What Other Presidential Candidate EVER Has Refused to Concede or Congratulate the WINNER??

[K Gardner]

Which of our other wonderful candidates would have even THOUGHT about doing this?

She is despicable. Screw "What I WANT" Clinton.

[BlooInBloo]

1. She has written her own history.

[K Gardner]

4. Yes, Bloo.. she has. It's over and so is she.

[StevieM]

6. She has indeed and it is a magnificent history. Obama will become the next George McGovern (eom)

[Colobo]

9. You're no Democrat, obviously.

Get ready for President Obama.

[EFerrari]

17. Ugly, ugly, ugly and to no purpose. n/t

[Emit]

2. The only person it reminds me of is

Bush

[babylonsister]

3. Bad move imo. So it's time to move on. GOBAMA! nt

[Medusa]

5. That woman doesn't have one iota of graciousness in her being

Kos has a diary up saying she's in one of the last stages of grief: bargaining. More like trying to hold the party hostage if you ask me.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

7. I have a doctorate in political science and never in my studies of electoral politics

have I ever come across a candidate that lacks candor and humility as Mrs. Clinton. I am appalled by her behavior tonight. I am equally disgusted by her supporters who seem to be condoning her actions.

People must now see and accept that Hillary Clinton is for herself, not for the country and certainly not for the Democratic party.

[otohara]

10. I Wonder How The Remaining Super D's

will react to what she did tonight.

[K Gardner]

13. Thanks for an opinion from your viewpoint.. it helps :-)

[WA98296]

14. When they show you who they are, believe them.

Just as you stated, Clinton is for herself.

[RoyGBiv]

8. Edward Kennedy ...

1980. It was a rather big deal. Made all the history books.

And I might add he had less justification than Clinton. He lost by almost at thousand delegates.

I offer this bit of trivia not to suggest justification for what Clinton is doing. In fact, I think it shows rather clearly just how bad an idea Clinton's strategy is. Kennedy's and Carter's war with each other in the primaries (and it threatened to turn the 1980 convention into another 1968-style fiasco) was one factor among many that threw the party into complete disarray until a young man from Arkansas took the stage in the 90's.

The point I am making, which I realize will be mostly lost either in the haze of venom people seem destined to spew or the practical matter of DU's current DefCon level, is that this implicitly rhetorical question is just another bit of hyperbole that helps not a thing.

To borrow a phrase, this has all happened before, and it will all happen again. Clinton's not the devil. She's not crazy. She's not even a traitor, not any more than Ted Kennedy is.

And people will largely get over it, if they let themselves.

[K Gardner]

16. I guess I remember that, but not in that much detail.. thank you for the reminder !

[RoyGBiv]

21. Welcome ...

And you not remembering it in much detail is kinda, also the point.

I don't like what Clinton is doing either. Her tactics (more than her strategy) have changed her image in my mind from someone I admired to someone who is just another politician with a serious case of ego and piss poor campaigning skills. But of course, a serious case of ego is generally what it takes to get elected these days. Obama has his own ego issues, but they don't tend to manifest themselves as publicly or in a fashion that can be taken so negatively as the Clintons. And, he is a *far* better campaigner.

But, regardless of whether I like it, I'm rather less impressed by all the hand wringing, doom-and-gloom naysayers who spend so much energy pouncing on her for doing what many politicians with spines do ... and what someone who is, in most left-leaning circles, an *icon* of liberal, Democratic politics did a little over two decades ago.

Hell, I'm still bitter about Teddy's antics in 1980, and I wasn't even of voting age. I put a lot of blame for Reagan on him. However, I also still admire the man and understand his career, before and especially since, has been exemplary.

As I said, the Democratic party and the people in it will get over it ... if they let themselves.

[TexasObserver]

11. Her pride does not serve her well. She's pompous, and undeservedly so.

[sniffa]

12. I think Teddy

But that was while I was in Kindergarten, so I may be off.

[K Gardner]

18. No, you're right.. see above post :-)

[all.of.me]

15. She did not congratulate him after any of his wins all year long, either. nt

[K Gardner]

19. No, she certainly didn't.

[Jack Rabbit]

20. George W. Bush

He never conceded in 2000 nor did he congratulate President Gore.

[Armstead]

22. She's a Historic Candidate, remember.....Historically obnoxious too

[Proud Liberal Dem]

23. It would've been nice *if* Gore had refused to concede to Bush in 2000

Unfortunately, THAT didn't happen of course (to his credit) but we are now forced to witness the spectacle (train wreck?) of Hilary, a member of our own party, refusing to concede to Obama, another member of our party and NOW THE RIGHTFUL NOMINEE ACCORDING TO PARTY RULES. Un-freaking-believable!

[PoliticalOne65]

27. Party rules.

Well I have to give this to the Hillary campaign the party rules are not solid. The rules change as the game is played. That is the way the DNC likes it I suppose, but it leaves open the possibility of lawsuits. Which is what is about to happen, starting tomorrow. Litigate your way into the white house. Claims will start being filed in Florida, Michigan, DC. at both the state and federal level. This ain't over. See ya in Denver.

[Stinky The Clown]

24. Ted Kennedy .......... against Jimmy Carter

He stood on the stage at the convention and kept on going. He'd been mathematically eliminated long before that.

[KittyWampus]

25. Hillary Clinton is no Ted Kennedy.

[RoyGBiv]

28. She's no Lloyd Bentsen either ...

But, really, what does that mean? Obviously, she's not. She's a centrist, as is Obama. Kennedy is a liberal; Carter was a conservative, populist type. She's behind Obama by a few hundred delegates. Kennedy was behind by almost a thousand. Kennedy was both loved and hated. Clinton is loved and hated ... well, okay, there's one thing they have in common.

Seriously ...

Kennedy's antics in 1980 were highly destructive to the Democratic party. It was still a total shambles in 1984 when all it could bring forth was Mondale and that horror Ferraro, and it hadn't come around even by 1988. Kennedy had a lot to do with Reagan getting elected. His strategy of attacking the "conservative" Carter was a huge motivator in pushing so-called Regan Democrats to vote for Reagan. He tried to define the Democratic Party as one in which those who didn't agree with his positions had no place in it and that Carter's brand of conservatism was a particularly bad kind. Many rank and file voters took his advice and left.

Due to differing circumstances of the present election cycle, I don't think Clinton's current shenanigans will have quite that negative an effect. Her antics have solidified his supporters to stand more strongly behind Obama. Carter's supporters were actually turned off Carter because of Kennedy.

But, the party survived, and Kennedy went on to continue to be a great and valuable member of the Democratic party. And the party, as a whole, loves him ... rightfully so.

I seriously doubt Clinton will ever be "loved" in quite the same way, but she will certainly survive, and she'll be a strong Democrat for years to come.

[AZ Criminal JD]

26. Ted Kennedy in 1980. Remember the scene on the convention stage?

Carter chasing around Kennedy to shake his hand and Kennedy kept moving.

[uppityperson]

29. As long as we're agonizing tonite, what pres candidate conceded too soon?

Who conceded before all the votes were counted? That was even more despicable.

[RoyGBiv]

30. I am compelled to say ...

I'm glad to see someone say that.

Not having been either thrilled by or terminally against either of these candidates, I've been less than inclined to pound this nut during the heat of things. But, in the postmortem analysis, it does need to be said and considered. If nothing else, Hillary's strategy mirrors what a lot of people *wish* another candidate had done about four years ago when vote totals were very close and when "anything" could have happened had the issue been pressed. That candidate, wrongly, gave it up, for reasons that were less than convincing but which closely resembled many of the reasons people have been demanding Hillary concede.

Yes, of course "this is different." Intra-party squabbles always are. But it's also ironic how one person is a goat for conceding too soon and another is a traitor for not conceding soon enough. (Did a little run through memory lane and reminded myself that this clamor to give it up because of the holy writ of "the math" has been fairly consistent since late January, when *nothing* was clear.)

I'm not a big Hillary fan. I wasn't a big Obama fan. (I will quickly be turning myself into one, however.) But, Hillary did show me one thing of importance. She doesn't give up when roughly half the people who voted in a contest are telling her she should, the other half that she shouldn't ... unlike a certain candidate about four years ago.