Letters to the Editor
little lord baltimore
Published Letters: 189 Editor's Choice: 9
-
Some thoughts
[Read the article: It ain't over yet]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I've had a couple hours of sleep and calmed down a little. So I feel like I can think about this without having my head explode. I can also congratulate Hillary and her supporters on their victories yesterday.
I am conflicted about having a redo of the primaries in FL and MI. I like the idea of a redo and I understand the frustrations of FL and MI voters. On the other hand, I think that rules are rules. FL and MI voters who went to their primaries knew that their votes would not count. There is no doubt that Hillary is pushing for these delegates because she feels she "won" both contests. There is also no doubt that she would be arguing just as forcefully for the votes not to be counted if she had lost.
I really think in this nomination process so far, Hillary has been allowed to define what is "winning." She defines victory as targets that she can reach. When it becomes clear that she can't reach those targets, she just redefines victory. I am frustrated that the press, her supporters and even Obama's campaign seems to be going along with this. Case in point: Hillary said she would have this sewn up by February 5th. Then she said she was going to win big in TX and OH. Then she said that unless Obama won TX, OH, VT and RI, she had won. Finally, this morning she claimed that her campaign has turned a corner, even though she was 20 points ahead in TX and OH three weeks ago and even though she will probably come out of these contests with an even bigger delegate deficit. I do wonder when do we start to hold her accountable for setting expectations and then not meeting them?
I also think we need to put to bed the idea that she should be the nominee because she won the "big" states. Our election system has delegates and electoral votes so that there is a balanced geographical distribution of votes. The system is designed to prevent the more populous states from controlling elections. Yet, isn't this exactly what the Clinton campaign is advocating? That a minority of voters, from a limited geographical area, should decide who is the nominee? Furthermore, in CA, MA, and NY, Obama won nearly more or more votes that McCain and Romney combined. If you add Obama's votes to the 75% of Hillary voters who are willing to also vote for Obama, doesn't that make him a shoe-in to carry those states?
Finally, and then I'll leave it, I think it is absolutely wrong to push for this primary season to continue as long as possible and for Democrats to go into the convention knowing the super delegates will choose the nominee. Clinton did threw everything she had at Obama. I think the comment about both she and McCain having "lifetimes" of experience is a perfect example. Obama's campaign has now threatened to play just as dirty. The bigger picture is that we want, no, we NEED, to put a Democrat in the White House in November. How does allowing the Republicans to sit back, raise money, and take notes from the Democrats as to which attacks worked and which didn't, help us reach that goal?
-
@The Notorious W.E.S.
[Read the article: The "Rezko" game]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm not sure if you actually read Glenn's post or if rather you just saw Rezko in the title and got all foamy at the mouth.
In the post Glenn makes it clear that he and others HAVE vetted the Rezko issue and that there is no evidence of wrong doing on Obama's part. None. And people have tried to find it. Glenn also pretty conclusively makes the point that by continuing to push a fictional Obama/Rezko conspiracy, you are buying into and redeploying a right wing smear tactic. This right wing, and members of the press who are lazy, complicit and fearful, have no problem accusing Obama and Clinton of being guilty by association, yet they are reluctant to even report on real evidence of actual law-breaking and criminality within the current White House.
Please read the post. Then you can participate in what I hope will be an intelligent discussion of the facts of this issue.
-
@Notorious
[Read the article: The "Rezko" game]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If you have any real evidence of anything else that Obama needs to explain, please present it. Because I find it hard to believe that you actually saying that you are hoping for more meaningless and entirely false accusations against Obama.
Aren't you maybe missing the point that by validating this style of smear you are a) making it easier for McCain because, as Glenn proves, the media will not "vett" him in the same destructive way? and B) missing the bigger picture, that this kind of attack will only serve to damage Clinton more than it does Obama. There are many more entirely new questions and associations that can be raised about Clinton. I am not advocating that they be brought up. I am agreeing with Glenn, that when used effectively, specious and unproven hints of scandal can be enough to destroy either candidate.
-
spinning
[Read the article: New Clinton camp spin contradicts old Clinton camp spin]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm surprised. I would have thought that they would continue to mine her "underdog" status for at least a few more weeks. I feel like the elections yesterday showed us that people like Hillary when she's down and when she's perceived to be a fighter, and that Americans can't seem to make up their minds about who should be the nominee. Claiming, again, that she's the one to beat seems like bad strategy. But what do I know, her campaign did a bang up job of working her "I will be the nominee" presumptions to her advantage. With any luck, they'll do more of the same.