Letters to the Editor
heyjude
Published Letters: 397 Editor's Choice: 42
-
The hesitation
[Read the article: For Clinton, a "voice" and a victory]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It's sad, but we have to face this. The hesitation a lot of Democrats have about Hillary is not about her at all, it's about the horrible soap opera of the Clinton administration. We elected a really smart group of people back then -- Clinton, Gore and their wives who were filled with ideas and enthusiasm. We thought youthful, enthusiastic, smart, energetic, innovative people in power would be wonderful for US. Instead, WE ended up taking a back seat to a long national psychodrama, a truly embarrassing and painful sequence of events that got worse and worse as the Clinton marriage spiralled down into despair and they all went through their public mid-life crises. What could have turned out to be a great presidency turned out to be a travesty.
I don't want to be part of the Dems devouring each other and sniping -- all the Dems are strong and we need to elect one of them, not destroy all of them on the way to the nomination.
But the reservations that voters in a national election may have about Hillary, I think, are NOT reservations about her gender or her qualifications, but fears that her personal life is no more stable than it was before and we'll have to live through another all-consuming daytime drama brought to you by people who are too self-absorbed to serve the nation, even though the are qualified.
-
Be patient
[Read the article: Where would Clinton be without Edwards?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Why would Edwards drop out right before South Carolina, his home state? He is almost obligated to stay in the race through that primary.
Why are we assuming that race is the issue with Obama? Because more women voted for Hillary? The white woman who asked Hillary the question that caused her to tear up and get emotional was on TV this morning saying she actually voted for Obama and was very sorry he lost.
Let's be patient. This is the beginning of a long process. The problem with our whole political system is that everyone is constantly jumping to conclusions based on very little evidence and the event of the day. There are many days and much more thoughtful dialogue (hopefully) to be held before this is over.
-
Poll problem
[Read the article: The Weekly Standard's latest Dewey moment ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If you look at the percentages,the polls had Barack Obama getting 37% of the vote. He did. They had Edwards getting 19%. He got 17%, within the margin of error. They had Hillary at 30%. She beat that by 9%. But they could have spared themselves embarrassment by simply acknowledging what percent of the voters were "undecided."
If people didn't get so hysterical about having to make predictions and judgments and just looked at polls as information, the way a nurse looks at taking a temperature, this would all be a tempest in a teapot.
"Undecided" was the difference. A lot of people made up their minds at the last minute to vote for Hillary. If the polls had counted them and admitted that there were enough of them to change the whole equation, we'd have nothing to talk about.
-
Why the hysteria?
[Read the article: Does race explain the polling disconnect?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The poll-takers and pundits made one glaring mistake; they did NOT account for "Undecided". They accurately predicted Obama's results and Edward's results. They understated Clinton's results because they did NOT report that a substantial number of voters in NH were undecided until the last minute and that could change everything. As it did.
It seems to me if people used their common sense in a state where there are a lot of independents and undecideds and just reported the facts without feeling the need to make pronouncements about who was winning and losing, this would all be just no big deal.
And, for heaven's sake. No one thought Obama would get anywhere in this election only a few months ago. He got a heck of a lot of votes in NH. He beat ALL the Republicans in terms of voter support, and they're the Lily-White group. If race were the issue, the independent white voters of NH would have spurned him. He isn't making race an issue; the other candidates aren't making race an issue. Why should we?
-
I challenge you
[Read the article: And sometimes, people are just wrong]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I challenge you to, for God's sake, think about something else and write about something else.
It's over. She got two percentage points more than he did. Big deal. He has one more delegate than she does. Big deal. We have a LONG way to go in this race.
Leave it alone and move on to something else. There MUST be something else happening in the world. Maybe you could check the wire services?
-
P.S.
[Read the article: And sometimes, people are just wrong]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]P.S. to my earlier post:
Where is Dana Perino when we need her? Surely she must be holding a press conference soon. We need some comic relief!