See, here's the thing. I know it's politics and all. Yadda yadda. But I didn't donate $$$ to HRC.

[AnarchoFreeThinker]

She was 150 delegates behind AFTER Texas and Ohio on March 4th, and heading into today she's 159 behind.

Yes, it's true, she netted (made up a difference of) a grand total of 34 pledged delegates in contests since Texas and Ohio, BUT at a cost of WELL OVER $2,000,000 per netted pledged delegate in those contests.

And, yes, it was certainly within Hillary Clinton's rights to keep her campaign running and to spend her money and burn through tens of millions of her supporters' dollars to compete after March 4th. Hell, much as the writing was on the wall, and has been for so long, I might not've quit with such fervent supporters behind me and a hope to make history in front of me.

But that doesn't change two things: first, since March 4th, she's only LOST ground when you figure in superdelegates, Edwards delegates, and updated pledged delegate counts from CA, TX, and elsewhere; and second, it's been obvious that the math--the realistic old math--has been insurmountably against her for three months and tens of millions of dollars. Since March 4th she's needed 33% blowouts in EVERY state.

So while she ran her campaign off the balance sheet, Obama supporters kept ponying up for his campaign in order to try to counter her campaign. Now Obama supporters face the prospect of having to bail out her campaign, too--that same campaign they've already paid to compete against.

No thanks.

At this point, this isn't even really about Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton anymore. It's about the prospect of essentially having funded BOTH sides of a needlessly damaging and needlessly divisive and needlessly extended primary season that was no good for the party or our prospects for the Fall--and which the delegate margin after March 4th, THREE MONTHS AGO, showed was insurmountable, barring tragedy or a much-hyped and hoped-for bizarre political scandal. Throughout this primary season the Clinton brand has become severely tarnished and their legacy badly damaged, hopefully not permanently, but badly damaged nonetheless. And Barack Obama's numbers against John McCain have fallen from 11% leads in the last two national polls before March 4th to a 5% lead and a dead-even push in the latest two national polls.

Well, I'm sorry, but I don't want to have paid for Barack Obama to compete against Hillary Clinton since March 4th AND for Hillary Clinton having competed against Barack Obama since March 4th--all to the damage of our party. I don't for a minute think Obama can't overcome the prolonged primary season, but it now will necessitate tens of millions MORE dollars than would've been necessary to beat McHundred on top of the tens of millions of dollars spent by both campaigns unnecessarily to extend our primary season. I'm sure it won't make a bit of difference to anyone--and of course I'll still volunteer for Barack Obama and fervently advocate for him all the way to the White House no matter what--but as far as the money goes, if he pays off the campaign debt she chose to accrue then this well is dry.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

[NC_Nurse]

1. I agree. Her supporters who called for her to stay in should pony up the $$$.

They got what they asked for - let them help her retire her debt.

[papapi]

2. I get it. Did you think this up all by yourself? Just curious.

[AnarchoFreeThinker]

3. yes and no....

Chuck Todd laid out the math after March 4th. RealClearPolitics supplied the national polls. Senator Clinton came up with the idea to keep running after March 4th. Barack Obama's campaign came up with the idea to keep asking me for money after March 4th. Lots of Obama supporters have expressed dismay about paying off Clinton's campaign debt lately. The fact that doing so means we're in effect paying for her decision to campaign after March 4th is my own problem with it, but I doubt I'm the only Obama supporter it's occurred to.