Why Hillary can't quit (political)

[angela146]

I had dinner with an older (late fifties) woman friend the other day. She is an Obama supporter and very politically active.

She doesn't want Hillary to win the nomination because it will bring Republicans out of the woodwork to vote against her.

But she said something very interesting: "I don't want her to quit. She has to lose. If she quits, it'll be seen as a sign that woman can't hack it -that we're too accommodating. If there's a conflict, the woman will step aside and let the man have the job in order to 'keep the peace'. "

I wonder how many women of her generation (the second-wave feminists) feel that way. I can understand where they're coming from. Even some of the ones who hate Hillary are glad that she's in the race.

Yes, of course, Hillary wants to win. But even if she knows that she can't win, does she have the option of quitting? Does she feel like she can't quit because it would be a betrayal of the women who went before and it would send the wrong message?

I've been in that situation, where older women - of Hillary's generation - have told me that I can't quit. I can lose, but I can't quit, because I "owe" it to the women who fought for my right to run the race.

When faced with that kind of pressure, I've been able to stand up to it. I don't like feminists telling me what I have to do or can't do. But Hillary remembers the time when women were men's accessories. She may feel that she *does* owe it to them.

There have been times in the campaign where it looked like she might lose, but then there was always a big comeback. There hasn't been a moment when she was handed a resounding defeat.

*If* she looses Pennsylvania or *if* a caucus of the super delegates goes decisively for Obama, maybe she can save face.

Maybe she can't quit the race until or unless she suffers a major defeat.

 

[impressive]

I really don't believe Hillary feels any "responsibility" to women in that way. I'm not sure Hillary feels anything for anyone other than Hillary (and, perhaps, spawn of Hillary).

 

[voluptuary_manque]

I really don't believe Hillary feels any "responsibility" to women in that way. I'm not sure Hillary feels anything for anyone other than Hillary (and, perhaps, spawn of Hillary).

Absolutely! And I'm not even sure that she feels much for her spawn. I've felt from the beginning of the Clintonist Era that Chelsea was nothing but another step towards power for Bill, first and her later. Repulsive woman!

 

[FunwithRyleigh]

Just once, I would love to have someone run that I actually liked and thought wasn't already corrupt. I'm not really pleased with anyone we have running. Again, it feels as if I'm going to have to settle for the lesser of the evils - and I'm really not sure who that is.

Anyone here not seen Ironed Jawed Angels? It is an HBO movie starring Hillary Swank and was made 3-4 years ago I think. It is AMAZING. It will make you appreciate the women who fought to get women the right to vote in the US.

I urge you to see it - and make sure your friends and family see it. People can tend to take the right to vote for granted. Or, think that their vote won't matter. After seeing this, I can't imagine anyone not appreciating the privilege.

 

[cloudy]

I really don't believe Hillary feels any "responsibility" to women in that way. I'm not sure Hillary feels anything for anyone other than Hillary (and, perhaps, spawn of Hillary).

Word.

She scares the shit outta me.

 

[Liar]

She doesn't want Hillary to win the nomination because it will bring Republicans out of the woodwork to vote against her.

Isn't that exactly what Hillary's supporters say about Obama?

 

[logophile]

Isn't that exactly what Hillary's supporters say about Obama?

Yes.

(I still hate the five character minimum!)

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Bah, to heck with both of them.

 

[cantdog]

Jesus. Hillary can't quit because she's ambitious. It isn't any more complex than that. Power. She can taste it!

 

[amicus]

Neither Clinton or Obama can withdraw at this stage, or so the pundits say and I listen to a drove of them each day, this past one included.

Neither can acquire the free delegates necessary for a majority with the remaining ten primaries, regardless what happens.

There is Florida and Michigan to consider, but even those outcomes will not place either over the top.

The super delegates remain in play but that is also a most complex scenario if they decide on either before the convention.

The DNC is insisting on a decision by July 1st, one or the other and that has led to an uprising among other party regulars, even Gore was weighed in today as an alternative choice to Clinton or Obama.

The consensus seems to be that it will go to the Convention, in August, for the Democrats will have a nominee for November.

Rock and a hard place, eh?

Amicus...

 

[angela146]

Isn't that exactly what Hillary's supporters say about Obama?

True. Obama would be in the same position if he were slightly behind. There would be people telling him that - as the first Afr. Amer. with a serious chance, he has to stay in it.

But... he's ahead. There's no reason for him to drop out. So, for him, at the moment, the point is moot.

 

[Liar]

But... he's ahead. There's no reason for him to drop out. So, for him, at the moment, the point is moot.

And still, there's an 'is Obama done?' thread just next door.

 

[DesertPirate]

I really don't believe Hillary feels any "responsibility" to women in that way. I'm not sure Hillary feels anything for anyone other than Hillary (and, perhaps, spawn of Hillary).

How about ego and complete lust for power, combined with sense of entitlement to that power. One of the scariest people I've seen.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Jesus. Hillary can't quit because she's ambitious. It isn't any more complex than that. Power. She can taste it!

How about ego and complete lust for power, combined with sense of entitlement to that power. One of the scariest people I've seen.

As true a pair of postings as I've seen this week!

 

[only_more_so]

If we are talking about disservice to the feminist movement, Hillary has already committed more than her fair share. She sacrificed her career for her husband's career. Even worse is that she fostered her husband's career so she could later co-opt his fame and prestige and ride them to political office. There is no way Hillary would have been elected to the senate if Bill hadn't been President. There is also no way she would be as far along in the bid for the nomination if he hadn't been President.

I'm not sure what the feminist stance on infidelity is, so I won't comment on the fact that Hillary didn't divorce Bill for his numerous, and at least one very public, affairs. But I do question whether her decision was based on her political ambitions or her love for her husband.

