Letters to the Editor
xufapemu
Published Letters: 362 Editor's Choice: 7
-
Hillary Clinton won the Ohio primary
[Read the article: Barack Obama in suspended animation]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]And so did John Kerry. But Kerry lost Ohio.
Why?
Kerry received a greater percentage of the white vote in Ohio than Bill Clinton and Al Gore. But, because of the Ohio Marriage Amendment and the Ohio black community's conservative stand on homosexuality, he received less than Clinton or Gore's share of the black vote in that state.
Had he held the black vote in Ohio to what Clinton or Gore received, Kerry would have won the state and the Presidency.
If Clinton loses the pledged delegate count and the popular vote, where do you suppose her numbers will be with black voters in November?
Admittedly, Obama will not win the white vote. But neither will Clinton; no Democrat has since the civil rights era. The Democratic nominee must receive nearly 90% of the black vote in order to win.
-
@ KateTex
[Read the article: Barack Obama in suspended animation]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The article written by an admitted Clinton supporter is recent. But the newspaper article SHE referrences was written in April 2007. All of the information brought out in the trial so far was contained in the article written a year ago.
The point is, if I read all of this information a year ago, and saw it on the news, why is it new if some biased columnist decides to write about it one year later?
If she writes about White Water does that make White Water new?
-
@ KateTex
[Read the article: Barack Obama in suspended animation]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]And the name is xufapemu, not xufapema.
I don't know what the hell a xufapema is ;)
-
@ Electro Robot
[Read the article: Barack Obama in suspended animation]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I remember 1968. This ain't 1968 and Obama is no George McGovern. He's also no Adlai Stevenson or Walter Mondale.
Nobody was going to beat Eisenhower, Nixon, or Reagan those years.
Obama can win in November. It's not a forgone conclusion, but its there. In 2008, any Democrat has a path to the Presidency.
In my opinion, despite what Tim Russert says, Obama's path is clearer than Clinton's.
Also, Obama is better suited to build and expand the party and majorities in Congress.
I understand your frustration on behalf of Hillary, bu this isn't a cult and all of his supporters are not young pie eyed leftists.
I believe in cold hard reality and the reality is Mrs. Clinton failed to win the nomination that was hers for the taking. The reality is the media hates Clinton's guts, and blacks (the most reliable Democratic constituency) could well become a swing vote in 2008 if she is the nominee.
She won't win the nomination because Super Delegates will look beyond this race and beyond these candidates.
She won't win in November because the deck is already stacked against her (high negatives and media bias).
She should stay in the race until she is beaten, but she will eventually be beaten. It's just a matter of time now.
-
If only the rules were different, Hillary would be winning.
[Read the article: Why Hillary Clinton should be winning]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Of course this presupposes that the Obama campaign would have run their campaign as if the delegates weren't proportional.
Here's a tip for all of you amateur political operatives out there; campaigns win by exploiting the differences in each election.
Hillary Clinton ran her campaign as if it were winner take all.
Despite what she says today about all of these votes from PA to PR being counted, she started this campaign with the assumption that PA to PR would only have one candidate to vote for; her.
These are the same rules Bill Clinton with which Bill Clinton won the nomination. I can't remember but was the comback kid's "win" in New Hampshire in 1992 dampened by a winner take all loss?
The truth is, by not leaving the decision up to the very large and very blue states and giving voice to voters in other less blue states, are we not more likely to nominate a candidate who has broader appeal in the general election?
Doesn't a proportional system expand Democratic exposure in Congressional districts that are neglected by the party for three years, giving Democrats a chance to widen our Congressional majorities?
Democrats need to expand, and preaching to the choir in large blue states doesn't expand the party.
Proportional primaries enlarges the electoral map for us, forces Republicans to spend money in formally safe districts, and generates new enthusiasm at the grass roots.
A winner take all system fosters stagnation. And considering the state of the Republican party today, why in God's earth would Democrats even consider emulating them?
-
People just do not like Hillary Clinton.
[Read the article: Hey, Obama boys: Back off already!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If she had red hair and freckles she'd be ridiculed for being a ginger.
Some of the comments against her are mean spirited; she just brings out the worst in her detractors.
It's not sexism or misogyny, it's just her.
It's tiring to be constantly told I'm sexist because I don't support Hillary. I don't need a British pop star condemning America as misogynistic. Talk about elitism.
And about elitism, Hillary now says that the Democratic party is perceived as too elite to win elections. Does anyone think that HILLARY CLINTON is the answer to that image problem?
Sheesh, now who's out of touch?
-
Would this comment sound sexist to anyone?
[Read the article: John McCain's bad week]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"The absolute worst time-situation for the first serious general election female candidate for President, it would be in the middle of a war, with her taking the anti-war position."
-
John Kerry won white working class votes in the PA primary..
[Read the article: John McCain's bad week]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]And then single issue (abortion, guns, immigration) votes went straight to Bush in the general.
They likely will vote for Hillary in the primary as well.
And while they may vote for local Democratic politicians in Novemeber, does anyone think that voters who vote primarily on the issue of abortion or guns will vote for Hillary Clinton in the general? Really?
There isn't a single person who thinks that Hillary Clinton can win the white vote in November. It's one of the least talked about voting demographic because they ALWAYS vote Democratic, but Democrats from Missouri to Ohio must have 90%+ of the black vote to win. And she won't get even close to that. What's more, with her at the top of the ticket, black and youth turnout will be much lower, hurting down ticket Democratic prospects. These are the real numbers Super Delegates are considering.
And she won't get that either.