MyDD :: Dear Hillary: For your own good...

Dear Hillary: For your own good...

by mcdave, Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:47:38 PM EST

UPDATE! I changed the title from "For the good of your party" to "For your own good."

Dear Hillary:

Please drop out. For your own good.

You have no chance in hell of winning. You will only damage the eventual nominee with your increasingly personal and ridiculous attacks on his character.

You have already proven yourself to be a loser. You lost in Iowa, you will lose in NH, and you will lose in several other states. You will never taste victory. You may win New York by a couple of points, but that is it. You are a loser. The Democratic party does not need a loser right now.

Please regroup and withdraw as soon as possible. There may still be hope that you can become majority leader. In many years, folks may forget that you are a loser. The sooner you withdraw, the sooner the process of forgetting can begin. Please withdraw soon.

Thanks,
McDave

PS: HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH!!!!

Tags: Hillary (all tags)

Permalink :: 53 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Dear Hillary: For the Good of the Party (2.00 / 1)

It's like you've learned nothing from 2004 about the importance of testing the nominee.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:51:23 PM EST

Re: Dear Hillary: For the Good of the Party (2.00 / 1)

So...the last month of attacks from the Clinton machine don't count as being tested?

And BTW: I learned in 2004 about the importance of nominating a candidate who is able to communicate with the american people without turning them all off...

by mcdave on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:52:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dear Hillary: For the Good of the Party (none / 0)

No, not really, any more than John Kerry had been battle-tested by the time he won Iowa.

Obama's latest surge in the polls demonstrates that a large number of Democrats are now trying him on for the first time. We need to give them some time to reflect on that decision, to make sure if Obama truly represents the consensus of our party.

I don't want to see him get blindsided by some Republican narrative in the general election, only to think "Wow, I wish we had a longer primary season so we would have seen this coming."

I realize you didn't write this diary with the intent of sounding classy, but wow, if you could hear yourself.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 03:00:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dear Hillary: For the Good of the Party (none / 0)

I disagree completely the Primary should be about who is the best protected against the Republicans. It should be about us. What direction do we want to take the country in. Who is it who will best represent us and inspire/enthuse/activate us to mobilize in overwhelming numbers that we will win. A good defense is not the best offense if your offense is not good. Kerry got swiftboated because he ran as a War Hero, instead of what he was - a courageous soldier who came back and told the truth about the Vietnam War. Wrong offense. But this idea that the Primaries should be about vetting is, I think, twisted. Especially when people try to use vetting as an excuse for the most baseless attacks.

by Piuma on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 03:13:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dear Hillary: For the Good of the Party (2.00 / 1)

Okay, but you've been able to decide that Obama is the candidate who inspires you over the course of months or years.

If we declared the primary over today based upon Obama's surge in the polls, we'd basically be picking a nominee based upon the shifting preferences of people who just made up their minds to support Obama in the last couple days. Surely we should allow them to go on a few dates first before tying the knot.

The purpose of vetting is not just to determine who can defend against Republican attacks, but also to make sure our enthusiasm for the candidate is real. In 2004 a lot of Democrats were very excited about the prospect of voting for John Kerry. By Election Day a lot of those same people were holding their nose.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 03:16:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dear Hillary: For the Good of the Party (none / 0)

So...you're saying that Hillary will try a Republican narrative against Obama?

The truth is that primaries are no comparison to the general election. The attacks are completely different. No amount of Clinton crying or playing games with delegate numbers or whatever else bizarre she tries to do over the next few months will help Obama as the nominee.

Obama has been tested. He came out of no where, with very little experience, and very little anything, and he beat the Clinton Machine at their own game. Time to flip the switch on the Clinton Machine!

by mcdave on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 03:23:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dear Hillary: For the Good of the Party (none / 0)

Okay, so all the people who just made up their mind to support Obama in the last couple days, let's engrave their preference in stone, and assume Obama is definitely the guy they want to go with right up through November. Not much that could go wrong with that.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 03:27:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dear Hillary: For the Good of the Party (none / 0)

Do you think people who have decided not to support HRC are going to switch from Obama to HRC between now and Feb 5?

Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.

by Carl Nyberg on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 03:42:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dear Hillary: For the Good of the Party (none / 0)

Is that even a real question? Obviously they could.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 03:48:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dear Hillary: For the Good of the Party (none / 0)

Why not? they've just made up their mind 5 seconds ago...

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Ernst on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:22:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dear Hillary: For the Good of the Party (none / 0)

By HRC staying in the race, the main tests Obama has passed are becoming the anti-HRC candidate (no small feat) and being more likable than HRC.

If HRC is not going to get the nomination (and she's not if she loses big in NH) she should get out to see how Obama does against Edwards.

Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.

by Carl Nyberg on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 03:41:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dear Hillary: For the Good of the Party (none / 0)

As an Edwards supporter myself, I find it a little unseemly to go begging another candidate to get out so my candidate can have the media attention. Nor do I think he would automatically inherit the media attention in your scenario, any more than the media treated Kerry vs. Edwards as a serious horse race in 2004.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 03:49:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dear Hillary: For the Good of the Party (none / 0)

I agree the media will probably keep screwing Edwards.

However, Edwards decided to run his campaign primarily in Iowa which gave the East Coast media something of an excuse to ignore him.

If Obama wins NH by eight points or more, HRC staying in the race will turn the primaries into round after round of watching Obama beat Clinton like an over-the-hill heavyweight boxer.

Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.

by Carl Nyberg on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 04:04:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dear Hillary: For the Good of the Party (none / 0)

I agree she should quit going negative, but I strongly disagree she should drop out. And certainly not for the good of the Party. For the good of the Party she should stay in through at least February 5th. The Party has a right to have a primary where peoples voices are heard. I don't think Biden and Dodd leaving is for the good of the Party. In fact, if you're not going to stay in it for the long haul you shouldn't get in in the first place.

by Piuma on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:53:17 PM EST

Re: Dear Hillary: For the Good of the Party (none / 0)

I think I'll change the title. Good points!

by mcdave on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:54:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

how many choices will the media discuss (none / 0)

at one time.

It seems that if HRC is in the race the media will cover HRC plus one other candidate.

If HRC has been wounded and can't win, having HRC stay in the race is the same as saying you want Obama not to be challenged by a viable candidate.

If HRC isn't going to get the nomination, shouldn't she allow another candidate to get the media coverage to challenge Obama?

Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.

by Carl Nyberg on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 03:39:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Which viable candfidate is that? (none / 0)

John Edwaqrds is dead. Hillary is ten times more viable than Edwards.

by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 04:52:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Which viable candfidate is that? (none / 0)

10 X 0 = 0

How is HRC viable if she loses by 10 points in NH. Paint a picture of her making a comeback.

Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.

by Carl Nyberg on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 05:02:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Exactly (none / 0)

There are really no viable candidates to oppose Obama now. So why should Edwards be l;istened to especially? Why not Kucinich?

by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 05:14:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I've met Kucinich (none / 0)

In the House cafeteria and seen him campaign up close at University of Chicago. And I've followed his lack of passing legislation in the House.

Kucinich isn't close to viable by any stretch of the imagination.

Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.

by Carl Nyberg on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 05:30:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

mcccin won by 19 in 2000 (none / 0)

and he lost.

you oughta stop believing the poltical media - this will be going on for months.

Reznos trial starts in late feb. lets see how that effects the media narrative,

PA isnt until April.

Offend the Media - Vote for Hillary!

by Seymour Glass on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 06:11:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

what's it say about HRC's campaign that (none / 0)

she hasn't been able to attack Obama on Tony Rezko?

Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.

by Carl Nyberg on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 07:42:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dear Hillary: For your own good... (1.00 / 1)

Yeah. We're a Democracy. Thank god. Thank god I'm not the dictator who is telling Hillary she must drop out. Because if I was, I would! She's a loser. She needs to go away.

by mcdave on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 03:25:22 PM EST

She;s a loser (none / 0)

So is Edwards no?

by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 04:51:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dear Hillary: For your own good... (2.00 / 1)

She had many months to have her voice heard...in fact, for much of that time, she was the only one whose voice was heard. The media was picking her VP and annointing her.

by mcdave on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 03:26:25 PM EST

the amount of media coverage of HRC (none / 0)

I don't think the coverage was all positive, but HRC being in the campaign influenced the coverage to become, "Who will be the anti-HRC candidate?" which cheated policy issues out of the debate.

Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.

by Carl Nyberg on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 03:35:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

As opposed to Gravel?? (none / 0)

When does he get his chance?

by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 04:50:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

boo hoo (none / 0)

ABO... Anybody but Obama. I LIKE the democratic party.

by MollieBradford on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 04:58:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: boo hoo (none / 0)

Ha! I'm not whining. I'm telling you that she needs to go away. She's a loser.

by mcdave on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 06:06:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: boo hoo (none / 0)

No, you are gloating.

You know what is worse then a loser? a sore winner. You are behaving worse now then I've seen any Clinton supporter do here. Disgusting.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Ernst on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:31:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't like the taunting tone (none / 0)

But if HRC comes in below Obama and Edwards in NH, it seems like she should drop out so the media can focus on the differences between Obama and Edwards.

If she's still in the race she'll suck up the available media coverage with stories about her and her crumbling campaign.

Personally, I'd like her to drop out if she finishes a weak second to see how Obama does against Edwards. But I'm not sure this is a request that the HRC campaign would take as reasonable.

Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.

by Carl Nyberg on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 03:33:27 PM EST

Interestingly (none / 0)

I doubt Hillary is running the campaign for your personal pleasure.

by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 04:49:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Interestingly (none / 0)

Sorry, I meant the taunting tone of the diary.

Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.

by Carl Nyberg on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 05:04:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't like the taunting tone (none / 0)

that is ridiculous and just as stupid as this diary.

Offend the Media - Vote for Hillary!

by Seymour Glass on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 06:04:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

do you think it's reasonable (none / 0)

for HRC to stay in the race and keep John Edwards from getting the media coverage he needs to make his case against Obama?

Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.

by Carl Nyberg on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 03:36:40 PM EST

Why doesn;t Edwards make his case NOW? (none / 0)

Why didhe not make his case in the debate? I really hate this shit. EDwards chose NOT to make his case.

by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 04:51:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why doesn;t Edwards make his case NOW? (none / 0)

Is Edwards gaining ground in national polls?

If Edwards is gaining and HRC is losing, doesn't he get credit for getting positive results?

Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.

by Carl Nyberg on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 05:03:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Is he gaining in NH (none / 0)

No he is down 11. Hillary is clearly in a better position tha Edwards and will be even more so after Tuesday.

by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 05:15:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is he gaining in NH (none / 0)

How will HRC improve her position as a result of the NH primary?

Or is your assertion merely that the NH primary results will be more damaging to Edwards than HRC?

Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.

by Carl Nyberg on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 05:28:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Edwards is boring (none / 0)

he has never been any closer than third place for the nomination. That is why the media is not covering him. He should drop out.

ABO... Anybody but Obama. I LIKE the democratic party.

by MollieBradford on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 04:57:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: do you think it's reasonable (none / 0)

Yes.

Will you ask Obama to drop out so that Edwards will get his media as well? And in the general? will his republican opponent need to drop out as well in order to give Edwards a fighting chance?

If Edwards can't make the case himself, tough luck. I'd rather have Edwards then Obama at the moment, but if he can't cut it on his own, so be it.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Ernst on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:28:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

How about Edwards? (2.00 / 1)

He should drop out too right? For his own good?

by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 04:16:32 PM EST

Re: How about Edwards? (2.00 / 1)

I think it needs to come down to Obama and Gravel so we can have a real race.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 04:24:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I honestly believe (2.00 / 1)

that I have never detested a group of people more than this latest bit of concern trolling. For the record, I do not think Edwards should drop out, It hink he should run a better campaign for his critical issue _ being a Fighting Democrat. He is endorsing Obama now. A betrayal of this issue.

by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 04:48:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I honestly believe (none / 0)

But don't you think the whole fighting issue is precisely how he's contrasting himself with Obama, when he says "you cannot nice these people to death"? I really think that's his anti-Obama theme.

By the way, did you take note of Obama's final answer in the debate the other night, the one where he echoed Hillary?

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 04:51:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

He had his chance in thedebate and took after Hill (none / 0)

You know EXACTLY what I am talking about. Look, you can try the he wants a two man race line if you want but please do not try the he is going after Obama line on me. WE BOTH KNOW that is not true.

by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 04:57:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He had his chance in thedebate and took after (none / 0)

Hey, hang on there tiger, I am perfectly capable of critiquing my own candidate. I'm sure I have my biases but I am not a spinner. I just think you are guilty of attaching too much significance to that one moment where Edwards took Obama's side, because that's not the whole debate. I assume you concede that "you cannot nice them to death" was aimed at Obama.

What I'm interested to know is, if you think Edwards should basically be ignoring Hillary and going after Obama full-bore at this juncture, what sort of strategy you think he should be pursuing. Is it just more "you cannot nice them to death," except a little bit louder and a little bit worse?

Also, I'm interested in your response to the other question I just asked you, because I thought it was Obama's first instance of playing the politics of contrast. It made me wonder if he'd been reading my blog posts (or yours).

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 05:07:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That WAS the whole debate (none / 0)

And if Edwards did not recognize it, then he is a very poor politican.

by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 05:13:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

idiot (1.00 / 0)

do you know what STFU stands for?

good.

STFU

Offend the Media - Vote for Hillary!

by Seymour Glass on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 06:01:39 PM EST

ignore these people (none / 0)

this is ridiculous. the idea that she cant come back is anti historical. its ridiculous. the idea that big tent or this diary writing fool knows what will happen is just plain stupid.

she is strongest in the dem states with the most delegates.

ignore these people.

Offend the Media - Vote for Hillary!

by Seymour Glass on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 06:19:48 PM EST

Re: Dear Hillary: For your own good... (none / 0)

mcdave, if Obama looses Michigan and Florida, two states with 10 times more delegates than Iowa and New Hampshire, should he drop out of the race for Hillary's good?

Come on, we don't want Obama being a spoiler.

by moi moi on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 11:12:58 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.