Letters to the Editor
xufapemu
Published Letters: 362 Editor's Choice: 7
-
Obama is pulling away from Clinton
[Read the article: Debating the debate, complaining about complaining]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The new Newsweek poll finds that among registered Democrats, Obama now leads Clinton 54% to 35%, her lowest showing yet.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/132721
Just a month ago, they were in a dead heat in the same poll.
Most Democrats now see Obama as more electable than Democrats in the AP-Yahoo poll.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24196209/
Even among folks who want to vote for Clinton, they are now supporting Obama because they feel Mrs. Clinton is too negative.
When Mrs. Clinton attacks, her numbers go down while his has risen.
My feeling is that many in PA who support Mrs. Clinton will end up voting for Obama simply to put her campaign out of its misery.
-
Ed Rendell to be the next "traitor" to Clinton
[Read the article: Debating the debate, complaining about complaining]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Apparently told Howard Fineman if Hillary doesn't win PA by double digits, he will tell her its time to quit.
Fineman also believes Rendell will be Obama's choice as VP. But if Rendell plays Goldwater to Clinton's Nixon, will the Clinton supporters accept him, or would Obama choose him to seal PA in November?
-
Obama campaign winding down nomination fight
[Read the article: Debating the debate, complaining about complaining]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The Obama campaign has begun retooling their ad campaigns, direct mailings, ground teams and fund raising; aiming their efforts away from Clinton and at John McCain.
They're doing this in every state except PA and IN and have scaled back efforts against Clinton in IN.
They are no longer asking for primary money and are focusing only on GE money.
Me thinks the end is near.
-
It doesn't work. And its stupid.
[Read the article: Playing the bin Laden card?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]These ads don't help Clinton.
It's just one more indication that her campaign is run by morons.
Exit polling just released by the Dallas Morning News seem to show that Hillary was winning TX by a larger margin but when she played the fear, men didn't look at experience, they looked at gender. Gender became the deciding factor for 60% of undecided men and they started beaking back toward Obama.
I have to wonder what planet her campaign is on.
Internal polling shows again and again that gender plays a larger role than experience and race in this election.
And when the electorate feels unsafe, many won't vote for a woman. Do these people not understand their own internal polling?
Mrs. Clinton's 2008 camapign is text book on how NOT to run for President.
People vote on a gut check. And many men when they do the gut check won't vote for a woman on national security concerns.
THey ran the 3AM ad in TX and won TX so they figure "hey, it worked before". But the exit polls seem to show that she would have had a larger margin had she left fear alone.
I want Obama to get the nomination so what do I care. But all I can do is shake my head and wonder who is running her message.
-
@ AKA Smith
[Read the article: Playing the bin Laden card?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Sexism played a role in this race since the begining. One of the fears I've had for Obama and Clinton was that if they are identified as the "black" or "female" candidate, and lose it will be a long time before either party nominates a black or female candidate.
Both candidates must avoid being an identity candidate.
Were she elected, Mrs. Clinton could prove that women can be strong on national security. But being the first, stereotypes about gender puts her at a disadvantage.
With the economy the way that is, she should do what her husband did in 1992 and focus like a laser beam on the economy.
In 2008, it was her best path. Again, once in office she could prove women can handle national security but as the first woman running against type, it doesn't help her chances.
Every time she reminds men that the world is scary, she damages her chances of winning.
Again, I'm not saying a woman can't be effective on national security. I'm just saying that the first woman is never going to get elected on that basis.
-
@ jebldmm
[Read the article: Playing the bin Laden card?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Not to nitpick, but if you're going to use history to make a point, you should at least no your history.
Lincoln wasn't an anti-slavery "activist".
Even as President, he only favored limiting its expansion. He would have gladly allowed slavery to continue in the south to preserve the union.
-
@ cabick
[Read the article: Playing the bin Laden card?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The Obama campaign IMMEDIATELY repudiated the remarks of those soldiers re Hillary laying a wreath at the tomb of the unknowns.
No campaign can control what supporters may say. The character test comes from how the campaigns respond.
-
@ AKA Smith
[Read the article: Playing the bin Laden card?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Obviously neither candidate could avoid running as who they are. They must simply avoid making direct appeals to their particular "identity". The male backlash came against Clinton after NH. THe male dominated media just failed to report it (for obvious reasons).
Clinton has an opportunity to use the stereotype of women being more thoughtful on national security and military matters than men. Instead, it seems her campaign has decided to "out testosterone" her opponents.
My contention is that it will not work. Alpha male types aren't going to vote for Mrs. Clinton regardless of how tough she sounds. And those who would support her because she would seem to be the more thoughtful candidate due to her gender are driven away.