confused: is clinton NOT going to concede on saturday?

[Lauri]

Lerkfish  Donating Member  (1000+ posts) Journal  Click to send private message to this author  Click to view this author's profile  Click to add this author to your buddy list  Click to add this author to your Ignore list      Thu Jun-05-08 05:24 PM
Original message
confused: is clinton NOT going to concede on saturday?
   

I'm only asking cause I just now saw this is this correct? is she refusing to release her delegates?



this is on the cnn website:


http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/05/how-is-cli... /

Hillary Clinton is offering Barack Obama half a loaf on her way out the door. No joint appearance with the presumptive nominee and their families in prime time – which would be carried live on television. No appearances by folks like Harold Ickes and Terry McAuliffe who ran her campaign telling her supporters to unite behind Obama. No appearance by Bill saying “let bygones be bygones, and I’m going to offer to work hard to get Barack Obama elected.”

Instead Senator Clinton is planning a public appearance on Saturday to talk about how “we can rally the party behind Senator Obama. The stakes are too high and the task before us too important to do otherwise.”

Meanwhile, it turns out Clinton had to be pushed to get out of the race by several of her Democratic congressional colleagues… and reportedly she didn’t even bother to call Obama to tell him of her decision. One more thing, and it’s important: Clinton is expected to suspend her campaign instead of dropping out altogether. That means she will technically remain a candidate, and she will hold on to her delegates.

Some Obama supporters worry that questions about what Clinton does next will turn into a “second campaign” that won’t end until Obama chooses a running mate, a job that Clinton is apparently interested in even though no one has asked her.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6292701

uh oh 

[franksolich]

This could very well happen, and one hopes it does.

Anything to consternate the primitives is good for the country and all in it.

[Mary Ann]

jgraz  (1000+ posts)       Thu Jun-05-08 11:14 PM
Response to Reply #13
35. Actually, Bush is the worst loser ever. 
 Given that he lost twice but still took office.

msallied  (1000+ posts)      Thu Jun-05-08 11:19 PM
Response to Reply #35
38. Stop making leaps in logic. It makes Democrats look bad.
 He didn't lose twice. Jesus. Voting anomalies, yes. We'll probably never truly know what all went down. But the results were certified and the deal is done.

jgraz  (1000+ posts)       Thu Jun-05-08 11:22 PM
Response to Reply #38
41. You need to do some reading. Seriously. 
 I'm not about to debate an established historical fact with you. Please educate yourself before we find ourselves with another stolen election this fall.
 Alert Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

msallied  (1000+ posts)      Thu Jun-05-08 11:24 PM
Response to Reply #41
42. I've done plenty of reading on the subject. You're engaging in conspiracy theories.
 Edited on Thu Jun-05-08 11:25 PM by msallied
It is not "historical fact" that George W. Bush lost two elections and "took office anyway." I don't the possibility of irregularities, but I'm also open-minded enough to separate fact from speculation.

You're embarrassing yourself. Stop.
 
 Alert Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

 

jgraz  (1000+ posts)      Thu Jun-05-08 11:30 PM
Response to Reply #42
43. I don't debate the Holocaust, I don't debate global warming 
 And I don't debate the established fact of Bush's two stolen elections.

You may disagree, but don't be so arrogant as to tell me I'm embarrassing myself by coming to the same conclusion that many, many election watchers have come to. It's insulting and unnecessary.
 Alert Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

jgraz  (1000+ posts)       Fri Jun-06-08 12:05 AM
Response to Reply #42
47. Here, let's see who else is embarrassing themselves. 
 http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph... 

jgraz' link in Response 47 is a DU poll posted by jgraz! There you have it, folks. Proof positive that Bush STOLE two elections!!! That DU poll will someday by printed in history books to demonstrate that the elections of 2000 and 2004 were absolutely, without-a-doubt outright THEFT  .

[Lauri]

IF Bush actually stole two elections, why didnt their God and Leader, Al Gore ever say so? He never publically accused Bush of it.

Neither did..

Hilary or Bill
Charlie Rangle
Kennedy
Pelosi
Reid
Kerry..

heck, not a one of their so called leaders in their party had the guts to say so ... are they all cowards?

but yeah, a DU poll made up by a DUer is sure enough 'fact' for me! 

[jukin]

Reality based!!