Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Carol Richards
Published Letters: 517
If the system "made sense", it's likely that no other campaign would've been able to overcome Hillary's name recognition and the media's widespread assumptions that she was simply unbeatable. I'm not sure how that kind of system makes any "more sense" than the one we currently have.
'nuff said!
The truth of the matter is that Obama has run a better campaign than Hillary has, and that, more than anything else, is why he is winning. If the system had been "winner take all", there is no way of knowing whether or not Hillary would have benefited, or whether she would have simply lost in a different way. Obama might STILL have run a better campaign. One thing seems certain: "If she had run a better campaign, Clinton would be ahead."
'nuff said!!
If this election had been winner-take-all, each campaign would have run things differently. Perhaps the Obama campaign would've struggled more, but they certainly would have employed a different set of strategies, as would ANY campaign. But you can't just retroactively change the rules and pretend that the results of all those caucuses and primaries would've turned out the same.
I'm serious, that's too many good points; the article doesn't deserve it!
You better be truth-telling about:
I guess it was not as important to note that one can be in favor of the practice of mail-in voting but not be crazy about the idea of just quickly throwing together a system at the last minute that might be vulnerable to fraud. Oregon has mail-in voting today that is widely praised as a good system, but it didn't happen overnight. It took a long time. Would YOU trust a Florida mail-in system devised in a MONTH
Maybe Salon will publish your comments?
'nuff said...
good stuff
Are you really that mad at people who want Barack to be president more than Hilary? Are those really the kind of people you want to blame for this misery? If it really comes down to that, you've turned me around 100% and Hilary's got my vote! But I'm afraid that you are just kidding, you know, mocking the irrational anger that this primary is stirring up and that you really don't believe that people who prefer Obama are good examples of why things are to rough in our country.
Either way you are kind of a genius!
Will this sort of information make Joan a little less sad than the poll did? Or maybe this kind of news makes her happy because a) it could be used as a "vote Hilary" argument or b) it might balance out the injustice of sexism.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080407/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_racial_voting
(by the way: I take sexism and racism very seriously, just not Joan's odd logic related to how we should gauge them and for who we should feel more sad?
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