Maybe I just don't understand feminists, maybe taking the backdoor is an acceptable path to power. Hillary obvious thinks the power is what's important, not how you get it.

As for the question being asked... I don't see how conceding defeat when it is inevitable is a cop-out, or somehow letting down anyone. At this point, however, you can't say it is inevitable since the super delegates could really skew the result. Unless Obama wins the rest of the primaries by a landslide, he won't have enough delegates to win. And since Hillary doesn't mind taking the backdoor to power, she'd be happy with a super delegate win.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

Watching Tim Russert yesterday, there was an interesting comment about Obama's claim that he had "50 or so additional Super Delegates tied up."

The comments from the pundits followed the line, Last week was the worst week in Obama's carreer. If he had those delegates, this is the week they would have come forward.

Depending on who you listen too Clinton trails by either 150 or 126 delegates (both pledged and super). With about 300 more superdelegates out there, many from states that Clinton won and who have connections with the Clintons, it is not impossible for Clinton to overtake Obama before the convention.

In the end, the only super delegate that Obama got to come forward was Sen Casey, who holds a long, bitter resentment towards the Clintons. (See http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23848263/)

So why are the 300 super delegates waiting? My feeling is, they are waiting for the outcome of Pennsylvania and North Carolina.

And the calls for Clinton to quit? Who are they coming from? The latest and only sugnificant leader so far is Patrick Leahey. Oops, isn't he a long time, ardent Obama supporter?

I do have some agreement with those who call Clinton a little "scary." But I also see Obama as a pansey who will be walked on by congress and thre rest of the world. Take your choice. Do you want the "Iron Lady" running the country or whoever has the balls to run over Obama first?

 

[ltnsfr007]

Watching Tim Russert yesterday, there was an interesting comment about Obama's claim that he had "50 or so additional Super Delegates tied up."

The comments from the pundits followed the line, Last week was the worst week in Obama's carreer. If he had those delegates, this is the week they would have come forward.

Depending on who you listen too Clinton trails by either 150 or 126 delegates (both pledged and super). With about 300 more superdelegates out there, many from states that Clinton won and who have connections with the Clintons, it is not impossible for Clinton to overtake Obama before the convention.

In the end, the only super delegate that Obama got to come forward was Sen Casey, who holds a long, bitter resentment towards the Clintons. (See http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23848263/)

So why are the 300 super delegates waiting? My feeling is, they are waiting for the outcome of Pennsylvania and North Carolina.

And the calls for Clinton to quit? Who are they coming from? The latest and only sugnificant leader so far is Patrick Leahey. Oops, isn't he a long time, ardent Obama supporter?

I do have some agreement with those who call Clinton a little "scary." But I also see Obama as a pansey who will be walked on by congress and thre rest of the world. Take your choice. Do you want the "Iron Lady" running the country or whoever has the balls to run over Obama first?

Who wants a Hill-Billy in the white house JJ ?

http://i121.photobucket.com/albums/o232/ltnsfr/HillBilly.jpg

 

[voluptuary_manque]

http://i252.photobucket.com/albums/hh34/Molly_Wens/lol.gif

Am I the only deluded sort who thinks that looks like Paul McCartney?

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

Who wants a Hill-Billy in the white house JJ ?

http://i121.photobucket.com/albums/o232/ltnsfr/HillBilly.jpg

The assumption is that Hillary gets elected and Bill runs things. He cannot be Vice President or a member of the Cabinet. Could he be an advisor? Yes, just like Hillary was during the Clinton Administration.

Is that a bad thing? I was much better off during the Clinton Presidency than I am now and so were you.

 

[Liar]

http://i252.photobucket.com/albums/hh34/Molly_Wens/lol.gif

Am I the only deluded sort who thinks that looks like Paul McCartney?

When I squint, it kinda does. Except that's still a big-ass American flag in the background. Very un-like sir Paul.

 

[rgraham666]

Eh. Doesn't matter.

No matter who gets the Democratic nod, it's going to piss off enough people that they'll either switch votes to another party. Or stay home on voting day.

Plus the sight of the Democrats wasting their energy fighting each other rather than strive for the important goal doesn't endear them to people, least of all me.

The Republicans have now won this one.

Crap

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

Eh. Doesn't matter.

No matter who gets the Democratic nod, it's going to piss off enough people that they'll either switch votes to another party. Or stay home on voting day.

Plus the sight of the Democrats wasting their energy fighting each other rather than strive for the important goal doesn't endear them to people, least of all me.

The Republicans have now won this one.

Crap

I agree. Four (or eight) more years of Bush is what we have to look forward too. Then Obama will blame Clinton. Clinton will blame Obama. And the whole thing will start over in 2016. Meanwhile we will still have 140,000 troops in Iraq for no reason.

 

[Belegon]

jeez, you'd think no one here had ever lived through an election before...

nothing is decided yet.

 

[Darkniciad]

jeez, you'd think no one here had ever lived through an election before...

nothing is decided yet.

In a way, the hard feelings and apathy presented in this thread is a represenative sample of the democratic voters at large, though. It could very well become a self-fulfilling prophecy if the nomination process continues as it is right now, and the sentiments expressed here and in other threads continue to grow.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

The assumption is that Hillary gets elected and Bill runs things. He cannot be Vice President or a member of the Cabinet. Could he be an advisor? Yes, just like Hillary was during the Clinton Administration.

Is that a bad thing? I was much better off during the Clinton Presidency than I am now and so were you.

Honestly, no I wasn't. I'm not any worse off but certainly no better. And if the Supreme Court decides that the Second Amendment means what it says, I will be just a [size=-3]tiny[/size] bit better!