Remember when many DUers thought Kerry was "one of them" for conceding?

I've got that nagging feeling about Hillary Clinton about now. She knows she's not helping her own party or her own chances. She's essentially doing the GOP's bidding, even if not via direct instructions from the RNC. Her actions simply make me wonder whose side she actually thinks she is on.

That said, I still don't see a chance in hell of McBush winning in 08. But every minute Hillary Clinton draws this out is another minute MSRNC and all the General Electric affiliates, and Disney TV and Viacom, etc, get to promote McBush and trash the "infighting" among Democrats, as they intentionally help Hillary Clinton muddy the minds of the masses into thinking she actually does have a chance of becoming the nominee without further destroying the country in the process.

Great for their ratings. Great for Hillary's ego. Very bad for our already teetering democracy.

.

Hillary not conceding also = bad.


In other words (I think I'm reading this right) you don't like Hillary and want her to concede.

Kerry conceding WAS bad.

And no, I do not like Hillary Clinton precisely because of what she is doing -- putting her ego and ambition above the will of the electorate. Make no mistake, she knows she is fudging the math and playing games with the numbers to try to make it appear she is winning, but she knows she's not winning. Yet she goes on.

I'm not sure what the Kerry comparison even is, beyond simply the fact that Hillary's actions are like Kerry's only different. In both cases, their actions ultimately helped no one but the GOP.

.

it's kind of what presidential candidates do. It was pretty clear you didn't like Hillary so I was gibing you a bit, but I really get tired of hearing about Hillary's ego when Obama's (IMO) is about twice as large.

But "very bad for our already teetering democracy"? Hogwash. "Bad for our democracy" is when someone quits because Fux News says they've lost -- a la John Kerry.

It's "unlikely" that Clinton can win. It was also "unlikely" that Harry Truman could win, or even Bill Clinton.

Cutting off debate and handing the sceptre to someone declared by the media is a 'Lican trick.

I'll pass, thank you.

It made sense when I first typed it out...but it disappeared with a famous DU error message -- "Your post might or might not have been affected. Please contact us if you experience further problems." POOF. It was gone. So was my point, I think.

:shrug:

But it's in there somewhere.

.