Clinton to Concede

Filed under: 2008 elections, Barack Oama, Democrats, Hillary Clinton — Claudia, Assistant Editor on June 5, 2008 @ 9:49 am CEST

Different media sources are reporting that Hillary Clinton will throw her support behind Barack Obama at an event on Saturday. The original idea was to do it Friday, but the release of the information has moved the event to Saturday to allow for her supporters to gather. That certainly seems fair enough. It should be noted that even if the media wanted her to concede at the very second Obama got the magic number, Obama said nothing of the sort. He has been completely gracious and patient, acknowledging Clinton as a very close second with wide support.

I saw Clinton’s speech and Obama’s speech. Obama’s people cheered Clinton when he praised her. Her people had to be prodded several times, virtually ordered, by Clinton to give Obama an applause.

The next question is the VP slot. Does she really want it or just to be asked? The vetting process is brutal, does she REALLY want her, and especially Bill’s records and finances to be fully vetted or does she want a theatrical effect? Only she knows for sure.

Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
  • NewsVine
  • TailRank
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon

4 Comments »

  1. 1 Interested

    June 5, 2008 @ 10:36 am CEST

    He doesn’t need her on the ticket.  She has the choice to uphold what she promised she would do before and support him.  Of course that would suggest that Clinton would be trustworthy to uphold that pledge and that means that she didn’t lie when making it.  Tall order for Clinton to fulfill.

    It’ll be a better day in American Politics when she quits the race and a great day in America when the general election comes and goes and she’s nowhere to be found on any ticket.

  2. 2 Michael van der Galien

    June 5, 2008 @ 11:28 am CEST

    The next question is the VP slot. Does she really want it or just to be asked? The vetting process is brutal, does she REALLY want her, and especially Bill’s records and finances to be fully vetted or does she want a theatrical effect? Only she knows for sure.

    Why in God’s name wouldn’t she want to be vetted for VP? She wanted to become President, remember?

  3. 3 C Stanley

    June 5, 2008 @ 1:08 pm CEST

    Have to agree with Michael about the vetting. And, the one thing I can say about Hillary, although her whining about it is grating, she does have a point when she says she’s been thoroughly vetted already. I honestly can’t imagine there’s ANY stone that has remained unturned there.

    I guess the only other way to look at it though, is that Bill’s legacy and standing in the party (as well as her own future) is hanging in the balance now- much more than I think anyone would have thought six months ago. She may want to avoid a lot more discussion of their negatives just on that basis. 

  4. 4 Bob

    June 5, 2008 @ 5:48 pm CEST

    I do agree about Bill’s legacy and her needing to do the right thing to protect it. But I still know a lot of Dems that really have lost a lot of respect for him. \

    I wonder if this poll was taken today what his numbers would be.
    Greatest President Poll

    Abraham Lincoln: 18%
    Ronald Reagan: 16%
    John Kennedy: 14%
    Bill Clinton: 13%
    Franklin Roosevelt: 9%
    George Washington: 7%
    Harry Truman: 3%
    George W. Bush: 2%
    Theodore Roosevelt: 2%
    Dwight Eisenhower: 2%
    Thomas Jefferson: 2%
    Jimmy Carter: 2%
    Gerald Ford: 1%
    George H. W. Bush: 1%

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

PoliGazette Comments Policy

PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree. Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors. Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.

(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or willfully misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should not be posted.

(2) Comments should avoid use of vulgar language as well as racial, ethnic, or religious slurs.

(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.

(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.

Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors by email.


Editorial Staff

Editor-in-Chief: Michael van der Galien
Managing Editor: Jason
Assistant Editor: Claudia



 



Listen to PoliGazette Radio on internet talk radio




 

Proud member of Moderate Blog Network, a FeedBurner Network.

Recent Comments

  • Interested: With a major defeat there will be much greater acceptance of a need for change. They already had that in...
  • Interested: in addition, the guy’s a blow-dried phoney who ripped into McCain during the primaries.  Choosing him...
  • Interested: I try to admit it when I’m wrong.  And I was wrong about Hillary and Bill’s ability to step aside...
  • Michael Merritt: "If you like political humor, welcome but if you’re watching our show to catch up on...
  • Bob: When Hazleton Pennsylvania tried to crack down on immigration by holding companies and landlords responsible, a...

Partners