If my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle.

In light of this recent diary which suggests a strong possibility of Hillary Clinton simply refusing to concede, I think that we need to change the way we're responding to those who claim that Hillary Clinton should or could be the Democratic nominee. I've wasted countless hours trying to explain the numbers, the trends, the conventional wisdom, and the media spin surrounding this nomination to people who just won't hear reason.

It seems as if every time someone presents a fact to a Clinton surrogate, that person just responds with a hypothetical statement. Here are some common examples:

If you count some elections but not others, Senator Clinton is leading in "popular vote".

If "popular vote" (using the above formula) and not delegate vote were the method of determining the nominee, Senator Clinton would be winning the nomination process.

If Senator Clinton had as much money to spend on ads as Senator Obama, she would have won more contests.

If pollsters got to pick the President in May of the election year, Senator Clinton would be the more electable Democrat.

If there were no caucuses, Senator Clinton would have more delegates.

If only Democrats were allowed to vote in X state, Senator Clinton would have won the primary.

If there weren't so many African-Americans/college students/liberals/latte-sippers in X states, Senator Clinton would have won the primary.

How can someone who wants to talk facts and numbers have a legitimate discussion with someone who begins every idea with a conditional statement? If I say that Senator Obama has the most delegates and is nearly mathematically assured of the nomination, the response seems to be one of the above "if" statements.

So I'm done trying to reason with people who would rather protest in front of a Rules Committee meeting or bring up irrelevant arguments about phony "popular vote" numbers. And I'm done trying to convince myself that the Clinton campaign deserves a respectful opportunity to gracefully bow out of the race. So whenever I hear another one of these "if" statements from a Clinton supporters, I'll respond thus:

If my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle.

If Hillary Clinton didn't lose, she'd be the nominee.

Tags: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton (all tags)



Re: If my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle.

This is hilarious. Not your conclusions, of course, but the title especially.

by ragekage 2008-05-28 09:22PM | 0 recs
Re: If my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle.

If Alegre had balls, she'd be supporting Obama.

(Thank God she doesn't.)

by Deadalus 2008-05-28 09:24PM | 0 recs
Re: If my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle.

I doubt very much that alegre would support Obama under any circumstances. Even Hillary's own spouse isn't as devoted to her as alegre is.

by alvernon 2008-05-28 09:26PM | 0 recs
heh. not touching that one.

by JJE 2008-05-28 09:53PM | 0 recs
Re: heh. not touching that one.

Coward, or just too easy?

(I'm joking, I know you're no coward.)

by catilinus 2008-05-29 01:31AM | 0 recs
Re: heh. not touching that one.

just yourself as normal

by zerosumgame 2008-05-29 06:42AM | 0 recs
only when you reply

by JJE 2008-05-29 10:33AM | 0 recs
Is this snark?

Serious question.

(No, seriously.)

by sricki 2008-05-28 09:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Is this snark?

I'm pretty sure Daedalus is a chaos troll. I'm not sure if that counts as snark or not.

by letterc 2008-05-28 10:54PM | 0 recs
No, that would just make him an ass. n/t

by sricki 2008-05-28 11:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Is this snark?

and yet your buddies below up-rated him for insulting Hillary. so which way is it, today?

by zerosumgame 2008-05-29 06:44AM | 0 recs
what could possibly

be gained from this diary other than to piss people off?

by canadian gal 2008-05-28 09:22PM | 0 recs
Re: what could possibly


by alvernon 2008-05-28 09:25PM | 0 recs
How about this?

If Hillary Clinton hadn't voted for the War, she'd be a worthy candidate.

by Deadalus 2008-05-28 09:29PM | 0 recs


by apd 2008-05-28 09:37PM | 0 recs
Re: How about this?

I used to think so. Now I think she will do any thing to be the next president and she has no integrity at all.

I don't even think she knows when she is lying anymore.

by Sam Wise Gingy 2008-05-28 09:40PM | 0 recs
If she had stood up in the Senate

and given a metaphorical finger to the president and all the spineless Dems who failed to oppose him there is no question she's be the nominee. Which is just as well, because she has demonstrated she is a terrible campaigner.

by grass 2008-05-28 09:47PM | 0 recs
Re: what could possibly

The sentiment I get from the diarist is that whatever conclusion to this primary season that we hoped would usher the launch of a presumptive nominee's general election campaign might be less likely in light of a statement made by Wes Clark about Senator Clinton taking it to the convention. That said, if on May 31st the RBC produces a settlement that doesn't change the overall picture of the race, and Senator Clinton decides that she is not suspending her campaign on June 4th, then, I must say that I must align myself with the diarist on this point.

by lizardbox 2008-05-28 09:44PM | 0 recs
Re: what could possibly

For what it's worth, Pelosi said last night she'd intervene to prevent a convention fight.

by catilinus 2008-05-29 01:35AM | 0 recs
Re: what could possibly

well that is a major goal for some of the dkos-trolls infesting the site.

by zerosumgame 2008-05-29 06:46AM | 0 recs
If my aunt had balls,

we'd be making a lot of money renting her to the circus.

Now that I think about it, I kinda wish my aunt had balls. Feels like I've got a lot of bills to pay.

by sricki 2008-05-28 09:36PM | 0 recs

by spacemanspiff 2008-05-28 09:45PM | 0 recs
Straw Men

It's easy to attack opposing arguments when you're the one creating them.

by BPK80 2008-05-28 10:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Straw Men

Those were emphatically not strawman arguments.  I've seen that crap bandied about here entirely too often.

There's a reason why Obama supporters here despair of making factual assertions, or reasonable inferences derived from facts.

It doesn't work with a lot of the Clinton folks here.  Not all of them, of course, but a lot of them.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-05-29 04:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Straw Men

Well, you're entitled to your opinion.

by BPK80 2008-05-29 06:30AM | 0 recs
Re: If my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle.

Balls jokes aside, I'm sorry i wandered into this thread. There are three days left to the committee meeting and five days left in the primary.  

If after all that the anti-Obama crowd tries to tarnish his legitimacy, then we can knock down their talking points.  

Until then... Let's see what happens.

by map 2008-05-28 10:03PM | 0 recs
Re: If my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle.

Balls jokes aside? You never push balls to the side! Balls are always front and center, with other substantive issues running a distant second.

If living in a liberal democracy means that jokes about balls are not important, then ship me off to Red China.

by alvernon 2008-05-28 10:12PM | 0 recs
Re: If my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle.

HRC surrogates have been unusually focused on her balls.....so the discussion is apt.

by Deadalus 2008-05-28 10:15PM | 0 recs
Re: If my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle.

This diary is pretty childish. Why don't you write about something interesting or different, rather than tell us about your aunt's, um, hypothesticals?

Hee hee - I made a pun!

by itsthemedia 2008-05-28 10:22PM | 0 recs
Re: If my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle.
Mojoed for good pun
by Cochrane 2008-05-28 11:13PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads