> • In 1988, Jesse Jackson took his hopeless campaign against winner
> Michael Dukakis all the way to the convention, often to great media
> praise.
Dukakis lost.
> • In 1980, Ted Kennedy carried his run against Jimmy Carter all the way
> to the convention, even though it was clear he had been routed.
Carter lost.
> • In 1976, Ronald Reagan contested the "inevitability" of Gerald
Ford all
> the way to the convention. Few, then or since, have ever thought to
> criticize Reagan's failure to step aside and let Ford assume the mantle.
Gerald Ford Lost. Of course Reagan was running for 1980 in 76... that
does sound familiar.
> • Also in 1976, three candidates -- Mo Udall, Jerry Brown, and Frank
> Church -- ran against Jimmy Carter all the way through the final
> primaries, even though Carter seemed more than likely to be the eventual
> nominee.
Carter was one termed and beat a crippled Ford.Not to mention not a
single one of them posed a serious threat to the nomination or mounted
a concerted effort against Carter.
> • Even in 1960, Lyndon Johnson and Adlai Stevenson fought the "certain"
> nomination of John F. Kennedy all the way to the convention floor.
He had no serious opposition. Doesn't even apply.
> In fact, until this year, it's been an axiom of American politics that
> candidates are allowed to pursue their runs until they decide to
drop out
> -- which is usually, by the way, when they run out of money. Even Mike
> Huckabee kept running against John McCain in this campaign long after it
> was obvious he had no hope of winning the GOP nod.
Yet he dropped out. Plus he did not endorse Hillary over McCain or
drive a negative campaign. In fact the exact OPPOSITE is the role.
Look how many candidates did drop out, and how may historically drop out.
> Yet in one of the tightest races in modern history -- before the
opponent
> has come close to clearly clinching the nomination, before a number of
> voters have been given the chance to have their voices heard, and when
> Clinton still has a chance, albeit a slim one, to win the prize, she is
> continually vilified for failing to see the light and bow out. What
> gives?
>
What gives is she ENDORSED MCCAIN OVER OBAMA. PERIOD. END OF STORY.
You have never defended that statement. WHY? Because it is
indefensible. She has ran the most negative run for a nomination in
the history of the party. NEVER has a nominee endorsed their opponent
in a nomination race until now. For that alone she should be pushed aside.
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Dems2008/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Dems2008/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:Dems2008-digest@yahoogroups.com
mailto:Dems2008-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Dems2008-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder