
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: &#8230;Or not? Ickes says ixnay on the concessionay</title>
	<atom:link href="http://themoderatevoice.com/20126/or-not-ickes-says-ixnay-on-the-concessionay/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://themoderatevoice.com/20126/or-not-ickes-says-ixnay-on-the-concessionay/</link>
	<description>An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 28 May 2012 16:48:42 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jillmz</title>
		<link>http://themoderatevoice.com/20126/or-not-ickes-says-ixnay-on-the-concessionay/comment-page-1/#comment-137076</link>
		<dc:creator>Jillmz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Jun 2008 20:44:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://themoderatevoice.com/at-tmv/newsweek-blogitics/20126/or-not-ickes-says-ixnay-on-the-concessionay/#comment-137076</guid>
		<description>I understand and respect what you&#039;re saying, honest.  My point was that regardless of the measure, it&#039;s close and it could have gone the other way but for different &quot;ifs.&quot;  Plus, you and I both know that the popular vote number in no way is settled either due to the MI and FL situations.  And last but not least, the point of the popular vote goes to Clinton&#039;s possible arguments to superdelegates - there are some whom people say lean or declared for Obama but are in Clinton-won areas.  Just as I live in a district that went Obama but is occupied by a superdel who is in Clinton&#039;s column.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Really not arguing the argument - just raising it.  Hope that&#039;s clearer.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I understand and respect what you&#39;re saying, honest.  My point was that regardless of the measure, it&#39;s close and it could have gone the other way but for different &#8220;ifs.&#8221;  Plus, you and I both know that the popular vote number in no way is settled either due to the MI and FL situations.  And last but not least, the point of the popular vote goes to Clinton&#39;s possible arguments to superdelegates &#8211; there are some whom people say lean or declared for Obama but are in Clinton-won areas.  Just as I live in a district that went Obama but is occupied by a superdel who is in Clinton&#39;s column.</p>
<p>Really not arguing the argument &#8211; just raising it.  Hope that&#39;s clearer.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: GeorgeSorwell</title>
		<link>http://themoderatevoice.com/20126/or-not-ickes-says-ixnay-on-the-concessionay/comment-page-1/#comment-137075</link>
		<dc:creator>GeorgeSorwell</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Jun 2008 18:52:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://themoderatevoice.com/at-tmv/newsweek-blogitics/20126/or-not-ickes-says-ixnay-on-the-concessionay/#comment-137075</guid>
		<description>I have to take some issue with your final point. &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Nominees are selected by the vote of delegates, not by the popular vote--just as Presidents are elected by the electoral college vote, not the popular vote. You can complain about this. You can make reasonable arguments about this being unfair. You can work to change the system for the next election. &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;But the rules were in place before the primaries started. And they were known--&lt;em&gt;or should have been known by well-paid political professionals&lt;/em&gt;--before the primaries began. &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Since March, the delegate math has always been tough for Clinton. It has always been unlikely that she would gather more delegates by votes. It has, in short, always been unlikely that she would win the nomination. &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;I do understand that she has a devoted following. I do understand that this is an unusually good year for an--um--&lt;em&gt;unconventional&lt;/em&gt; Democrat to win the election, even though there are plenty of people who would never vote for a woman or someone whose last name is Clinton. I do understand that she feels sandbagged. And I certainly understand that she was poorly served by&lt;em&gt; the well-paid political professionals&lt;/em&gt; who worked for her. &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;If the &lt;em&gt;deus ex machina&lt;/em&gt; were to descend from the heavens and grant her the nomination, I would gladly vote for Hillary Clinton to be the President of the United States. &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;But however close, she lost. &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;She should concede. &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;She should use her now well-honed campaign skills to elect the other unconventional Democrat, even though there are plenty of people who would never vote for a black person or someone whose middle name is Hussein. &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;I feel for her. &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;But I also think she has the wonderful example of Sen. Kennedy, who lost another hard-fought campaign for the Democratic nomination (and who, surely, must have felt a sense of entitlement when he ran) and who went on to become one of the most effective senators in our history. &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;JFK and RFK were poetic figures. Teddy was always the prosaic brother. &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Certainly it might have been otherwise for Sen Clinton. But who can say what might have been?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have to take some issue with your final point. </p>
<p>Nominees are selected by the vote of delegates, not by the popular vote&#8211;just as Presidents are elected by the electoral college vote, not the popular vote. You can complain about this. You can make reasonable arguments about this being unfair. You can work to change the system for the next election. </p>
<p>But the rules were in place before the primaries started. And they were known&#8211;<em>or should have been known by well-paid political professionals</em>&#8211;before the primaries began. </p>
<p>Since March, the delegate math has always been tough for Clinton. It has always been unlikely that she would gather more delegates by votes. It has, in short, always been unlikely that she would win the nomination. </p>
<p>I do understand that she has a devoted following. I do understand that this is an unusually good year for an&#8211;um&#8211;<em>unconventional</em> Democrat to win the election, even though there are plenty of people who would never vote for a woman or someone whose last name is Clinton. I do understand that she feels sandbagged. And I certainly understand that she was poorly served by<em> the well-paid political professionals</em> who worked for her. </p>
<p>If the <em>deus ex machina</em> were to descend from the heavens and grant her the nomination, I would gladly vote for Hillary Clinton to be the President of the United States. </p>
<p>But however close, she lost. </p>
<p>She should concede. </p>
<p>She should use her now well-honed campaign skills to elect the other unconventional Democrat, even though there are plenty of people who would never vote for a black person or someone whose middle name is Hussein. </p>
<p>I feel for her. </p>
<p>But I also think she has the wonderful example of Sen. Kennedy, who lost another hard-fought campaign for the Democratic nomination (and who, surely, must have felt a sense of entitlement when he ran) and who went on to become one of the most effective senators in our history. </p>
<p>JFK and RFK were poetic figures. Teddy was always the prosaic brother. </p>
<p>Certainly it might have been otherwise for Sen Clinton. But who can say what might have been?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

