Quote:
Originally Posted by HazelGod  That's a nice philosophy to adopt if your only objective is to win, regardless of the collateral damage of such victory. Or as some VFW once said, "We had to destroy the village in order to save it."
If you actually give a rat's ass about the people of the nation whose interests you purport to represent (you know, the actual job of the POTUS), rather than just seeking to hold the title for yourself, then this is clearly the last rationale you should adopt. |
Collateral damage? You mean to suggest that the better candidate and more experienced candidate should concede to the demagogue candidate so that the demagogue candidate doesn't suffer from revealing his shortcomings and inadequacies as a nominee until he loses in the general election? Give me a break. You Whine. Man up.
And if Obama is feeling benevolent to the people he can join on the Clinton ticket as VP and unite us all right now...can you hear the choir singing?