Letters to the Editor
ljwalker53
Published Letters: 559 Editor's Choice: 9
-
Finally! Democracy in Action
[Read the article: Let 'em duke it out]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I am also one of those who is bewildered that this historic election is somehow bad for the Democratic Party.
As Shapiro rightly points out, Democrats have done little in recent elections to show voters why we should elect a Democrat to the White House. There IS an expectation among many party regulars that conflict between primary candidates is somehow dangerous for the party and that we need to set some artificial timeline for wrapping a nomination.
If we cut short this process, we leave out hundreds of thousands of voters who, practically speaking, haven't had a "real" opportunity to select a Democratic nominee for about 40 years.
Let the voters vote. Once the dust has settled from the primaries and cauceses, we can confidently proceed to the next steps. Party leaders will work with Florida and Michigan to come up with a plan for voters there. Then we'll see where things are.
Anybody forecasting doom and gloom about this process really underestimates our democracy and how resilient our system -- and our citizenry -- is, when we let the two work.
-
@ xophere: Republican in Democrat's Clothes?
[Read the article: Let 'em duke it out]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Hmmm. Are you?
Your rhetoric certainly sounds a lot like Rush Limbaugh or Karl Rove.
-
@ KcM: Can't Buy All Your Arguments
[Read the article: Let 'em duke it out]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Especially about superdelegates.
While they are political animals, they are also pragmatists. This does not necessarily mean they will select Obama, for several reasons.
1] Although Pennsylvania and surrounding states are still a ways out, Obama hasn't proved that he can win voters in the big Northeasstern industrial states. Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania are must-wins for Democrats in November. I have heard the argument from Obama's followers: "You don't seriously believe that he wouldn't win these states in the GE, do you?" My reply is: YES, I do believe that he might not win them, because of the makeup of voters in these states (as well as West Virginia and Indiana). When you look at results from 1980, 1984, 1988, 2000 and 2004, the problem becomes clear.
2] Obama's "will of the people" argument doesn't take into account the fact that caucuses are not representative of voters in a state - simply a small fraction (approximately 5-10 percent) of voters who have the energy, ability, time and health to go to a location at a certain day and time. Primaries much better represent voters' will.
3] To elaborate a bit on my first point: If you take a look at electoral votes needed to win a GE, Obama has just 193 out of 270 necessary to win. Clinton, on the other hand, has 263 of the 270.
Superdelegates will use a number of factors to determine who they support, once primaries and caucuses are completed and there is a decision on Florida and Michigan voters. Pledged delegates will be just one factor.
-
@ tom payne
[Read the article: Let 'em duke it out]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Visiting 82 countries, or whatever it is, doesn't make her a foreign policy expert. It makes her a traveler.
Here's my problem with this argument: Clinton did, indeed meet with women in Ireland from both sides, working to provide "their" input to the peace process. And she traveled to Macedonia to help with the refugee problem there, by meeting and talking to the leaders AND families that were trying to return to their homes. And she went to Kosovo to do the same thing. And she went to China and gave a speech urging Chinese to address human rights and to treat women's rights as human rights -- at the same time that the U.S. was trying to develop trade with China and against the wishes of U.S. trade representatives. But I guess in your worldview, "women" and "families" and their needs around the world don't count in "foreign policy."
The past month, to me, has shown her to be manipulative, unprincipled, and concerned only about her access to power.
And, let's see: Barack Obama is running for president because he is...such a nice guy?
Each time you make arguments like those above you do indeed show the antithesis of Barack Obama's vision of "hope" and "change" and inclusion, because of what comes across as a very male-centric, myopic view of world affairs.
-
@ Malthust: My Comments
[Read the article: Let 'em duke it out]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The argument that caucuses are not democratic enough and that this should be corrected for by the EXTREMELY undemocratic superdelegates strikes me as a telling bit of reasoning on the Clintons' part.
This is YOUR line of reasoning, not mine. You are the one jumping to conclusions, going to point "z" directly from point "a".
As does the argument that general election dynamics will somehow magically transcend long-standing red-state/blue-state dynamics to perfectly mirror the democratic primary vote.
They might; they might not. The industrial states and some of the Southern/South Central/Midwest states are much more moderate than liberal. Whether you like her or not, Clinton has a moderate foreign policy record. Voters in these states tend to like that.
Although this "insult 40 states strategy" has not been entirely inconsequential- after all it gave us the extreme divisions of the first Clinton administration and even the Republican Revolution.
This may be your interpretation. However, the "extreme divisions" began when Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980. He was certainly good at PR and image, but he was as divisive a president as we have had. He was a master of pitting white Democrats (mostly men) against women, minorities and all things "Washington" to build his "coalition."
If this is really the Clintons' argument, they deserve to be disqualified on the basis of strategic stupidity alone.
See my points above.
-
@ tom payne: What Kate Tex Said
[Read the article: Let 'em duke it out]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Unbelievable. I thought we'd seen the last of "progressive" male leaders of the 60s and 70s who were stuck in the cave when it comes to women. Apparently I was wrong.
"Bitch" and "Broad" have absolutely no place in these discussions. They are derogatory, sexist, demeaning terms directed toward women.
If this is an indication of what Obama *really* stands for, I want no part of him or his campaign. It's disgusting. I haven't seen so much sexist, demeaning crap about women since the 80s.