If HRC loses in NH, should she stay in the race?

Since her campaign has been based solely on the "you have to vote for me 'cause the hacks and the rich guys are gonna force me through anyway".

Can we assume those groups, her only REAL bases of support, will stay with HRC if she goes 0 for 2?

Would a continued non-inevitable HRC still serve any purpose going on and imposing herself against the wishes of the primaries?

After all, other than "inevitability", the HRC campaign has had no reason to exist.

and it will disintegrate the party.
She will pull a Lieberman.
She has enough money to go through the entire process.

Because it doesn't give the change to say yes, I would like her to find until the end.. not until the Beltway wants..

Let's all remember Bill lost Iowa and NH in 92. She still has a chance.

She should have the chance to fight until the end not until the beltway wants. We should wait until Super Tuesday anyway.. :eyes:

She is solely the creature of the party establishment.

to make it possible. Just like every other candidate.

the majority of the country gets a chance to have a primary or caucus. Why?

:-i

Why on earth would they?

Who wants Scoop Jackson in a pantsuit?

n/t.

Let us vote. Whether you like Ms Clinton or not let us vote.

Some people might actually want the person most qualified to enter the White House running. We have major problems in this country and abroad and Clinton is more qualified and has a team experienced enough to take on the problems and issues immediately.

Hill has millions of supporters. Insulting them is not a wise move and only damages you.

If HRC did drop out today, would anybody even be mildly depressed?

She's the candidate opposed to all ideals and dreams. That's what her "let's not get people's hopes up" rant was about. She doesn't want a Democratic administration to be a time of hope and change. She just wants a repeat of the last one.

Go Hillary.

And Afghanistan. And in Pakistan if the Dubster sends our troops there. And Venezuela.

That's what being "tough" means.

That's what being "strong" means, in foreign policy terms.

It means war after war after war, forever.

And even YOU would have to admit that a Democratic administration that keeps troops in Iraq and Afghanistan is doomed to being indistinguishable from Bush on domestic issues as well. There will never be a "hawkish liberal" administration again. Only "hawkish" ones. Like the uselessness of LBJ after 1966.

will get us nowhere. Sure it is wonderful to dream of change, and she would offer that, but changes with real results behind them.

We don't NEED to demoralize idealists and activists to win. We can win by INSPIRING and GALVANIZING the people. Saying "let's not give false hopes" is the same thing as saying "fuck you if you don't love the status quo".

We don't have to assume that the majority of the people are bitter spiteful soulless haters.

I'm signing off. Got no time for this idiocy.

There is NO good reason to ever repeat the policies of the Nineties, unless you think CEO's should matter more than workers.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

We should only have candidates with passion and convictions from here on in.

"Toughness" just means more wars.

"Experience" just means support for corporate power and the status quo. You can't hang with CEO's and still care about the workers and the poor.

I'm too liberal, personally, to be a big supporter of Ms. Clinton... but I think she's a real choice that voters need to think on.

Obama and Edwards are wonderful liberal choices, but let's get real... the party needs a moderate option. Hillary isn't a bad person, as far as I can tell... and she's certainly no usurper of the will of the people. Hell, she might actually be the best choice for the almost liberal voice of the people that is the Democratic party. Just because she's not my choice, doesn't mean that she ought to be brow beaten into dropping out of the race... as if such were possible. I gave her real consideration... and seriously thought about her as a first choice, despite her moderate to conservative leanings... and I think she ought to stay in the race as long as she can financially (which is pretty much until 2012... at least)... if nothing else, just to offer that choice. Who knows... maybe I'm wrong!

I wish her luck, in fact, despite the fact I'll not be giving her my vote. And if she does win the nomination, I'll vote for her... because her brand of "change" is at least a return to what I consider 'ground zero' if not real change. Hell... it's better than nothing.

She'll just end up bashing Edwards and Obama and getting her quotes used by the GOP in the fall(like they used Humphrey quotes to slander McGovern in '72).

She's counting on those big Super Tuesday elections. Those will tell the tale.

:evilgrin:

Just like they did in 2004 when Howard Dean finished third in Iowa.

Her loss of "inevitability" is long gone. The polls suggest that she has a good chance of winning most of the big states on Feb 5, while Edwards has a near zero chance (distant third everywhere - leading nowhere.)

She's still a strong, strong candidate, with plenty of money. There's no reason for her to drop out that early. She'll go all the way to super tuesday.

"The People" are incrementally making their voices heard. Let the cream rise to the top, whoever that may be.

How about "No, she shouldn't drop out because 2 small states don't get to choose for the rest of us" ?

She will not drop out if she loses NH.

through Super Tuesday. That being said, last I checked, New Hampshire seems to love her and Obama so I don't see her losing.

just think how nasty she'll get after that. :popcorn: