"Why Won't That Stupid Bitch Quit?" watch
I guess the Kid Oakland thing didn't work out, for some reason, so Lord Kos continues his 527 work to keep the popular vote for Hillary in PA, IN, and NC low by asking a front pager who's managed to retain some credibility over there to explain to these voters that the A listers, Howard Dean (sigh), and a bunch of Beltway Dem consultants and wannabes have come to the conclusion that there's really no need for them to vote--even though FDR won only on the fourth ballot, and this primary hasn't even run late, by historical standards. [UPDATE: See below the fold for many examples.]*
You’ve fought hard. But you’ve lost. Acknowledging that, accepting it, and acting graciously and selflessly on it right now would mean the Democrats – your supporters and the supporters of other candidates who have already left the contest – could unite behind Barack Obama without further delay.
Re-enfranchise Florida and Michigan. Then we'll talk.
Otherwise, Obama's nomination won't be legitimate. Deal?
NOTE * Hey, I'd put on my waders and comment over there, but when I asked them to delete my account, they took my ability to comment away--while still retaining my posts. Typical.
UPDATE Great post from Reclusive Leftist, which I'll sticky this post to draw attention to:
In a good but mis-titled article, Steven Stark comments on the deep weirdness of the current movement to get Hillary to quit:
It is, in truth, an argument virtually without precedent in modern political history, at least at this stage of such a close race. And while it does have its origins in an effort to preserve party unity, it also has its roots in an odd and vitriolic crusade to purge the Clintons and hand the nomination to a candidate who has yet, after all, to win a single large state’s primary (other than his own), let alone the nomination.
The fact is that, until now, candidates have rarely, if ever, faced such a concerted movement (featuring prominent names, such as Bill Richardson, and a column in Slate titled “The Hillary Deathwatch”), urging them to drop out before their rival has clinched the nomination. To review the history:
• In 1988, Jesse Jackson took his hopeless campaign against winner Michael Dukakis all the way to the convention, often to great media praise.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• Even in 1960, Lyndon Johnson and Adlai Stevenson fought the “certain” nomination of John F. Kennedy all the way to the convention floor.
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.
Okay, class, who can tell me what all those candidates had in common? Starts with a p…..
Nah, couldn't be that. Why, the Boiz on the Blogs are progessives!