Reply #25: No, it's like this ... [View All]

[NanceGreggs]

No one hates her for refusing to quit the fight, but for fighting dirty.

No one hates her for playing 'too hard to win', but for trying to change the rules of the game in order to 'win'.

Her 'daintiness' was never the issue - the fact that she was 'cutting her opponent off at the knees' is. Her 'opponent' is a fellow Democrat, and someone she knew was, in all probability, going to be our party's nominee.

A primary is a means to prove to the voters your qualifications for the office - not an arena in which to 'throw' the kitchen sink.

She could have used her campaign as an opportunity to show us how tough an opponent she would be for McCain - but instead she told us how much better qualified he was for POTUS than her fellow Democrat.

"Isn't this exactly what we asked her to do?" No, not by a long-shot.

"If our choices are doing the right thing and losing with Obama because fair is fair, OR doing the wrong thing and winning with Hillary, would not this be what the super-delegates are for?"

You might have noticed that the SuperDelegates are now endorsing Obama in larger numbers than are endorsing Hillary. The SD lead she started this race with has all but evaporated. So Obama's nomination will be fair and, according to the SDs, the right thing to do in order to win the GE.

Which begs the question as to what the next option will be that you propose. Maybe having the Supreme Court decide to install Hillary?