Letters to the Editor
xufapemu
Published Letters: 362 Editor's Choice: 7
-
@ Uncle Fester
[Read the article: How will Barack Obama get to 270?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]On turnout, Pablano says he's being conservative with the numbers. But if you read the article on turnout, you'll see that he believes that polls are underestimating youth and AA turnout. They are basing AA turnout using 2004 as a baseline.
With the first viable black candidate, there's no way in hell AA turnout doesn't increase over 2004.
And just a 20%-30% increase in black turnout means a probable win for Obama.
Also, no one is looking at how evangelical turnout will be lower in states like Ohio, which in 2004 had a gay marriage amendment on their ballot.
Also, they don't factor in the expected lower turnout among some Republicans unhappy with McCain and Bush. They may be willing to punish the party with a loss to get Republican leadership back on track with conservative principles.
-
It's actually a good thing that Democrats believe that they need to fight.
[Read the article: How will Barack Obama get to 270?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Green Job is right, Ford barely lost.
He lost in part because Carter was a lousy campaigner, and Democrats thought that after Watergate and Ford's pardon of Nixon, the election was in the bag.
Obama is going to be the nominee. If Republicans are trying to push doomsday scenarios on sites like this to frighten Dems from nominating him, its too late. It's a done deal.
What Republicans should be doing at this point is raise expectations for Democrats and get Republicans ready for a fight. Instead, they seem to be doing the opposite. Like a football team getting the opposition revved up with trash talk. Everytime Republicans tell us Obama will hasn't a chance, we'll just tape that to the metaphorical locker room wall.
Democrats might have felt it was going to be a cake walk with Clinton. But despite her husband's electoral success, her campaign didn't give me a good feeling about how she would have run against McCain.
So we have Obama. And with Republicans telling us America will never elect a black man, we just know we have to fight that much harder.
And unlike 1976, Democrats won't take anything for granted.
-
@ MC
[Read the article: Huckabee jokes about gun being aimed at Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Huckabee apologized five hours later (not immediately) and only after the comment was picked up by the media and it became obvious it was going to get serious play.
The joke simply shows Huckabee's unguarded frame of mind.
It was off the cuff and spontaneous.
And it has probably ended any chance he has at VP, though I hope not. Nothing will piss off conservatives more than a McCain/Huckabee ticket.
McCain will grant illegals amnesty and Huckabee will give them a free education. It's a match made in heaven.
-
Why Appalachian whites have a problem with Obama?
[Read the article: Why don't those hillbillies like Obama?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I was born and raised in western KY. My family was one of the original settlers of Hickman county who came from SC. I've lived the rest of my life in southern IL.
I've got news for you people. These folks aren't voting for Hillary in the general either. They may vote for in the primary against Obama, but they're not stupid. Despite her most recent incarnation, folks around here know Hillary Clinton isn't one of them.
They just hate Obama more.
So Clinton would lose KY by 5 points while Obama would lose by 20. But in a winner take all election, it all amounts to the same thing. The general election will come down to who's electoral map provides the best path to 270.
The nomination process has given us a good look at which campaign has been most competent when it comes to exploiting the electoral maps.
-
Here's what bothers me about her argument that this wasn't scripted
[Read the article: Argus Leader editor responds to RFK controversy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]She says in the interview "my husband did not rap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary in umm..) and then she rolls her eyes around thinking back, checking her memory and says after a few seconds ("somewhere in the middle of June").
My problem with this is she's used this same exact line AT LEAST 3 other times!
SHE KNEW EXACTLY when the California Primary was in '68 and '92.
So why the theatrics? Why mention Bobby Kennedy at all?
Simply say, "My husband didn't wrap up the nomination until the California primary in June of '92." No need to reference Kennedy. She says it was because the Kennedys were on her mind. Were they on her mind the first three times she mentioned it previously?
She pretends to need to parse her memory to recall when the primary was. But she obviously knows EXACTLY when the primary was. She's a fake and a ghoul and I thank God every day that regardless of the outcome in November, this person will never be President.
-
This is just the latest in her remarks
[Read the article: A new low in Clinton bashing]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]She's made this same reference 3 or 4 times in the past.
And I'm watching the video of this latest interview and she says that that Keddedy was assasinated in "oh....." she rolls her eyes and tries to think back before she says mid-June.
This is the 4th or 5th time she's referenced this! She knows exactly what she's doing.
What's worse, according to Presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin her husband had the race locked up in April, not June.
And nobody started early in the 68 race because no one knew that the sitting Democratic President wasn't running for re-election until March 31st.
So both historical references is flawed, she knows they're flawed.
-
I consider this a little payback
[Read the article: A new low in Clinton bashing]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]for Clinton's piling on of John Kerry's obvious joke about staying in school to avoid a draft.
Clinton saw an opportunity to stop Kerry from running again and took it.
She can dish it out, but she can't take it.
-
There seems to be a lot of brand new letter writers today
[Read the article: A new low in Clinton bashing]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]We've had an entire primary process go by. But this issue, THIS ONE ISSUE, is the reason that by my short count 20 new people decided to write letters in Salon?
Not Rev. Wright, not "bittergate". Not a woman calling Clinton a bit@h to McCain's face. Not the earlier debates where Clinton was attacked by all "them boys". It's this article that finally brought these people out.
Something really stinks around here.
Something stinks around here.