Letters to the Editor
Ricardo Malocchio
Published Letters: 151 Editor's Choice: 2
-
Why are so few of you addressing Wilentz' primary argument and DeLong's response?
[Read the article: No, Hillary Clinton shouldn't be winning]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]A 100 or so letters ago, I asked who among you will be leading the charge to abolish proportional representation in the Democratic primaries before the next election cycle? And who among you will be working hard to abolish caucuses?
Not a single person responded even though these were the very same "eccentricities" of the Democratic primary system that Wilentz singled out as the reasons for Hillary's second-place status. And, as well, his further point that the Democratic nomination process "hobbles Democratic chances in the fall" because it's not the "way we run our general elections".
So I conclude that none of you actually care about this except to the extent that your candidate is perceived as being disadvantaged by one or the other "eccentricity" in this particular election cycle.
Again, I bring you back to 2000, when Democrats were up-in-arms about the electoral college. What exactly happened to all those voices calling for abolishing the electoral college in favor of a nation-wide popular vote?
They disappeared right off the radar. I'd wager it's simply because the actual concern wasn't some abstract beef with the electoral college. Rather, it was because these folks wanted Gore in the White House, and here was a metric that could have put him there. End of story.
So, pardon me if I don't buy into your bellyaching over "the process". And pardon me if I don't suddenly care about Michigan and Florida primary voters when you, me, the voters of Florida, Michigan and their elected representatives, and each and every one of the candidates in the race knew long before a single vote was cast that their blatant violation of both DNC and RNC rules deserved and received punishment. No one's stopping them from conducting another primary at their own expense... except them. Apparently, they're willing to defy both the RNC and DNC, but not willing to take the known consequences. Apparently, they care more about their money than their vote.
So, again I ask, who among you will be leading the charge to abolish proportional representation in the Democratic primaries before the next election cycle? And who among you will be working hard to abolish caucuses?
-
Bad for Barack, bad for Hillary, bad for Democrats, bad for the American public
[Read the article: Obama and Clinton fizzle in Philly]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...absolutely positively the sweetest gift wrapped in a big red bow for the Republicans.
1. First hour dominated by a rehash of both candidates worst gaffes and associations. Flag pins, Weather Underground, angry preachers, Bosnia sniper fire...
2. Next up, everybody take the "No new taxes" pledge!
3. Now, which of you can be more bellicose to Iran?
Damn liberal media.
-
@ lilybean
[Read the article: Wrong on the substance and the style]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Hissy fit"? This would be something of a "girlie man" epithet? Paging Glenn Greenwald...
The problem for Hillary is that the first hour may not have done her any good in the polls or among the superdelegates. She was forced into a rehash of the Bosnia sniper fire gaffe whereupon she conceded that she's not stupid, just a calculating liar and is now embarrassed by it. When she sought to twist the knife over the Ayers story, the country was reminded that the co-president pardoned two members of the Weather Underground, a rather more significant connection than a dinner party with a neighbor.
Then, Hillary makes a "no new taxes" pledge that will surely come back to haunt her, especially if she's serious about reforming Social Security, reducing the deficit, and even paying for universal healthcare. She seems to have backed away from any serious effort to control guns, "flip-flopping" on an issue that will never be the Democrats to win (see, e.g., John Kerry). She makes a new statement about casting a NATO-like security umbrella not only over Israel, but a wide variety of Middle Eastern states, a shocking expansion of US deterrance that goes beyond anything the Bush administration has done. I suspect she'll soon be clawing her way down from all these positions, and in a most embarrassing fashion.
But for now Clinton is staking out turf on taxes, guns, Middle Eastern policy that are not particularly different than the GOP's. The problem is, people on the right may find it hard to believe she'll stick to these claims, and people on the left might find it hard to believe she won't.
She bested Obama in this environment. No doubt. But will this victory even garner her a few more delegates? Will it enable her to win the nomination? The general? Or is it purely phyrric? Indeed, has she helped shift the debate entirely over to the GOP's playing field, where the game is played by their rules, and the winner is defined by who best represents the "true conservative"?
-
But Claddagh...
[Read the article: Worst. Debate. Ever?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It's a no-win for anyone save the GOP candidate. You're correct that Obama can't pin the pardons of two Weather Underground members on McCain. But you're forgetting that McCain sure as hell can pin those pardons on Clinton if she's the nominee. Which is worse? Sharing a meal and being appointed to the same BoD? Or a full-out pardon for crimes committed that so enrage you? Should Bill Clinton also be "thrown under the bus", and what would be sufficient - a divorce?
My god, man. Look at the inconsequential drivel we're now discussing. And you actually find this refreshing?