digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at blogs.forbes.com

A Startling Collapse for Clinton, and an Inability to Let Go

blogs.forbes.com — Reactions have been unsympathetic. The New York Post called her “toast” in three-inch-high letters on Wednesday. The collapse of her candidacy is abrupt in the context of her long claim of inevitability and the near-universal expectation a year ago that she would be the Democratic nominee.It could be that a still-startled Hillary just can't let go.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Ridgeliner7, on 05/10/2008, -3/+39"Under the guise of justice and fair play, Hillary Clinton is, in effect, asking the Rules Committee to rule that the party’s rules should be ignored — the same rules that the Rules Committee enacted and that Hillary and all of the other democrats supported without dissent. But that was then and now is now....she and her husband both believe that she is entitled to the nomination, entitled to the presidency. So they’re waiting for the inevitable signal that it will, in fact, be hers."
    • biotch, on 05/10/2008, -0/+3I think maybe at this point she is just trying to make back some or all of the money she loaned her campaign? I just dont see the rationale behind her decision to keep fighting. Its either that or she has gone loopy
    • issachar, on 05/10/2008, -1/+3Isn't the Clinton campaign's logic here similar to the logic that said "Al Gore won the popular vote, he should be President"? The message seems to be to just toss the rules when they're not to your advantage.

      Not a good idea and not a good attribute for a President. I don't recall Al Gore claiming that he should be President because of the popular vote. Hillary shouldn't be trying to get the Michigan & Florida primaries counted if they ignored the Democratic Party rules for primaries.
      • biotch, on 05/10/2008, -0/+2"Isn't the Clinton campaign's logic here similar to the logic that said "Al Gore won the popular vote, he should be President"?"
        yeah ... except she isnt winning the popular vote

        Popular Vote Total:
        Clinton: 15,219,684 47.3%
        Obama: 15,930,241 49.6% Obama +710,557 +2.3%

        http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/presi ...
  • KLBP, on 05/10/2008, -4/+52Unfortunatly for Princess Hillary, somewhere along the way to her coronation a democratic election broke out and the people chose someone else.
    • masterm1nd, on 05/10/2008, -3/+2Too bad the democratic election is only democratic until a few don't get their way.
  • mediaspree, on 05/10/2008, -25/+9Do I have to remove 2008 U.S. Elections to stop seeing another Hilary losing story? Or can we move on.
    • tharju, on 05/10/2008, -3/+11because?
    • chicofaraby, on 05/10/2008, -4/+26Obviously someone is holding a gun on you and forcing you to click on these election stories. Do you need help?
      • Philbert, on 05/10/2008, -4/+4You don't have to read the story in order to see the headline.
  • eibborjames, on 05/10/2008, -14/+2What about Inbreedvirginia and Kentucky, wherever that is?
    • kreneskyp, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1its too late for major wins. it is mathematically improbable for her to win.
  • kokoshuko, on 05/10/2008, -2/+34It's not over yet! She still has forces in the Ukraine.
    • jbronder, on 05/10/2008, -2/+11The Ukraine is weak!
      • MJDub, on 05/10/2008, -0/+3I am from the Ukraine!!
        *bashes board*
        • chevyorange, on 05/10/2008, -0/+2Ukraine is not weak! YOU are weak!
    • Spoomeister, on 05/10/2008, -0/+5LOL - I thought it was more like one of those players who still own Austrailia, but then piled all their units into Siam, so no one could break through and finally finish her off.
  • URnotheonly1, on 05/10/2008, -5/+5You got to let go Mav, you got to let go.
  • CrudeDarkness, on 05/10/2008, -4/+17yay! blu-ray wo... oh wrong war. sorry.
    • one1plus1one, on 05/10/2008, -1/+7Allright! VHS triumphs over betamax... heeeee haaaaaaw... oh wait, sorry. Still the wrong war.
  • dmanders, on 05/10/2008, -24/+7Hillary voters would be much happier supporting Obama if his supporters would just shut the ***** up. Everyone likes him... it's YOU we can't stand.
    • StarlessKnight, on 05/10/2008, -0/+12Good to see people electing candidates based on the issues!
    • MacEnvy, on 05/10/2008, -2/+7You sound bitter. Do you also cling to guns and religion?
  • sochee, on 05/10/2008, -12/+22Wow, an anti-Hillary link that's not from the Huffington Post! Amazing!
  • mrogi, on 05/10/2008, -3/+35Now I understand why Bill and Hillary never got divorced. Hillary is incapable of letting go.
    • stretch611, on 05/10/2008, -0/+8Hillary never got divorced because she used Bill's popularity to help her get this far and she expected to get all the way into the white house with it.
      • chaosium, on 05/10/2008, -0/+4In that case, she gets exactly what she deserves.
  • glory, on 05/10/2008, -24/+4Hillary Clinton, president of the United States of America.
    Yes!
  • wright3279, on 05/10/2008, -24/+12When will digg become digg again, instead of a propaganda tool for the obamanites?
    • Snuff99, on 05/10/2008, -2/+21When he is President. That was a silly question.
      • GhostyBoy, on 05/10/2008, -9/+5Then we will all get all pissed off and digg up Obama scandal stories when we realize that he's actually a politician after all.
        • StarlessKnight, on 05/10/2008, -1/+11Be mindful of the future, young Padawan, but not at the expense of the present.
        • masterm1nd, on 05/10/2008, -3/+1No actually we'll still sweep them under the rug and do as best we can to justify.
    • Tyr7BE, on 05/10/2008, -4/+12Yeah seriously. You know what I haven't seen in a while? A story about the iPhone. Let's see some more of that. That just never gets old.
    • stretch611, on 05/10/2008, -0/+6When the majority of Digg users don't want to hear it. The ability to Digg or bury bury essentially creates a popularity poll. If you do not like what you are reading feel free to bury a story and move on. But, I'm sorry you would rather troll and place negative comments in a thread about a story you obviously don't care about.
    • bjornski, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1Mid-November or December.

      Well, maybe with a little gloating in January.
  • philipl411, on 05/10/2008, -20/+10The good thing about all this is, Racism is OVER. I will never again have to hear how blacks are disadvantaged over whites, I will never again hear about delayed slaves syndrome, Racism is over and gone. A 1/2 black man will be elected president
    • chicofaraby, on 05/10/2008, -10/+17"Racism is OVER."

      You are white, aren't you?
      • philipl411, on 05/10/2008, -5/+13What does that have to do with the price of beans?
        • chicofaraby, on 05/10/2008, -7/+6I thought so.
        • StarlessKnight, on 05/10/2008, -4/+10A lot. "Whites declare racism against Blacks OVER after a Black President is elected." What does the election have to do with the price of tea in China? It suggests we've made progress, yes.
          • skav, on 05/10/2008, -1/+2You're forgetting that the price of beans and the price of tea in China can join together to form MECHA PRICE which CRUSHES RACISM!!!1!

        • chaosium, on 05/10/2008, -4/+4"What does that have to do with the price of beans?"

          It means you have no ***** clue what you're talking about.
      • stretch611, on 05/10/2008, -3/+4Racism will be over when everyone treats others with some respect. Unfortunately, we have too many people that gain from fear-mongering (on both sides.)
        • philipl411, on 05/11/2008, -1/+2What a stupid comment. Whites treat other whites with disrespect, blacks do the same. So if you are right, racism will never be over
      • masterm1nd, on 05/10/2008, -4/+7Insinuating only whites are racist IS RACIST.
        • chicofaraby, on 05/10/2008, -6/+17Claiming that racism is "over" is stupid.

          So is claiming that I insinuated that only whites are racist.
          • masterm1nd, on 05/10/2008, -7/+6Yes, I found both comments stupid, but I only found your comment racist.
          • masterm1nd, on 05/10/2008, -5/+5""Racism is OVER."
            You are white, aren't you?"


