Within days, Hillary Clinton will in all likelihood suspend her campaign and announce her support of the Democratic nominee. It's what even her own high-level supporters (including a campaign co-chairman) are saying.
If and when that happens, what are you going to do? Spend the next three months working to delegitimize his candidacy?
If Hillary sets to work next week toward getting Obama elected, what will you be doing? Working against both of them? Spreading the perception that he's an illegitimate candidate? How will that help get a Democrat elected in November?
Honestly, I don't know how you all endure it. This place has a lot of great qualities about it, but the fact that this kind of transparent malice is given the support and protection of site admins is very unfortunate.
It's downright creepy how such obvious trolls are able to operate with such impunity here.
is a metric that appeals only to the underinformed and willfully deceived and deceitful.
The entire party establishment, including superdelegates, doesn't buy it. The media is playing along, with some commenters adding the obvious caveats and objections while others promote it to keep the contest going and draw viewership. Most of the general public is probably a bit confused, especially given the misleading drumbeats coming out of the Clinton campaign and the mixed messages from the media.
But most voters generally understand that the primary process was and is a delegate race, and have already accepted Obama as being on the threshold of winning that race and becoming the presumptive nominee.
Apparently, the only thing Barack Obama can do in this matter is concede the election to Clinton and quit politics. It's the only way to satisfy some people.
Seriously, what you're seeing here is an example of what the diarist is explicating: there are people who will look for and find something to "legitimately" criticize Obama over, whether it's a direct statement, or an association, or some idea indirectly connected to him that he must respond to. As each point is taken down, another will pop up. We can almost predict the order.
And no matter how strong an explanation you offer, or how clear Obama's own response is, it'll never be enough. Because there is something else lurking there.
It may just be late-primary resentment. It may be a tendency to overwrought emotionalism and hyperbole. Or it may indeed be simmering prejudice, or even full-blown racism. It's not going to be easy to define every time.
The other possibility, at least on the internet, is garden-variety trolling. People like attention. Losers like negative attention. They'll keep saying things just to keep getting responses. Expect a lot of that over the next few weeks.
I can't understand the lack of outrage from this diarist.
Sen. Clinton clearly told the diarist's family in Michigan that their votes weren't going to count for anything. Anything! What about their rights?
Her statement offhandedly advocates the disenfranchisement of Michigan voters. It egregiously and with dismissive contempt ignores the will of the Michigan electorate (and the diarist's family in particular). Stunning.
And I can't believe this diarist hasn't asked Sen. Clinton about it during one of their conference calls. Imagine having that kind of access and ignoring Sen. Clinton's clear support of disenfranchisement and her outright contempt for the voters themselves.
But all I really want to know is, why did she say that, and did she mean it?