Letters to the Editor
JackSparx
Published Letters: 433 Editor's Choice: 16
-
Walsh's shift toward Obama
[Read the article: Moving beyond Obama and race]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I think writers supporting both candidates have misunderstood Walsh's recent entries. How a bout a crude summary of subtext and message:
Clinton is losing, she will lose. She was betrayed by men. By George Bush on the war vote. By Penn on the decision not to apologize for her war vote.
Obama is winning. He is terrific. But he needs help on his message to older white women. Women like Walsh.
Doesn't anyone else pick up on Walsh's new narrative? Walsh can now ideologically justify abandoning Clinton when the time comes. You see, the defeat is not Clinton's fault, but a vast male conspiracy. She can also justify switching to Obama: you see, he's bigoted against white women and needs Walsh to straighten him out.
Walsh excused monstrous behavior from the Clintons while indulging in race-baiting of her own, yes I agree with the Obama supporters. It's tempting to read this article as more of the same.
But I think both Obama and Clinton supporters are missing a shift in Walsh's self-absorbed grumblings. An that same shift is occurring for many superdelegates as well. Very little of substance is holding up the Clinton campaign now. People are thinking about their own personal futures, looking for a way to change horses and save face. Making Penn and men a scapegoat for accepting Clinton's failure may be just the excuse female superdelegates need.
-
@unschooler Victimology
[Read the article: Moving beyond Obama and race]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The majority of Clinton supporters will have no trouble pulling the lever for Obama. That includes most white grandmothers. You're right that Obama's temperate and reasoned appeal to those voters makes sense.
But, Clintons's true believers will need another narrative if they choose to lapse from the cause. I think Walsh's "blame the men and reform Obama" approach will be more appealing to them than a more positive (and truthful) alternative. However, if that bitter rationale is widespread, it will preclude another run by Clinton, just as it did for Kerry and Gore. It may be true that Clinton had a crappy campaign, but no one, man or woman, can only blame their campaign instead of blaming themselves. Walsh and Clinton seriously misunderstand agency as taking credit for success and delegating the responsibility for failure. Richardson nailed the responsibility issue in his endorsement of Obama, and I think it will continue to resonate long after the Wright fracas cools.
And it really is about superdelegates right now, which means it's also about fear. I really doubt that if Clinton were Edwards that the supers would have held back so long. The Clintons are extremely powerful vengeful people, and they place their interests above the party or the country, as Penn, Carville and Bill showed in their comments after Richardson's endorsement of Obama. So, I don't think you will see a lot of single endorsements, a la Richardson. You'll see a bloc make the leap together. I hope the supercowards find some courage soon.
Despite the past week, Obama is still pursuing a clean win. The "typical" comment aside, he has not really slurred any group, and certainly less so than the Clinton's nasty campaign. A Clinton win, in the unlikely event it will occur, would be a bad win, like McGovern's messy convention, or like Bush in the 2000 general (before 9/11 saved his presidency). For the sake of her future viability, it would make sense for Clinton to pull out now. But she won't. The supers need to decrease her impact now.
-
Like watching sloppy bird poop ooze down the window of life
[Read the article: The Democrats' anti-momentum]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]What do we pay superdelegates for anyway?
Vote now, supers, or turn in your secret decoder rings.
-
VOTE SUPERCOWARDS VOTE
[Read the article: The Democrats' anti-momentum]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The superdelegates are the same cowards too scared to stand up to Bush. These are the same people who have given us recession, a constitution in tatters, and war without end.
They probably lack sufficient gonads to stand up to the Clintons, alas.
I'd rather leave it to the rank and file. I would prefer a democratic system to the Democratic system. But the system is what it is, and has always been stacked against the last states in the queue. Reform it next time around.
Right now, we have a candidate, not to mention any names (Clinton) who is increasingly a monster. Not Hillzilla--something more poisonous like Hilldorah. Save the earth, supers. The time is now.
-
Good ideas, Ana
[Read the article: The Democrats' anti-momentum]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]There's no way to stop endorsements, though. Luckily they don't matter.
I personally would have three mega primary contests spaced two weeks apart, based on regions, and rotate which region goes first every four years. I do think there is some advantage in giving candidates time to react. The problem has been that it's up to the states. But, I'm not quite clear why a party can't run it's national primaries on a nationalized or regional level, apart from state government machinery. The MI and FL situations were bizarre. I oppose Clinton, but I really think that fercripesake you don't disenfranchise voters because of what their idiotic party leaders or Republicans (!) decide.
Superdelegats should be non-voting. Yes they can go to the convention and get a folding chair. Yes they can mouth off their "wisdom." Yes they can vote in the primaries like everyone else. Yes they can endorse. No they can't supervote.
I don't see why the party can't limit funds, though I think it would give more impetus to independent bids.
-
Man bites dog
[Read the article: An Olympic disgrace]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Dogs and humans have a long history of feeding on each other. It's nice that we've reached a stage where we call a truce and be friends rather than supper. I rather doubt that dog-eating will increase in affluent China.
Why eat dog flesh when the meat of endangered species carries so much more cache?
-
Mail-in Superdelegate Primary Now!!
[Read the article: The Democrats' anti-momentum]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]What would it take to get Howard Dean to send ballots to all the super-Delegates now? They'd have three weeks to respond or lose their supervotes.
The remaining states could still have their contests, just as they do other years when there has been a foregone conclusion.
I don't think you need to bring all the supercowards toegether to get this done.
Maybe Dean could just do it through a MySpace page.