            I think its pretty obvious what you insinuated. Let's see if you can think of an alternate intended meaning.
          • chicofaraby, on 05/11/2008, -5/+7What I am insinuating is that black people know racism is alive and well in the USA. I thought it was pretty obvious as well.

            You need help with reading comprehension.
          • masterm1nd, on 05/11/2008, -4/+5Yes, which insinuates that whites don't know racism is alive and well in the USA, which insinuates whites are racist again others but others aren't racist against whites. And even if that were the case, it isn't anymore thanks to you.
          • Stevanoski, on 05/11/2008, -6/+5"...""Racism is OVER."
            You are white, aren't you?"...'
            Nope, just well traveled.
          • chicofaraby, on 05/11/2008, -5/+4I can' t stop you from taking a perfectly reasonable statement and saying it is something else. You are claiming that I am implying that only whites are racist. That's *****. You know it. I know it.
          • masterm1nd, on 05/11/2008, -5/+5That's the biggest load of crap. You spoke for yourself and there really isn't any other way for it to be interpreted.
          • chicofaraby, on 05/11/2008, -3/+4You're really pathetic. I'm saying that the OPs claim that racism is over is *****. I am saying that Americans of color know better. I am saying that reasonable white people like me know better. You want to be offended. I don't care whether you are offended. You aren't the issue. The issue is racism. It's alive, well and living in the USA.
          • Fordi, on 05/11/2008, -3/+3The person claiming an end of racism is assumed to be white, as whites are least often affected by racism, and thus more likely to be under the impression that it doesn't exist. It is not an insinuation that only whites are racist. It is an insinuation that those most affected by racism are generally under the impression that racism is, in fact, still around.
          • Stevanoski, on 05/11/2008, -4/+3Yes, the elitist like chico are the only ones who know what is best for the whole wide world. we are so lucky to have white people like him. I bet he would even imprison people who disagreed with him to show the world just how fair he is. Hmmmm, I think I read of know it alls like him in Animal Farm, they were called the Pigs.
    • Arramol, on 05/10/2008, -4/+9Keep in mind that a black person getting elected only means that 51% of the country was willing to vote for a black. That's a definite milestone, but it's not the end of the road. Racism is in definite decline, but it's not dead yet. It takes a long, long time to dig out something that firmly entrenched.
      • masterm1nd, on 05/10/2008, -5/+751% percent doesn't mean that the other 49% wouldn't vote for him specifically because he's black. This is a stupid discussion because there will always be racism until we're all the same race and the US is about as diverse and accepting as it gets.
        • chicofaraby, on 05/10/2008, -6/+22"the US is about as diverse and accepting as it gets"

          Again, you must be white.
          • masterm1nd, on 05/10/2008, -4/+5We are factually the most diverse nation on the planet, EVER. That is a fact. I'm sure there are countries that are similarly accepting, but they also aren't as diverse so I don't think it's as meaningful as it is for the US. I also know for a fact there are plenty of countries that are no where near as accepting as the US.

            The bottom line is, Obama is getting more than half of the white vote in most places. He's also getting more than 90% of the black vote in most places. Kind of flies in the face of your comment
          • chicofaraby, on 05/10/2008, -4/+6The fact that white people are voting for Senator Obama doesn't mean that the USA isn't a racist country. You seem to be logic impaired. I guess that's why you are a right wing nut.

            I'll just laugh a bit about your claim that the US being "the most diverse nation on the planet, EVER." It's cute.
          • masterm1nd, on 05/10/2008, -4/+5Ok, if you call us a racist country, you imply there are countries that aren't racist. That's not the case. There is racism everywhere and like I said there always will be as long as theres more than one race. I didn't say it proved anything, but it flies in the face of your comment. The US is factually the most diverse nation on the planet ever, so it seems you are the logically impaired wing nut. Thanks to people like you, white Americans were the first and as far as I know only people to reverse racism themselves. Also thanks to you, we're also the first and only nation to reverse propagandize ourselves in a time of war. Now that I found out you're racist and homophobic (in this thread on another coment), ***** off and die.
          • masterm1nd, on 05/10/2008, -3/+5Name one country who's done more to combat and overcome racism. Put simply, you can't.
          • masterm1nd, on 05/11/2008, -4/+5While you're at it, why don't you name a country that is more diverse and accepting than the US, since that's what you were arguing.

