Letters to the Editor
ljwalker53
Published Letters: 559 Editor's Choice: 9
-
@ xrandadu hutman: Reciprocity?
[Read the article: Calls come in for Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]First: I don't respond to Anonymous posters because they DO NOT speak for me or HRC supporters. They can't put their names/identifiers to their comments and I don't see that as reflective of the majority of HRC's supporters.
Second: Yes, I'm aware of cythera. She and one or two of the anonymous posters are offensive, I agree, but I don't think they are widely representative of HRC's supporters. Not so with Obama's followers.
Third: No, I can't agree that the vitriol is worse from HRC's supporters -- and by supporters I mean those who post with an actual name/identifier. I DO see and read remarks by Obama's followers with name/identifier that are beyond the pale in terms of the anger and hatred directed particularly at Hillary Clinton. And it is incredibly irrational. I've gone back through commentary on Salon and elsewhere and roughly 7/10 of the negative commentary -- name-calling, sexist remarks, slurs, outrageous distortions, lies, innuendo comes from Obama's followers.
Finally: I'm not going to argue with you, which is apparently what you want, given you last comments. I asked for reciprocity; that doesn't appear forthcoming.
-
@ xrandadu hutman: Loads Of Crap By Clinton Supporters?
[Read the article: Calls come in for Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]First: Go back and read comments just on this article!
Second: If you need proof from posts on Salon and elsewhere:
Clintonistas, Hillbots, Ample Ass, War Monger, Republican-lite, Deceiptful Tricks, Billary, Hillsters, Feministas, Old Politics, Politics-As-Usual, Georgie's Mouthpiece, Republicans' Mouthpiece, Goldwater Girl, The Clintons (implying that HRC is just an extension of Bill), Tired, Worn-out Tricks, Dirty Politics, Triangulation, Triangulated, Ms PAC Man, Dirty Money, Her Husband's Coattails, B****, Stupid, Conniving, Greedy, Cold B*****, Shrill, Strident, Amoral, Immoral, Hit Woman, Controlling, Lesbian, Tight-Assed, C***, Wh***, Repug Wh***, Bill II, Arrogant, Shrew, NAFTA Wh*** (whatever that means), Welfare Reform Queen, 7 Sisters Hag, Hilary, Man Suit, Valueless, Claws Out, PWB (Priveleged White B****), Anal B****.
These aren't disagreements over policy or legislation or voting record. These are words and names used over and over and over again as insults. How often do HRC's supporters use this kind of language about Barack Obama?
-
@ JasonF: Every Objective Measure?
[Read the article: How Obama won Wisconsin ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Every objective measure that I've seen indicates that Senator Obama will be a stronger general election candidate than Senator Clinton, yet Clinton supporters often maintain the opposite without supporting evidence. Why?
Obama's followers are paying far too much attention to these "measures" of electability. If you go back -- even to the 1980 GE between Carter and Reagan, Carter was favored and had a 10-point lead in polls; that eventually fell to 5-6 points, all the way up to election night. He lost...
In 1984, Walter Mondale started out (even before the Democratic convention) with an 8-10 point lead over Reagan. It slipped to 4-5 points by the GE. He lost big - winning only his home state.
In 1988, Michael Dukakis had a 16-point lead over Bush I. He lost points, which happens as elections tighten. He still led Bush going into the GE. Result? He lost.
In 2004, John Kerry had a double-digit lead early in the campaign. He lost.
These polls now mean very little. All polls -- but especially this early on -- are very misleading. Any poll, generally, can be very misleading unless you know the methodology, the questions, and the key demographics.
More than this, however, is another factor. Few of these polls look seriously at battleground states (OH FL PA). Quinnipiac did a poll over the weekend of these very states that found something more in line with what Dems will likely face in November. It shows that McCain beats both HRC and BHO in these states by 2-4 points. Independents make no difference. Both HRC and BHO get between 34-36 percent of them; and white men make no difference. HRC and BHO get between 43-45 percent. This poll is far more accurate and represents far more realistically the truth than those being put out by MSM every other day/week.
And, if you look at previous GE maps (1984, 1988, 2000, 2004) in battleground states (and "red" states) where Dems. captured some Independents and Republicans during primaries/caucuses, these same voters went Republican (or didn't vote at all) in the general.
So, one shouldn't put stock in the polls being touted now that show Obama "beating" John McCain for three reasons: a) they aren't that significant 9 months away from the GE; b) they do not look at how "battleground" states vote.
Beyond this, Battleground states are and have pretty much always been the keys to who wins the presidency.