Several examples of her recent actions throw this into sharp relief:
- She cited analysis done by Karl Rove - Karl Rove! - supposedly proving her to be the stronger candidate in the fall election.
- Months after publicly backing the Democratic National Committee's refusal to honor Michigan and Florida's primary results because the two states broke party rules on scheduling their primaries, she now says that the DNC's actions are on par with slavery, denying women the right to vote, and the stolen election in Zimbabwe.
- She claims that Barack Obama won a majority of pledged delegates (that is, delegates chosen directly by primary and caucus voting) not because he is the better candidate but because male Democrats and everyone in the media are a bunch of sexist woman-haters.
- After the Supreme Court declared George W. Bush to be president back in 2000, she supported the abolition of the Electoral College and making the presidential election a straight popular vote. However, she now wants Democratic superdelegates to disregard the popular vote - which she is losing unless you include Michigan (where Obama wasn't even on the ballot) and Florida - and support her in sufficient numbers to give her the nomination.
She has to take a good long look at herself in the mirror and ask herself a tough question: is it worth it? Is it really worth tearing the Democratic Party apart just to get nominated for a fall election which she may very well lose anyway?
Only Hillary Clinton can really answer that question.
No comments:
Post a Comment