            It looks to me like you don't have anything to say other than racist, anti American opinions which contradict the facts.
          • Stevanoski, on 05/11/2008, -5/+5careful masterm1nd, I hope chico does not start stalking you sexually as he does me.
          • amightywind, on 05/11/2008, -5/+5@masterm1nd Don't waste your breath. The conventional liberal @your-country-of-origin-goes-here@-American thrives on victimhood. Without it they have no excuses, no means to extort guilt-ridden whites, no cover up for societal dysfunction and underachievement.
            BTW. You have the funniest avatar I have ever seen.
          • chicofaraby, on 05/11/2008, -5/+6"if you call us a racist country, you imply there are countries that aren't racist."

            WTF? Where do these people come up with crap like this? No, I don't. I implied NOTHING about other countries. You are grasping at straws. Poorly, I might add.
          • amightywind, on 05/11/2008, -3/+5Ah. So the terms African-American, Hispanic-American, Mexican American are foreign to you? Don't be obtuse.
          • masterm1nd, on 05/11/2008, -3/+5'underlying assumption', look it up.
          • chicofaraby, on 05/11/2008, -5/+4"So the terms African-American, Hispanic-American, Mexican American are foreign to you?"

            uhhhh.... no. I hear them nearly every day. I also hear Italian American, Chinese American, Irish American....

            Did you have a point?
          • Fordi, on 05/11/2008, -4/+4"Name one country who's done more to combat and overcome racism. Put simply, you can't."

            Strange. The UK seems to have finished with that little problem. Wonder why we can't.
          • masterm1nd, on 05/11/2008, -3/+3Any facts to support fordi?
          • masterm1nd, on 05/11/2008, -2/+3And even if it were true, I think 1 country out of 220 actually supports my original claim that is in dispute.

            "the US is *about* as diverse and accepting as it gets."
          • chaosium, on 05/11/2008, -2/+1""the US is *about* as diverse and accepting as it gets.""

