Letters to the Editor
xufapemu
Published Letters: 357 Editor's Choice: 7
-
Hillary Clinton and "The Family"
[Read the article: The GOP attack plan for Barack Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Mrs. Clinton has written of Doug Coe, the Family's publicity-averse leader, that he is "a unique presence in Washington: a genuinely loving spiritual mentor and guide to anyone, regardless of party or faith, who wants to deepen his or her relationship with God."
The Family avoids the word Christian but worship Jesus, though not the Jesus who promised the earth to the "meek." They believe that, in mass societies, it's only the elites who matter, the political leaders who can build God's "dominion" on earth. Insofar as the Family has a consistent philosophy, it's all about power -- cultivating it, building it, and networking it together into ever-stronger units, or "cells." "We work with power where we can," Doug Coe has said, and "build new power where we can't."
Read whole article here
- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barbara-ehrenreich/hillarys-nasty-pastorate_b_92361.html
-
Hillary's Kosovo visit - 1996
[Read the article: Politico: "Clinton has virtually no chance of winning"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOsGo_HWP-c
-
Hillary's Kosovo visit - 1996
[Read the article: Obama debuts Pennsylvania TV spots]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOsGo_HWP-c
-
@ ljwalker53
[Read the article: Nagourney: "At least one scenario where Clinton could win"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]My dear ljwalker53,
I've used a Lexus-Nexus search and have found no instances of Senator Obama using the phrase "Bradley Effect" between NH and SC. Not a single instance.
As a matter of fact, I haven't found a single instance where Senator Obama mentioning race between NH and SC.
Obviously you've found some news articles quoting Obama saying the "Bradley Effect" was responsible for his very, very narrow loss in NH, because I have no doubt you'd never misspeak and exaggerate the truth. Please provide links to the articles.
Thanks,
Xufapemu
-
It's telling
[Read the article: Nagourney: "At least one scenario where Clinton could win"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]that the only way Mrs. Clinton can now secure the nomination is to cleave the Democratic Party in half; hoping for the complete collapse of the Party's front-runner this late in the process.
Should Mrs. Clinton win the nomination in this way, I think it is safe to say she would get less of the African-American vote than her husband, Al Gore, or John Kerry.
Since LBJ, no Democrat (including her husband) has won the white vote in the general election. In 1992, her husband won the Presidency with only 38% of the white vote.
A Democratic nominee MUST get close to 90% of the black vote, which this year could represent 15% of the total popular vote.
Despite what Mrs. Clinton does in the primaries, she will not win the white vote in the fall.
If her nomination is secured by the destruction of Sen. Obama's campaign, she'll be lucky to get 80% of a smaller black turnout.
-
Senator Clinton should end this.
[Read the article: The GOP attack plan for Hillary Clinton]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It isn't how the Republicans will run against her.
She simply can't win the nomination without super-delegates overturning pledged delegates. If this happens, how will the black vote respond?
Bill Clinton won the Presidency in '92 with only 38% on the white vote, and 90% of the black vote.
Mrs. Clinton will not win the white vote in the general. She needs 90%+ of the black vote to succeed.
Ohio?
Here is an excerpt from an article in today's St. Louis Post Dispatch. http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/politics/story/146EFF6FB6C2832886257418000DC94A?OpenDocument
"In 2004, George W. Bush won re-election thanks to his narrow victory in Ohio, which analysts attribute in large part to his relatively strong showing among African-Americans. Sixteen percent of black voters went for Bush in Ohio."
A Democrat simply can't win the White House without a huge turnout, and support, of the black vote.
Period.
-
There may be hope yet
[Read the article: How the long primary battle helps Democrats]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Today I was discussing Hillary's "mis-spoken" comments with a fellow Democrat. I make no bones that I support Obama, and was really letting rip on Mrs. Clinton. A Republican co-worker who was listening in chimed in on how people are finally understanding what huge liars the Clintons are. I then turned on him and asked him exactly which story about the Clinton presidency he felt was under-reported. I spent about 10 minutes arguing with him in defense of the Clinton presidency until I realized that as Democrats, we're all family. We can fight amongst ourselves, and be pretty viscious in doing it. But I'll be damned if I'm going to let a Republican dump on the Clintons or any other Dem.
-
Why did Dodd, Biden, Richardson, Edwards drop out?
[Read the article: Reid, Pelosi get entangled in the presidential race]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]After all, look at all the voters they disenfranchised by dropping out before all of the votes were cast. Edwards could have easily waited around hoping Hillary and Obama's campaigns would implode. They dropped out because there came a time when the only way they could win was if the frontrunners imploded and they put the party above their own ego.
Hillary Clinton has come to this same juncture.
But she will not drop out, because somehow she owes it to future voters. Why didn't Biden, Dodd, Richardson and Edwards "owe it" to futures voters to stay in the race?
For any candidate, once it becomes clear that the only way to win is the total collapse of you opponent, they drop out. In 2004, Edwards dropped out of the race before Kerry had the necessary votes to win the nomination. Yet he did so because the only way he could win was if Kerry imploded. John Edwards could have brought up the fact that some questioned his purple hearts. His supporters could have walked around with purple band aids.
Had he taken that course, what do you suppose Edwards chances have been in 2008? Probably about the same as Hillary's chances in 2012.
-
Hillary's donors are HILLARY'S DONORS
[Read the article: Reid, Pelosi get entangled in the presidential race]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]They're not Democratic donor, they are donors to the party of Clinton. And if they do not get their way, they'll take their ball and go home. Good riddance. Let the Democratic Party make a clean break with the Clintons and all the Republican-Lite crap they represent. Since Bill Clinton left the White House, the Democratic Party has steadily rebuilt its grass roots, state organization, and Congressional strength.
To steal a phrase from Ms. Steinem, Democrats need the Clintons like a fish needs a bicycle.