fact that Hillary's senate campaign, managed by Solis Doyle, burned through $40 million out of $50 million raised, despite facing no serious opponent, wasn't enough to convince Hillary to fire Solis Doyle. The failure of Solis Doyle to tell Hillary how much cash they were spending in Iowa, wasn't enough either. The failure of Solis Doyle to create any substantive infrastructure in the smaller February 5 states (where Obama got most of his delegate margin from), wasn't enough. And her failure to prepare for the post February 5 states wasn't enough. She only fired Solis Doyle after most votes had been cast, and the shear incompetency of Solis Doyle became exposed.
Why did Hillary keep Solis Doyle for so long? Because she was loyal to Hillary. Sound familiar?
She is so good at convincing herself that her lies are true, that she will probably take this to Pennsylvania and beyond. The fact that she doesn't have any viable chance at being nominated won't be enough. Much like her continued employment of Solis Doyle, despite all of the failures, she can convince herself that she can still win the nomination.
My guess is that she will either do better in Texas and Ohio than polls suggest, or at least claim that she did better than polls suggested (which is the more likely scenario). She will then use this to claim that she has the right to take this to Pennsylvania and beyond.
She will also be able to use this bogus interpretation to claim that the negativity against Obama worked, and thus she is justified in being even more and more negative against him. What this does to our chances in November is of no consequence to her.
Unless Hillary wins by huge margins in Texas and Ohio (more than 30%), there will be no remaining viable route for her to the nomination. In effect, she lost the nomination when February 5 ended in a tie, and Hillary had no plan for any of the post-February 5 states.
She will take the nomination through super delegates if she can. If she can't, she will drag this to the convention, and get her sweet revenge by making sure that if she can't be president, neither can Obama.
I will not finance a candidate so arrogant and hubristic.
Permalink | 56 comments