Letters to the Editor
xufapemu
Published Letters: 357 Editor's Choice: 7
-
@AKA Smith
[Read the article: Reexamining the Ferraro fracas]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Slider believes this to be true about the Clinton's. He/she isn't making a statement of fact.
Let me start parsing your past posts for statements that aren't supported.
-
I BELIEVE that they wanted to be sure he was electable
[Read the article: Reexamining the Ferraro fracas]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Also, many African-Americans had a history supporting the Clintons.
Some just were afraid to believe it was possible for a black man to be elected or even nominated, and didn't want to throw their vote away until they were assured that whites would vote for him.
-
Quo Bono
[Read the article: Reexamining the Ferraro fracas]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]When Cicero defended, I believe, Sextus Roscius he asked the question quo bono, who benefits.
In this case, who benefits in the races to come; who benefits from Senator Obama's race becoming an issue?
Senator Obama already receives maximum support from the black vote.
In order to prevail in the primaries AND the GE he needs to gain in the white vote. So, why would the Obama campaign, a campaign that up until now ran circles around the Clinton campaign, bring the issue of race to the fore?
The logic remains to this day, when one discovers who benefits from an action, most likely you have found the cause.
-
@AKA Smith
[Read the article: Reexamining the Ferraro fracas]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]After New Hampshire, why did they not believe that Hillary was an electable candidate and decide to support her?
I don't think anyone ever doubted that Hillary was a viable candidate. It wasn't as if Obama received no support in NH.
Many, many whites still voted for Obama, much more than had voted for Jackson or Sharpton. So the reasoning was the same; here, finally, is a black man that whites will vote for.
I don't doubt that there has been a positive support for Senator Obama from the black community ever since. But this support would not have been given, if one believes the polls from SC prior to Iowa and NH, had whites not voted for Obama in large numbers. And again, this whole idea that Obama is lucky discounts his superior fund raising, grassroots support, and organizational planning on small states, caucases and post Super Tuesday.
To say that he is lucky to be where he is denigrates his campaigns hard work on a racial line.
-
@AKA Smith
[Read the article: Reexamining the Ferraro fracas]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]In order to prevail in the primaries AND the GE he needs to gain in the white vote. So, why would the Obama campaign, a campaign that up until now ran circles around the Clinton campaign, bring the issue of race to the fore?
Which of the upcoming primaries would more than 90% of the black vote help him win?
Are you saying that if Obama wins 100% of the black vote he'll win PA?
Because that's the only reason that Obama's campaign could possibly want to be seen as the "black" candidate.
Or is it more likely that the Clinton campaign would want to drive his white vote lower.
Which seems more logical to you?
-
@AKA Smith
[Read the article: Reexamining the Ferraro fracas]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You all keep mentioning Affirmative Action. People seem to really like this meme.
I've never said this. But Ferraro DID say that Obama is lucky.
Do you think he's lucky, or did his better fund raising and better ground game in small states, caucas states and post Super Tuesday states put him in this position.
Where is the precident in history that would prove that a black man has a better shot at winning the Democratic nomination than a white woman?
When did a black man get the VP slot handed to him?
IF being a black man in America is the key to the White House Ferraro's statement seems to imply, why didn't Jackson or Sharpton win the nomination?
-
@ Captainlarab
[Read the article: Reexamining the Ferraro fracas]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I think he'd gladly sacrifice a good portion of his African-American support for that not to happen.
Perhaps Obama needs a "Sister Soulja" moment. You're right, Obama could afford to lose a sizable portion of his black vote to cut into Hillary's white vote. Which just more evidence that Obama does not benefit from race becoming a major theme of this campaign.
-
From W. Shapiro's article "Obama heads south", written before SC primary
[Read the article: Reexamining the Ferraro fracas]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Fielding, who had just voted absentee Wednesday morning at the election commission offices in North Charleston, recounted that some of the people he recognized waiting in line "were on the Hillary team before Iowa." As he put it, "My own wife was one of those people who were strong for Hillary. But after Iowa hit, she realized that this black fellow could get elected."
Had white voters not first voted for Obama in Iowa and NH, it doesn't matter what color Obama is. Blacks wouldn't have supported him.
Therefore, it is Obama's superior campaign, net-roots fund raising and grassroots support more than anything else that is responsible for where he is today.
-
Sorry, I italicized my whole last post.
[Read the article: Reexamining the Ferraro fracas]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm still getting used to this internet thingy
-
Listening on KMOX
[Read the article: Reexamining the Ferraro fracas]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]in St. Louis tonight, they were talking about the new head to head polls between Clinton-McCain, Obama-McCain.
What's amazing to me is that McCain nearly SPLITS the black vote with Clinton in Missouri and California.
Painting Obama into a black corner may help her in PA, but if those numbers hold up in the GE or get worse; if large numbers of blacks swing to McCain, she has no chance of winning in November.
-
Also heard...
[Read the article: Reexamining the Ferraro fracas]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Was Bill Clinton's negatives among DEMOCRATS is now equal to his positives. Incredible.