Well, I think you never can fault someone for giving it a shot. The start of a primary is always full of contenders. I don't know many people who would have even given Bill Clinton half a chance from the get-go.
Hillary has been a powerfully successful candidate and campaigner. No doubt about it. I think she would make a good president. No doubt about that in my mind either (I also think Edwards, Dodd, Richardson, etc all would have made good candidates).
I do think there is a time when one should drop out in favor of party unity and I feel like Clinton missed her opportunity to do that. IMHO that has generated some serious hostility b/t Obama and Clinton supporters.
I think it is pretty clear, from a procedural perspective, that Obama did outmanuver Clinton in the caucus states, in fundraising, on the handling of MI and FLA. and I guess that's what I meant there.
I do think that the MSM in general and some of progressive talk radio has been at times hostile to Hillary. I do think that there has been a serious amount of sexism going on in the way HRC is covered by the MSM. (I don't think the Obama campaign can be fairly charged with behaving in a sexist manner, though).
I also think that Obama has gotten his fair share of unfare treatment in the press. And there isn't a politician around that thinks they get a fair shake from the media.
I guess where we really dissagree is that I don't see any of that as determinative on the outcome of the election in part b/c Hillary also had major advantages with the press and the public at the start of the campaign that made it nearly impossible for any challenger to even think of overcoming her.
Yes, as you say, pleanty of pols have stayed in past the time they should have exited. But it's not just staying in...it's how you continue to campaign when you are in past your experation date.
As for starting a presidential run in the first place, well, I think no one can fault a person for throwing their hat into the ring and seeing what happens...so I am not sure I follow you there...or perhaps we agree about that one.
I can see it the way you describe...and am sorry to offend. From my perspective it is unusual to stay in and fight so hard when you know you are going to lose. Of course this line of reasoning is predicated on the my assumption that she knows she is going to lose...perhaps a faulty one. I wonder what this race would have been like if Edwards had decided to stay in it until the end. I have a vague memory of his campaign manager saying he thought he gave Edwards bad advice to drop out...
I can and do buy the argument that the prolonged primary fight has actually been good for the party and for Obama...but only up to a point. And I had hoped that Hillary would take a less...searching for the right word...strident tone in her campaigning after NC/IND for sure.
Along with Edwards or Richardson I also thought that Ed Rendell would make a good VP and help smooth things over with Hillary.
I guess where you and I are at a great difference is in the phrase you use, "very real possibility." I just don't see that. I am not writing this out of anger or fear or intimidation...I am puzzled and trying to be honest about it.
I don't see that the RBC decision was a flawed one but ok I gather that you do.
I assume, perhaps wrongly, that a McCain victory will be anathma to you and that this might generate a "we" or an "us" regardless of the hard feelings b/t Obama and Clinton. My guess is that (and everyone says so) Clinton will come around to endorsing and supporting Obama strongly. Will you follow her there if she does?
Finally, I agree that we could use more than 2 parties and that if someone was going to start one from scratch right this second, Hillary would be the best bet to do it and have success with it (as opposed to Greens, Libertarians, etc). It would make things aweful interesting for the fall. But I see Hillary as a stalwart big D Dem and the independent bid is just a river too far.
Well, I don't quite see it that way, clearly. But the examples of pols taking it to the convention are, IMHO, clearly examples of politicial suicide for the party...and I think that's the concern on the part of many Obama supporters. The "well trodden path" is one that leads to defeat in the fall. So, let's not walk down that path...that's all I am saying.
Clinton has every right to do this, of course. I don't quite see where I talk or write as if I think it's an "injustice" to Obama that Clinton is doing what she is doing. But I am an Obama supporter and maybe tone-deaf on that score??? I just don't see the rationale behind her actions. It seems as if you don't either. Yes, she is bargaining for something, but what...? Hasn't she amassed all the bargaining chips she needs already?
Just don't follow you here...I have certainly been critical of Clinton but not particularly insulting to her. Where did I err.
Yes, I undertsand fully that Obama is not your choice...and for a host of good reasons than make sense to you. I find absolutely no fault with anyone for making a different decision than I have. My wife was big for Edwards until he droped out. What I don't get is the high-level, intense vitriol directed against Obama.
I also have seen pleantly of Hillary hating and bashing by lots of people...and I am at a loss for that as well. I think all the candidate bashing is dead-wrong.
At the start of the primaries I thought we Dems had a range of excellent choices...now we have 2 excellent choices. My point is only that I think it has been clear for some time that the election was, for all intense purposes, over a long time ago. So, I don't get the rationale for staying in.
I read your diary when it came out and thought it was interesting actually. I just don't see her running as an independent...though it would certainly be interesting. I hope she doesn't continue to run up to the convention. I am fairly certain she will lose their anyway if she does decide to do it. And then we will all lose in the fall. It is clear that she thinks she is a better option vs. McCain than Obama (I would expect nothing else) but she is already positioned herself well for 2012 if Obama loses. Continuing her fight now doesn't help her there IMHO.
Not exactly sure what I got wrong in my diary, from your perspective.
As far as I (me, myself) is concerned I am a progressive Democrat who wants to win in the fall against McCain. Aren't you? I haven't been meanspirited in any of my comments. I don't quite get (and never have understood) any of the anti-Hillary or anti-Obama feelings that the primary has generated. There is heat on both sides. Let's get past it already.
I would have gladly supported Hillary or Edwards or Dodd (I actaully gave Dodd money when he stood up against the aweful telecom-FISA bill) or any of the other Dem candidates.
You say: "Deny these maps at your own peril." But what do they really tell us about the general election. You seem to dismiss Obama's strength in the rural states he has won because they are red-states. But do you really think that Hillary will win Texas and Indiana in the general election? Come on!
Yes, Hillary has shown some strength in rural areas in some states...the ones you have listed. Obama has shown similar strength actually in rural areas of other states. What does any of this tell us about the general election?
In rural Washington state Hillary couldn't even reach the 15% delegate threshold to claim any delegates. What should we conclude from that?
The fact is that Obama is our nominee and we need to unite behind him and help him win or else were are stuck with Grampa 100 years war McCain.