Thanks for the language lesson Louise. It is critical, because our language is critical to our communication, and it has been thoroughly destroyed in the past decade.

This is why LANGUAGE is so important! We need to understand the differences, because they are NOT the same. One is an attribute..toughness, and the other stubborness, is NOT.

This issue with language and context has become a very serious problem for us, but specifically in the past 8 years, because the neo-cons have done everything they could to CHANGE the meaning of our language.

I’m not alone when I see a pattern of behavior that indicates the fiber is tearing, but the wearer is inflexible.

Like I said she could have finished it with grace and charm. And perhaps she still will. But reports of support without concession appears to many that she still sees herself as a candidate.
We can only have one candidate.

Might be a good idea to have that clearly defined before the convention.

Certainly if not, it wouldn’t be the first time. But this is the first time we desperately need to have someone in the White House who will work to overcome all the damage that eight years of George W Bush has done. We don’t need this bickering and fighting going on another two months.

Could you be confusing toughness with stubbornness?

From the dictionary:

toughness:

1] The ability of a material to absorb energy
2] The quality or state of being tough

tough:

1] Able to withstand great strain without tearing or breaking;
2] Strong and resilient:

stubbornness:

1] The trait of being difficult to handle or overcome
2] The quality or state of being stubbornly inflexible
3] Obstinacy, obstinance, mulishness
4] Resolute adherence to your own ideas.

stubborn:

1] Tenaciously unwilling or marked by tenacious unwillingness to yield
2] Unreasonably, often perversely unyielding; bullheaded
3] Firmly resolved or determined; resolute.

Hillary could have graciously conceded Tuesday night and left the field with a measure of dignity. But her center of the universe mentality wouldn’t let her do that. So it has come to this. Her former supporters begging her to do something.

But no matter how carefully worded her e-mails and statements may be, until her conceit allows the word “concede” she can hang on to the delegates the primary gave her. Not the superdelegates but the State elected delegates. And I suspect more than a few of them don’t like being reduced to pawns in a game of ego elevation.

Until she concedes and frees those delegates to support the winning candidate, the chaos will continue, the division will grow and the convention could become a free-for-all. And in the end, she will have succeeded in destroying what she claimed to be fighting so hard to guarantee. A victory for the dems in November.

As someone else has already pointed out, if she doesn’t swallow her false pride and say that word, she will effectively destroy any future hopes she may have of being a serious candidate for ANYTHING!

I suspect the comments suggesting she is holding out to bring leverage to some of her issues is just so much BS.

Her issues are democrat issues ... she doesn’t own them!

No matter what she may say about party unity or supporting Obama, unless she “concedes” this could go on and on.

What does she want? She wants the campaign to never end until it’s all hers. But she doesn’t want to keep paying an expensive staff, and keep expensive offices open and keep paying for expensive adds. So she will send them all away and go on hanging on until the very bitter end. 

Watching an ambitious, successful, experienced person disintegrate before your very eyes is not a pleasant sight.

Un-flippin-believable!