Letters to the Editor
xufapemu
Published Letters: 357 Editor's Choice: 7
-
@ Alan Bennett
[Read the article: Tight race in Guam caucuses]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I've posted many times on Senator Obama's "positives", but those posts I think you are refering to as anti-Clinton tirades are in response to the nonsense that Senator Clinton is now more electable than Senator Obama.
I didn't think of them as tirades at the time, but a query to Clinton supporters who think Mrs. Clinton can win without African-American support. I've read nothing but arguements over the past month that put forward that Obama can't win without white working class voters. My contention is that Bill Clinton won without them twice, but he most certainly wouldn't have without overwhelming black support.
While some Democrats are worrying about reaching out to a demographic that simply will not vote for Obama or Mrs. Clinton in large numbers, they are knowingly pissing off the one bloc of voters every Democrat up and down the ticket MUST have in order to win in November.
If that seems like a tirade to you, your skin is way to thin.
-
@ on_second_thought
[Read the article: Tight race in Guam caucuses]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]First, polls this far out are meaningless. There is simply no way to tell were this race will be late October.
If Republicans are hoping the Wright issue will be their ticket against Obama, it may have peaked too early. I live in Illinois and a local reporter is asking farmers in a cafe in rural Indiana about Obama and Wright. The first guy they asked literally rolled his eyes. Price of fuel, land foreclosures; that's what these guys wanted to talk about.
When the Democratic race is settled, McCain's numbers will come down. Right now, McCain needs to be beating both Democrats by double digits. Because once the Obama ad money starts hitting McCain, he's going to drop.
Your assumption that Hillary easily carries PA or Ohio presumes a high black turnout for her in those states. That's a pretty big assumption. Again, if Kerry would have simply held onto to Gore's black support in Ohio he'd be running for reelection. Kerry won PA by about 2%. Again, no Democrat wins PA without high black turnout in Philly and liberals in the burbs. It's the reason Rendell is the Governor. So again, PA is a big assumption for Hillary. Democrats don't win chasing the "Nascar Dad" vote. And to make matters worse, Hillary's negatives are highest with that group.
White voters in PA will do what they did to Kerry; vote for him in the primary while voting for down ticket, more conservative Dems and then vote Republican in the general.
The possible hole in your argument that Hillary has a better chance in OH and PA is that these white working class folks who voted for her in the primary will vote for her in the general. They haven't voted Democratic in the last 20+ years, I don't know why anyone would expect them to start doing so now.
-
This Wright thing reminds me of the Lewinsky stuff
[Read the article: Tight race in Guam caucuses]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Remember how Republicans salivated over this?
"Oh, wait until the American people hear about this. Clinton will be toast!!" The media and Sunday shows were all about Clinton's BJ. They simply counldn't understand how he could survive. But the American people didn't care. It was all about the economy. Right now, John McCain is getting a free ride. And a close primary race between two formidable campaigns are taking a toll on each other. But once the race is over, the vast majority of Democrats will rally to the standard bearer. McCain's number will drop. And Republicans and talking heads will wonder why the American people are more interested in jobs, inflation, energy costs, Iraq etc and aren't as interested in the nonsense they are spewing.
-
Actually on_second_thought we have seen Republicans make an ad out of Wright
[Read the article: Tight race in Guam caucuses]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]In Lousisana. They ran it against a Democrat running in a Republican district. The Democrat won.
-
You have to ask yourself...
[Read the article: Tight race in Guam caucuses]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Why are Republican insiders rooting for a Clinton victory? Have they suddenly had a change of heart about the Clintons?
Why does Joe Scarborough call Hillary "His new girlfriend"?
Why has Fox News been so "Fair and Balanced" toward Hillary? (Ed Rendell's own words)
Why does the Weekly Standard, the vanguard or the "Right-Wing Conspiracy" publish a pro-Hillary puff piece?
Why is Rush Limbaugh asking Republicans to vote for Hillary in open primaries?
Because they are more afraid of Hillary than Obama? We give Republicans so much credit for being the better campaigners; have they suddenly gotten stupid?
I would think if they really wanted to run against Obama, Limbaugh would want Hillary knocked out of it so they could start the shredding. I'd think Fox News and the Weekly Standard would be writing Hillary Clinton hit pieces. But they're not. And their actions speak louder than their words.
If the Republicans were truly more afraid of Hillary Clinton than Barack Obama, I can guarantee you that Ed Rendell would NOT be complimenting Fox News. Hillary Clinton would NOT be sitting down with Scaif and O'Reilly to a friendly chat.
Republicans are trying to drive a wedge between Democrats and their most loyal constituency (African-Americans). It's something they've wanted to do for years but never had the right wedge. Republicans seem to believe that they have finally found it in Hillary Clinton.
The proof is in the pudding my friends.
Read this article about the white and black voting trends.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/03/opinion/03blow.html