            That's depressing. What we are is nothing compared to what we could be.
    • Arramol, on 05/10/2008, -4/+8Sorry, ran out of edit time. You also have to keep in mind that the effects of racism can outlast racism itself. A family that was denied a good education will generally (not always, of course) have fewer opportunities and therefore be able to pass on fewer skills and such to the next generation, which means that *that* generation has fewer opportunities, etc. I don't have a link handy to cite the sociological studies backing it up because I got it in college lectures, but it's a well-document phenomenon. It's possible to dig yourself out, but statistically speaking, most won't. So yes, even after the passing of racism, you're going to have blacks who are disadvantaged because of the ongoing effects.
    • Kalimotxo, on 05/10/2008, -2/+5Unfortunately, racism and prejudice will always exist. It is human nature to examine differences and then act out of fear. People are divided, and will always be divided.
      • chaosium, on 05/10/2008, -4/+2Well, the trick is to minimize it, so that previous and worthless social conservative ideals die with the generation that spawn them.
      • amightywind, on 05/11/2008, -2/+7Racism will always exist because the con is so lucrative to the victims of it.
  • deaftly, on 05/10/2008, -17/+42 tablespoons extra-virgin olive oil, 2 turns of the pan
    2 poblano peppers, seeded and thinly sliced
    2 pounds ground sirloin
    1 medium onion, chopped
    3 to 4 cloves garlic, chopped
    2 tablespoons grill seasoning, a couple of palm fulls
    2 tablespoons Worcestershire sauce, eyeball it
    2 chipotles in adobo, chopped, plus 1 tablespoon of the sauce
    1/2 cup steak sauce (recommended: Peter Luger or A1)
    1 cup beer (1/2 a bottle)
    1 cup beef stock
    1 (28-ounce) can crushed fire roasted tomatoes
    1 package corn muffin mix (recommended: Jiffy, made to package directions for corn pancakes, listed on the side of the box)
    Softened butter, for greasing a griddle
    1 can black beans, rinsed and drained
    1 1/2 teaspoons cumin, half a palm full
    2 scallions, chopped
    Heat the extra-virgin olive oil in a medium soup pot over medium high to high heat. When oil smokes, add the sliced poblanos and char them a couple of minutes and scoot them off to the side of the pan and add meat. Break up beef and brown it a couple of minutes then add the onions and garlic. Season the meat with grill seasoning, Worcestershire and chipotles in adobo. Cook until onions are tender, 5 to 6 minutes more, then stir in steak sauce and beer. Cook beer off for 1 minute then add stock and tomatoes and reduce heat to low.
    Heat a nonstick griddle pan over medium heat. Butter the griddle then pour in batter to make 3 3/4-inch corn pancakes. Season beans with cumin. Top each poured corn cake with a couple tablespoons of black beans and a little chopped scallion. Flip cakes when bottoms are deeply golden and cook another 1 to 2 minutes on the opposite side. You should be able to make 6 cakes in 2 batches.
    Top bowlfuls of the chili with flat tire toppers and serve.
    Serve with plenty of cold 40s or wine coolers (recommended: thunderbird). Put all firearms away before serving.
    • chaosium, on 05/10/2008, -0/+2Sounds like a pretty nice victory feast for her demise.
  • slapded, on 05/10/2008, -2/+22she reminds me of that little annoying kid who didnt get what they wanted on the other kids birthday.
    • maggiesimpson8, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1Yes exactly - "Its my party and I'll cry or wreck it if I want to".
  • Stevanoski, on 05/10/2008, -19/+12She won 2 states fair and square and now Howard the duck Dean will not give them to her the Democratic Party has just become too corrupt.
    • likesoy, on 05/10/2008, -2/+14You're not talking about FL and MI, are you?
    • MrSalty, on 05/10/2008, -2/+21Following a clear and concise set of rules that everyone agreed to ahead of time is not corrupt. Throwing away those rules and giving Clinton the delegates of a state in which her opponent's name didn't even appear on the ballot would be corrupt.
      • Stevanoski, on 05/10/2008, -15/+6Since when have we Democrats ever cared about rules or laws. Those are only for the unwashed masses and Republicans.
        • chicofaraby, on 05/10/2008, -4/+23" we Democrats"

          Gee a lying right winger. That's new.

          Oh wait...
          • Stevanoski, on 05/10/2008, -10/+3You know how I am registered to vote?
          • chicofaraby, on 05/10/2008, -3/+9Yes. We also know about your secret gay lover.

            But, hey, not that there's anything wrong with that...
          • Stevanoski, on 05/10/2008, -9/+3And to imply I am gay is supposed to be an insult. You need to get your bonifides checked. Now you are a homophobe and since you do not know how I am registered to vote you are also a damnable liar, typical leftist. Go forth and practice what you preach, you know tolerance etc.
          • chicofaraby, on 05/10/2008, -4/+7It's fine with me that you like men. Relax, you're among friends with the rest of your fellow Democrats, right? While you are correct that I'm a leftist, I have never advocated tolerating liars like you.

            BTW, I was "implying." You should "infer."

            moron

          • Stevanoski, on 05/10/2008, -7/+3Homophobe, tsk tsk. And I said imply so you lose squared.
          • chicofaraby, on 05/10/2008, -3/+8Are you sure you know what "homophobe" means? Because you seem to think that it means "one who makes fun of right wing liars." It doesn't.
          • Stevanoski, on 05/10/2008, -7/+3Nope, you are part of the anti-gay industry that spills it's nastiness every place. Now chico, if that is your real name, I know you troll after me in hopes of having a "relationship" with me but I am straight. Sometime you must come to the realization that you cannot possess me and quit this stalking of me. Remember when you tried to claim you were "dating" when in actuality the police called it stalking? How did that court case ever come out by the way?
          • chicofaraby, on 05/10/2008, -3/+8"Now chico, if that is your real name"

            It's not even my real ID. That has three words in it.

