Juan Cole Re: HRC: "She should stop before more damage is done"

[leftchick]

amen to that.....

http://juancole.com/

Hillary Clinton's win in Pennsylvania just was not big enough to allow her to hope to win the elected delegate count. She is increasingly using dark and exaggerated rhetoric and 2/3s of Democrats complain that she has gone too negative (less than half say that about Obama). Her exaggerations yesterday extended into the realm of international politics in a most unfortunate way. It seems clear to me that she cannot win the nomination via elected delegates and that she is hoping to win by scaring the super delegates about Obama. This strategy is counterproductive for the Democratic Party and for the country. Clinton needed to win by well into the double digits in Pennsylvania (which is how she began in the polling there months ago) in order to remain credible. 10 points doesn't do it. Obama actually won Texas, which will be a headline in June when all the counting is done there (don't ask). It is over. She should stop before more damage is done.

[NJmaverick]

1. Time for the shouts to grow louder, time for Hillary to go!

[papau]

23. Time for Cole to smell the roses and see that only Hillary is electable

[eridani]

24. Her current campaign is in total agreement with the Rethug talking points--

--that they will use against any Dem nominee in the general election. She never opens her mouth but to say that Democrats are wrong and Republicans are right. Use Rethug frames, and you are campaigning for the Republican.

[tekisui]

2. She should leave on a high note.

I would expect that she would, sometime in the next two weeks, as the Superdelegate floodgate opens.

[NightWatcher]

3. too late for a "high note"

she is on the gutter

[leftchick]

indeed

Juan also addresses her war mongeress here.....



How dangerous the phantasms of the Right really are is underscored by Hillary Clinton's remarks yesterday:


' In an interview with ABC's Good Morning America, Clinton was asked what she would do if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons.

She replied: "In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them. That's a terrible thing to say but those people who run Iran need to understand that, because that perhaps will deter them from doing something that would be reckless, foolish and tragic." '



Clinton has unfortunately fallen in typical Washington fear-mongering fantasy. Iran does not have a nuclear weapon. As of last fall, US intelligence determined that it was not trying to get a nuclear weapon. There is no realistic likelihood of Iran having a bomb 'in the next ten years.' Israel on the other hand has hundreds of bombs and has threatened to use them.

<snip>

Khamenei's quaint chivalry in this age of total war stands in contrast to Clinton's chilling contemplation of genocide against 70 million Iranians in retaliation for something they would and could have had no part in deciding. Mutual Assured Destruction is a security underpinning of the contemporary nuclearized world, but it is a diplomatic weapon that works best by allusion.

If you were an Iranian and you heard Clinton talking like this, would it make you more or less interested in acquiring your own nuclear weapon? That is, Clinton's rather bloodthirsty pandering to what she thinks the Israel lobbies want to hear is likely actually to produce the opposite of the desired reaction in Iran itself and is most unwise.

Clinton also does not mention that Israel is already protected by MAD because it has several hundred nuclear warheads (see the beginning of this essay). Senator Clinton is by now just flailing around fantasizing about incinerating children in playgrounds in Isfahan.

[cali]

4. Love Cole, but she won't stop- and that's OK

she really is done, and he'll be fine. Watch the SDs.

[bowens43]

8. Heard on one of the talking head shows today

that 52% of hillary supporters in Pa say that won't vote for Obama in the GE. There is still damage that can be done and that is her goal. She knows that the nomination is out of reach. It's been out of reach for a while. Now she is focused on 2012. She is actively working to defeat Obama in the GE.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

5. Hillary is staying in for her crown

which means it is all about Hillary not about the country or anything else.

[DangerousRhythm]

6. Agreed...

and the fact that I'm still hearing she won Texas really bugs me. If she won it, that'd be fine and justified... but she didn't, and nobody seems willing to correct that, in the media or even some of her supporters who still seem to be under that particular delusion. It annoys.

[Catherina]

7. She won't. She's too pathological

When Obama gets sworn in, I'll bet you hard, cold cash they'll have to say "Not so fast Hillary" cuz she'll raise her hand to repeat the oath.

[Taxmyth]

9. The race continues

Unprecedented, historic. This will be the subject of many theses in the years to come.

