HRC should just focus now on getting her concerns into the platform

[Ken Burch]

She's fought a hard race, but we all know it's not going to be her leading the ticket.
There's no reason for anyone to keep resisting accepting this now. The race is over.

But HRC could use her leverage to make sure her concerns on the issues are included in the platform. That would be a valid use of her time between now and Denver. That would lead to unity. That, not a hopeless fight for a nomination she and all her supporters know she can't honorably win. And that she would diminish herself in continuing to try to win.

Use your strength for good, Senator Clinton.

[saracat]

1. Fat lot of good it did Edwards! So is universal healthcare even part of it? NOT.

Edwards "might" see some lip service on poverty but zi would be surprised if there is any real movement. All this "ifluencing the platform " talk is meaningless because frequently the platform itself is meaningless because candidates don't even "have" to support it. Our state platform was deliberately written so it could mean anything to allow candidates to appeal to varying constituents.

[Ken Burch]

4. You can do a lot more with 1700 delegates than with 26.

And while I agree with you about our party in general being too vague on the issues, this didn't start with Obama.

[saracat]

7. I didn't say it did.I just said influencingthe "platform" was a bogus argument.

[Oregone]

5. Edwards was pro-Universal Coverage, not Universal Health Care. Big Difference

fyi. Pretty much Hillary's position too.

[saracat]

6. Maybe so but it isn't the big O's stance.And he didn't budge even when asked by Elizabeth Edwards.

[Oregone]

9. Anything thats short of UHC is pretty much shit, no matter who is sporting it.

Im not sure why you are justifying one man's shortfalls with anothers. Its the whole "We're not last" and "We suck less" argument.

[blonndee]

2. You're assuming two big things.

That she is actually interested in her "concerns" being addressed in real life instead of being used for political gain.

And that she is interested in party unity.

[saracat]

3. And you are assuming the "platform "means anything!

[Ken Burch]

16. Well, if we're talking about a candidate's positions, those positions

Will be the platform, in most cases, if that candidate is nominated. Or can include acknowledgements of the best ideas of other candidates as well.

Anyway, I was trying to present a positive alternative to continuing a hopeless and doomed fight for the nomination. You do accept that HRC can't win now, don't you?

[sandnsea]

8. bingo n/t

[Tatiana]

10. What are Hillary's concerns? n/t

[nxylas]

11. I thought her only concern was power

The only thing I've ever heard her express any concern about is getting Michigan and Florida seated in a way that benefits her.

[Tatiana]

15. I really want to know what these "concerns" are. n/t

[PoliticalAmazon]

12. But her concenrs are limited to "I wanna be president!" n/t

[BklynChick]

13. does she actually have substantive concerns?

[Window]

14. That would be too much like doing the right thing.

[earthlover]

17. Hillary's message has not been her issues lately....

In fact, I find it difficult to remember what it was!

For the past few MONTHS it has been attacking Obama. The whole kitchen sink.

Lost in the shuffle is what Hillary is FOR....

I don't think Hillary ever spent much time or energy saying what she was for. She started the campaign saying she, like 100% of all candidates for every office everywhere, is in it to win. Then the first half of the campaign was Ms Inevitability vs Mr Maybe Later.

Then that didn't work, and it became Attack Barack.

All this time we haven't heard a hell of a lot about what she was FOR! Except herself.

[AZ Criminal JD]

18. No modern candidate has run on the platform.

They run on their own ideas and principles. No one cares what is in the platform as long as it is not too goofy. The only people who waste their time on it are the ideologues who think that is somehow matters.

[StevieM]

19. She should do what Jesse Jackson did in 88--demand a rules change for how the nominating proccess

works. The '88 rules handed Obama the nomination, while Hillary would have won on the old rules. And, no, Obama couldn't have run a different campaign, he tried his best to win the big states and failed. Clinton should withhold her endorsement until there is a change in rules to make certain that we never again have a candidate chosen by a small group of caucus states because they could dominate them while splitting the elected delegates from primaries.

Steve

[Ken Burch]

20. There was no rules change in '88

And the rules we had in '88 gave us Dukakis, so what's your point?
There wasn't an inherently superior candidate who was unfairly stopped that year.

The primaries have proven she's unpopular.

Why are you being so bloody minded?

You know there's nothing more important than beating McCain and stopping the war. And Obama's never done anything to deserve your hatred.