            Also, I find right wing liars sexually repellent. Good luck, though.
          • Stevanoski, on 05/10/2008, -8/+3There you go, always the sex, please stop stalking me, I repeat I am not gay, although I appreciate that you "want" me I must reiterate that I am not turned that way. While many may find your advances titillating I find them some what scary. Please stop making sexual advances on me.
          • chicofaraby, on 05/10/2008, -4/+7All you right wing liars claim you aren't gay. Right up until your mug shot gets posted after the arrest for soliciting sex from an undercover cop in a public restroom.
          • Stevanoski, on 05/10/2008, -8/+3Still stalking me, sigh, please do you not have better things to do with your life. And always with the gay bashing. sheesh, get a life.
          • iainc, on 05/11/2008, -1/+1Well, I make that 5 - 0 to chico :o)
        • Malacandra95, on 05/10/2008, -2/+9I call it a case of "psychological projection". That's when you accuse others of you're own worst traits... demonizing that which you refuse to acknowledge in yourself.

          The GOP has ignored the Geneva Conventions, suspended habeas corpus, ignore congressional subpoenas, make the ridiculous assertion that the Vice Presidency is a 4th branch of government, wave away being subject to laws that they themselves pass with "signing statements" ... but they're all about the "rule of law".

          That's not law: that's Calvinball.
        • Kalimotxo, on 05/10/2008, -1/+3You should really be ashamed of this way of thinking. You are saying that you would support someone who ignores rules and laws? The same people who create the rules and laws to govern us?
          The FL and MI issue is grasping for straws, it reeks of desperation and stinks of corruption. Give it a rest.
          • Stevanoski, on 05/11/2008, -4/+1How can you deny millions of minorities their vote, you racist.
      • iainc, on 05/11/2008, -1/+1You see what he did there? Your first mistake was hitting the reply button.
    • duluxanon, on 05/10/2008, -3/+13How can you win fair and square if you are the only one on the ballot because everyone else withdrew?
      The only fair thing to do would be to have a revote - but that would be expensive (and obama would win anyway according to recent polls).
      Why bankrupt your party for what already is an inevitable outcome?
      Thats wy I like Obama - move from selfish politics to something a bit more uplifting and fresh.

      • dagamer34, on 05/10/2008, -2/+3Any revote would have to be a mail-in revote. Any mail-in revote would have to be secure. After Florida 2000 & Ohio 2004, making sure that elections are secure don't happen in days or weeks. That's what Obama was taking into consideration.
    • adwarereport, on 05/10/2008, -2/+4Which 2 states were those?
    • DephexTwin, on 05/10/2008, -2/+7Obvious troll is obvious.
    • richporter, on 05/10/2008, -1/+8Florida and Michigan's Dem. leaders moved their primary dates forward against party rules. Sure, those voters are ***** and their wants thrown to the dogs. Yet they have no one to blame but the party leaders of their state. Winning Florida fair and square okay, I'll give that to Hillary and her supporters. She was the only candidate on the ballot in Michigan however, and that doesn't seem very fair or square to me. What do you think?
    • Stevanoski, on 05/10/2008, -7/+4I don't want to disenfranchise any minority votes which certainly would unless we count these states. You guys are just racists.
  • GhostyBoy, on 05/10/2008, -1/+21She's officially irrelevant. Let us never speak of her again.
  • rand0mm0nkey, on 05/10/2008, -1/+13DING! DONG! The witch is...... well, you know the rest.
  • swrostmore, on 05/10/2008, -5/+5Murdoch's NY Post is a tabloid, they have never printed an accurate headline in their life.
    • maggiesimpson8, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1tabloid - yes.
      accurate - they got spitzer right - and many others.
      this digg if from forbes.....that is a non tabloid publication
  • ravenswing2, on 05/10/2008, -0/+7ABRUPT? Where has Forbes been? The rest of us have been watching her campaign self destruct for months.
  • tcbishop12, on 05/10/2008, -2/+19Hillary should look at the plain math and let it go. First, Obama has won more pledged delegates, more states, and more votes than Hillary Clinton, no matter how you count it. Second, Barack Obama has a far more diverse political base than Clinton. Third, in recent contests Clinton has increasingly relied on McCain supporters to win votes. Fourth, a disproportionate share of Clinton's support from white voters comes from women who are basing their vote on the identity politics of gender more than race. Fifth, one of the reasons that Hillary has been able to build an image as a (white) "working-class hero" is that despite Clinton's attacks on Barack Obama, Obama has taken the moral high ground by refusing to make personal attacks against her (and boy howdy, could he have done so). Sixth, this race and gender divisive thing she is now promoting is plainly evil.