[SunsetDreams]

10. agreed :)

[invictus]

11. I agree. n/t

[NC_Nurse]

12. She doesn't give a fuck about the party or the country. She cares about

herself and her ambition. It's called "narcissism". For another textbook example, just look at the
current occupant of the WH. Everything he does is for the good of ...whatever the Decider says it is.

The narcissist thinks that whatever is good for them is good for everyone else because they see others as simply an EXTENSION OF THEMSELVES.
I'm sure Dubya and Hillary both believe what they are doing is right and best for us all. It's a key part of this disorder.

[madame defarge]

13. Wise man, Juan Cole is.

I'm so fed up with this whole primary crap. HRC is truly destroying the Dem party. And for what? For her own narcissistic benefit.

[DemVet]

14. Fight Hillary, Fight!!!

These Obama people don't want the remaining states to decide the Nomination.

They're running scared. It's like they want to end a football game in the fourth quarter.

Fight!!!

[NJmaverick]

16. That's what Rove and the Repukes are saying

[DemVet]

22. Rove blah blah Rove blah blah

You Obama people are broken records, just parrotting one another.

[Epiphany4z]

17. The remaining states wont change it

The only way she get the nomination is to overturn the guy who has more delegates, more popular vote, more new voters, and more money.....if she does that she looses the GE anyway....so what is the point? Overturning that kind of lead will cost the Dem's voters...if there was any other way for her to win...I would say fight Hillary fight ..but the numbers say it all...overturning with SD is her only way.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

19. How?

Hillary needs to win the remaining states by 70% in order to overcome Obama's lead (She can't even beat him with the same percentage as Penn. in the remaining states).

Do you have a Sonic Screwdriver or something?

[wileedog]

26. Because we don't want our Quarterback getting injured before the SuperBowl

in a playoff game that has already been decided.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

15. The right thing for Hillary to do is drop out

She didn't win PA by the margins she needed to win at, so the right thing for her is to drop out.

She'll most likely be dragged from the convention hall, kicking and screaming, "It's MINE! It was MY TURN! MINE! MINE!" Reminds me of White Goodman in Dodgeball in the final match.

[Doctor_J]

18. Inflicting damage is a major part of her plan

She is intentionally driving away millions of young voters, liberals, humanists, and those hoping for change. Her plan is to discourage them into staying home on election day, and make up the deficit of would-be Dem voters with Fox News viewers and other fringe elements. It might work, but I think we're looking at "4 more years"

[flyarm]

20. Obama needs to get out before more damage is done..he and Dean

and his surrogates have disenfranchised the voters of two important swing states that by the day people will be defecting to McCain..and he can't win one damn big state that is a blue state!

Wyoming with their 3 electoral votes and 59,000 registered dems is sure as hell not going to win it for the dems in Nov! but tossing out Florida with 27 electoral votes and 4 million dems and Mi with 17 electoral votes sure as hell is going to lose it for the Dems in Nov..i just wonder ..is that what the Democratic leaders really want???????? I am beginning to think that is exactly what the dem leadership wants!

ask yourself that..because we will lose Florida by a landslide to McCain in Nov if the votes from the primary are not counted and our delegates votes are not counted by Obama, Dean and Brazile!!..that you can count on..Juan Cole...

fly

[eridani]

25. I suppose if we don't start the 2012 primary on 1/21/09--

--we'll be hearing the same yammering about disenfranchisement. If you don't want limits on when primaries should start, why have voting at all? Just look at the FEC filings and award the presidency to whoever is campaigning all the time instead of governing.

[Tampa Rob]

27. She KNEW the rules. She bent them to "win" states that were NOT

going to count. Now she wants to change the rules of the game.

The only fair outcome would be a revote, but that ship has sailed. It's an unfortunate situation, but taking the "results" of a primary that wasn't even contested and putting them in the mix would be wrong.

Perhaps if they apportion the delegates by the overall popular vote in all elections, that might at least be fairer, but I don't think that will happen.

The only way HRC gains is if they take the results as they stand now. Even then, it doesn't give her enough delegates. And if they did do that, it would be a travesty, given the rules that were laid out in the beginning.

TR

[WillyToad]

21. We have been hearing this from Obama supporters for months...

This is democracy baby, love it or get out of the traffic...