Letters to the Editor
singout
Published Letters: 2 Editor's Choice: 1
-
Blah Blah Blah
[Read the article: And sometimes, people are just wrong]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I find it stunning how dimwitted *all* the pundits have been on this non-event.
1. Up until the DAY before Obama's Iowa win he had been TRAILING Hillary in NH on every single poll ... often in the double digits. (see for a solid sampling of poll results). The reversal of the polling positions was recent AND almost pointless because of the way Independents are handled in the NH primary: Independents (who were also big supporters of McCain on the Republican side) could choose which ballot they wanted on the way into the voting booth. An Independent who answered a survey that s/he supported Obama, but who then -- believing that Obama was going to take NH by a landslide -- decided to back McCain on election day didn't have that support factored into the final vote. McCain's *strong* indie support yesterday came from somewhere ... and that somewhere was what evaporated Obama's supposed lock on the vote.
2. Obama and Hillary left NH with AN EQUAL NUMBER OF CONVENTION DELEGATES FROM THAT STATE: 8!! (Edwards left with the other 3.) Clinton's nail-biting "victory" didn't net her a winner take all result (as is the case in many states) ... the voting was close enough that there was actually NO clear victor in anything other than a symbolic fashion. (The result, in fairness, was similar in Iowa, in that Obama didn't walk away with all the states delegates either. As we learned in 2000, winning the flat "popular vote" is meaningless in our system of elections.
Instead of the "usual pundits" writing or blathering on endlessly, it would sure be nice actual facts were shared instead of a kind of Orwellian bulls**t speak where one "expert" debates another "expert" without actually sharing anything factual or meaningful to the process.
hrmph!
-
The Two Hillarys
[Read the article: The GOP attack plan for Hillary Clinton]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If Clinton is the nominee, the GOP won't need to "say" she stole the nomination, the facts will bear that out. For the process to make any sense at all, there are really only two reasons for a candidate to stay in the process: If there's still a mathematical way for the candidate to win, or if there are platforms or issues that the candidate wants in the discussion. Hillary's only options here are some kind of hijacking of the process, OR an interest in so damaging Obama (and so well arming McCain) that she gets a do-over in 2012.
Our bigger problem, if she does succeed in somehow twisting the will of the Democratic primary voters, is that the *real* "buyers remorse" that will come into play will be when people find out that Hillary "the Candidate" bears little resemblance to Hillary "the legislator." What her "experience" *does* show us is that she is a vindictive, conniving and divisive leader with longer enemies and friends lists than Nixon -- witness the pathetic attacks on Bill Richardson this past weekend, or the idiotic "actions/experience over words" argument she's been making (and the press, including Salon.com, has been buying!) even though the essence of any campaign, INCLUDING HILLARY'S, is always, and only, about promises and proposals. The "actions" come once a person is actually holding the office and empowered to work within the system to make things happen.
For me, this *isn't* about worrying about a return to her husbands personal excesses in the 1990s ... its about Hillary's own track record when it comes to the rights and needs of the working class. In my book, a decade of shilling for the likes of Sam Walton (Walmart) and several decades of privileged back room corporate lawyering don't make a statesperson capable (or truly interested) in solving the issues of the chasm that now exists between the haves and have-nots in this country. Clinton can *talk* all she wants about health care and the working class ... but she remains, in fact, the single largest recipient of insurance and pharmacutical company graft, and one of the biggest NAFTA supporters in the Senate. All politicians lie, but she takes it to a new level and art.
I began the primary season "knowing" that I'd be working for and voting for *whoever* rose to the top of the field ... and, frankly, I expected it to be Clinton. But while I have been inspired and energized by Obama through the process, I have also become revolted by the desperation, dishonesty and selfishness demonstrated by Clinton ... so much so that I truly don't know how I could ever consider voting for her.