    Her campaign surrogates' new "let her resign with grace" argument is also a canard, a trick, a ruse: the supers should seal the nomination away from Hillary's destructive tampering now before further damage is done.

    Even today, she is trying to take Obama down in a new way, but also, as conservative commentator Peggy Noonan noted yesterday in the Wall Street Journal article, within a new context.

    In the past Sen. Obama was just the competitor. Hillary could say, "All's fair."

    But now Sen. Obama's the competitor who is actually going to be the nominee of the Democratic party.

    And she is still trying to do him in, Fatal Attraction style.

    And the party is watching.

    As Peggy Noonan also noted, to play the race and gender cards as Mrs. Clinton has again this week, to highlight and encourage a sense that we are crudely divided as a nation, to make your argument a brute and cynical "the black guy can't win but the white girl can" is -- well, so vulgar, so cynical, so cold, that once again a Clinton is making us turn off the television in case our children walk by.

    It's not math anymore, it's psychodrama. If she can't have it, no one can have it. If she has to tear the party apart, she will.

    It is time for the super delegates to end it, so that we can all move on to winning the general election in the fall.
    • jpmulli, on 05/11/2008, -1/+1Hillary hates the Democratic Party and blames them for not supporting her. She will end up running in November as an Independent and will take her share of Democratic votes with her...and John McCain will laugh all the way to the White House.
  • londubh, on 05/10/2008, -3/+4Hillary is lot like a global warming denier. Her campaign has collapsed like the Larsen B ice shelf.
  • lohphat, on 05/10/2008, -1/+16I've worked for a CEO like Hillary. Their megalomania and their inability to recognize and properly reacy to industry trends took the stock from $60 to $0.43 -- AFTER a reverse 7:1 split.

    Her stubborniess is a telling insight to her "leadership". Would you want someone in denial of simple math leading you?

    I would now argue that she is no longer worth of being a Senator.
    • joelito, on 05/10/2008, -0/+7Did you happened to work at SCO?
    • clutchperformer, on 05/10/2008, -0/+3Had you not quoted the stock price, I'd have sworn you worked at HP during the Carly years from Hell. She spins her years there like she was some sort of sacrificial messiah.
  • visiblepulse, on 05/10/2008, -0/+4she has to continue to raise money to retire the debts her campaign owes. mostly to herself.
    • stretch611, on 05/10/2008, -0/+5Who is going to donate to a lost cause?
      • visiblepulse, on 05/10/2008, -1/+2the people that believe in her. travel around, they're out there.
  • runCMD, on 05/10/2008, -6/+7I would rather violate the rules of the party than prevent the legitimate votes of the voters get trampled. Its NOT about the party - it's about the people. Even Obama's supporters would have to agree with that.
    Why do you guys want so many voices to go uncounted ? If you feel your candidate has it all sewn up - then why disenfranchise those who choose to disagree.?
    • stormgren, on 05/10/2008, -0/+4Obama wasn't even on the ballot in michigan.
    • slaizer, on 05/10/2008, -0/+5It's not about disenfranchising. All candidates agreed to sign a pledge not to campaign nor put their names on the ballot in Michigan and Florida. They broke the rules, so it's only fair that they suffer the inevitable consequences. Trying to get an agreement which everybody agreed on overruled because you're losing, when you cannot even win anymore, is not just f***ing pathetic, it's lack of moral fiber.

