I see Hillary Clinton as intelligent and capable. However she has not proven that in terms of the American Democratic voter population. However she has definitely proven to be second in command and is to be dealt with and given acknowledgment for that. She will not quit until she is satisfied. However what has to be done is someone like Edward Kennedy or Bill Clinton most probably not Bill Clinton has to broker a deal. She has enough of a population behind her that she holds strong cards. She will not be President but she most definitely will be vice president. Or In my opinion she will be first choice.
If she quits too soon she will lose negotiating ability. If she continues until approached she can negotiate and her contribution will be acknowledged. The same way Barack Obama can not overly acknowledge her and he is smart in saying he would not consider her as a VP candidate until she concedes. This sends two messages one as long as you are in the race I respect that you may figure a way to win. Other: As long as you are in the race I will not consider you for the VP spot. Thus he can use that chip with other persons that may prove more suited to him than she would be and hold as much clout with the people that have voted for her. She has started saying things like she will work hard for Obama if and when he gets the nomination. Yet being a Clinton she made a strategic move in the beginning. She campaigned in Michigan and Florida when no one else did. Now she has the fact that she won those two states as some sort of bargaining chip, or at least she thinks she does. Obama did not campaign in Michigan because the Democratic Party boycotted those two states, another reason Hillary should be VP. Why not Hillary? Because with Hillary comes Bill too much room for Republican abuse. Also many of the people who voted for Obama were actually anti Hillary. Yet a great portion of the democratic population has voted for her. Can Barack and Hillary win enough of the general population to beat McCain? If Hillary by herself would tie McCain then it is safe to say that Obama/Clinton would win by mandate........ satvadude108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The Card Clinton Is Playing By Eugene Robinson Friday, May 9, 2008; Page A27 >From the beginning, Hillary Clinton has campaigned as if the Democratic >nomination were hers by divine right. That's why she is falling short -- and that's why she should be persuaded to quit now, rather than later, before her majestic sense of entitlement splits the party along racial lines. If that sounds harsh, look at the argument she made Wednesday, in an interview with USA Today, as to why she should be the nominee instead of Barack Obama. She cited an Associated Press article "that found how Senator Obama's support . . . among working, hardworking Americans, white Americans, is weakening again. I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on." As a statement of fact, that's debatable at best. As a rationale for why Democratic Party superdelegates should pick her over Obama, it's a slap in the face to the party's most loyal constituency -- African Americans -- and a repudiation of principles the party claims to stand for. Here's what she's really saying to party leaders: There's no way that white people are going to vote for the black guy. Come November, you'll be sorry. How silly of me. I thought the Democratic Party believed in a colorblind America. In private conversations last year, several of Clinton's high-profile African American supporters made that same argument to me -- that America wasn't "ready" for a black president, that this simple fact doomed Obama to failure, that a Clinton Restoration was the best result that African Americans could realistically hope for. Polls at the time showed Clinton leading Obama among black voters, a finding that reflected not only Clinton's greater name recognition but also considerable skepticism about a black candidate's ability to draw white support. Obama did prove he could win support from whites, of course, beginning in Iowa. He and Clinton effectively divided the party into demographic constituencies. Among the groups that have tended to vote for Clinton are white voters making less than $50,000 a year; among those who have turned out to vote for Obama are African Americans, whose doubts about his prospects clearly have been allayed. Assuming that Obama is the eventual nominee, he will have some work to do in reuniting the party. But there's no reason to think he won't succeed -- unless Clinton drives a wedge between important elements of the party's historical coalition. Lower-income white Democrats may well defect to John McCain in the fall if Obama is the nominee, Clinton is arguing, whereas African Americans -- who have been choosing Obama by 9 to 1 -- are going to vote for the Democratic nominee no matter what. Thus, she claims, she can better knit the party back together. Let's examine those premises. These are white Democrats we're talking about, voters who generally share the party's philosophy. So why would these Democrats refuse to vote for a nominee running on Democratic principles against a self-described conservative Republican? The answer, which Clinton implies but doesn't quite come out and say, is that Obama is black -- and that white people who are not wealthy are irredeemably racist. The other notion -- that Clinton could position herself as some kind of Great White Hope and still expect African American voters to give her their enthusiastic support in the fall - - is just nuts. Obama has already won a majority of the Democratic primary contests; within a couple of weeks, he almost certainly will have won a majority of the pledged convention delegates and will be assured of finishing with more of the popular vote. Only in Camp Clinton does anyone believe that his supporters will be happy if party leaders tell him, in effect, "Nice job, kid, but we can't give you the nomination because, well, you're black. White people might not like that." Clinton's sin isn't racism, it's arrogance. From the beginning, the Clinton campaign has refused to consider the possibility that Obama's success was more than a fad. This was supposed to be Clinton's year, and if Obama was winning primaries, there had to be some reason that had nothing to do with merit. It was because he was black, or because he had better slogans, or because he was a better public speaker, or because he was the media's darling. This new business about white voters is just the latest story the Clinton campaign is telling itself about the usurper named Obama. "It's still early," Clinton said Wednesday, vowing to fight on. At some level, she seems to believe the nomination is hers. Somebody had better tell her the truth before she burns the house down. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://tinyurl.com/3rw9o9 ------------------------------------ To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links --------------------------------- Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