      Do you really think Hillary would give a flying f**k about MI and FL if they had went for Obama?
    • bluevillage, on 05/10/2008, -0/+3If Obama had campaigned in FL and MI it's very likely that he would have at least kept HRC's delegate count & pop vote down to the point that she wouldn't have netted enough to win the nomination. By insisting on counting what happened in those states, you are disenfranchising all those who did not turn out to vote because they were told it didn't matter. There was NOT enough time to schedule re-votes, and this was the decision of the states' parties, not of Obama.
    • jamesLankford, on 05/10/2008, -1/+5they weren't legitimate votes to begin with; and no one was disenfranchised; you don't even know what the word means; even hillary siad the "votes" shouldn't be counted, that is until she needed them
    • Focher, on 05/10/2008, -0/+2Hopefully this is the last gasp of an argument we are going to have to hear. For awhile, it was the "big states". That went away when people started to realize that Obama will take the same "big states" that any Democrat would. Then came the popular vote. That now has gone away because, even if you count MI and FL Obama wins on popular vote. Someone tried "electability" (whatever that is - maybe John Kerry could tell us because that's how he won the nomination in 2004) but that one rung hollow because most polls show Clinton, at best, performing about the same as Obama and more likely doing worse with potential swing voters.

      Personally, Clinton can stay on until the last minute if she chooses. However, she should consider that her historic candidacy is quickly becoming a joke because she is losing time when she can bow out gracefully.
    • issachar, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1*the legitimate votes of the voters get trampled*

      Violating the rules of an election (or a primary) means that those votes aren't legitimate. You can't have a legitimate election or primary without following the rules laid out at the beginning. It's unfortunate, but by ignoring the rules, those states "disenfranchised" their own Democrats.
    • iainc, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1Er... because it wasn't democratic. Obama wasn't on the Michigan ballot?

      They should redo it, or it's tough *****.
  • jamesLankford, on 05/10/2008, -1/+3hillary is useless
  • jana67, on 05/10/2008, -5/+2Really there is no difference between the two, Obama is worse http://www.squidoo.com/obamavideoshowcase
    • kds405, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1Thank god those are his only faults.
  • daleok, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1Of course she can't let go. Her ego, along with Bill's, simply will not allow it. Simple as that.
  • yourpalOZ, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1The Clintons are very ambitious. Don't count them out till its over and the lady in the HIDE-A-FAT Hillary suit sings her way out.......They will be back as greed is good. That's why they never went home to Ark.
    • highlyhigh, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1what in god's name are you babbling about? pssst, what are you smokin? :)
      • yourpalOZ, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1same thing as ol Billy clinton but no pussy juice on it.
  • username484767, on 05/10/2008, -3/+2what a *****
  • highlyhigh, on 05/10/2008, -1/+1stubborn biatch
  • badarabdad, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2wow, the comments under the article are a complete mess. one would think forbes could hire an admin to clean that ***** up.
  • jpmulli, on 05/11/2008, -1/+0She will end up running in November as an Independent and will take her share of Democratic votes with her...and John McCain will laugh all the way to the White House.
  • urbieta, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1Im sick of your B.S. politics, stop hiring hindu news blog spammers!!
  • DarthDiabetes, on 05/11/2008, -0/+0Wow. The comments section of that article is brutal.
    "I aint done gonna vote for no blaks."
    I propose an IQ test for the Internet.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.