Letters to the Editor
debaser
Published Letters: 656 Editor's Choice: 11
-
Easy fellas!
[Read the article: Michigan, Florida governors want delegates seated]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Let's be a bit more careful here when throwing around that word "disenfranchisement". Correct me if I'm wrong, but nobody is saying these people can't vote in the General Election are they? Didn't think so.
Not having your choice count for the nomination sucks, but disenfranchisement it ain't...sorry.
Keeping people off the voting register for the General Election because their names sound similar to convicts? Or keeping off felons? Yep, those are most certainly examples of disenfranchisement.
You know, lots of other democracies select their party leaders in MUCH more exclusionary manners (like here in Canada for example), oddly enough you never hear people complaining that they weren't privy to the selection process...I suppose you can be privy, but then you have to become a member of the party - something that is nowhere near as common as it is in the US).
Let's ease up on the histrionics shall we?
-
interesting strategy
[Read the article: It ain't over yet]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I gotta tell you, I'm either confused or amazed with Clinton's campaign strategy. It looks like once again she's ignoring the upcoming smaller states (Wyoming and Mississipi) and putting all her energy into Penn. She's leaving those two states wide open for Obama (much like she did after Super Tuesday. Remember "Meet me in Texas!"?)
I'd think that after a HUGE COMEBACKtm like last night she'd try and parlay that into more of a sweep, really gain the momentum and deliver the Knock Out Blow in Pennsylvania. She appears to be content with allowing Obama to get the small wins this month, then play up the win in Pennsylvania as yet another COMEBACK and yet another example of Obama being unable to put her away.
I can't tell if that's brilliant or insane. All I know for sure is that it's risky as hell.
-
of course...
[Read the article: Michigan, Florida governors want delegates seated]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]ya know, what's stopping them from holding new primaries, say...three weeks from now, where the DNC pays half and the State pays half? (and maybe CNN can kick in a significant chunk as well :)
I realize that it would set a pretty terrible precedent, but then the status quo right now is kind of a terrible precedent.
-
@LCS051
[Read the article: With Obama on the offensive, the Democratic campaigns trade attacks]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]One small point:
before you go railing against the media for turning the 3 am ad into an attack ad, you probably shouldn't be parroting the media line that Hillary won "Texas". They're still counting "Texas", she's won the portion accounting for 2/3rds. If Obama wins the caucus (which seems likely) and he gets more delegates and popular vote (maybe...we'll see) then will the media go back on their word and proclaim, rightly, that Obama won "Texas"? Will CNN turn that state the dark blue of Obama? Probably not, it doesn't help the story of The Comeback Kid (tm).
(this is just a pet peeve of mine...sorry)
that's all.
cheers!
-
@jebldmm
[Read the article: With Obama on the offensive, the Democratic campaigns trade attacks]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]you wrote:
" don't think the Obama campaign should really emphasize that he's winning more delegates after losing the election by a wide margin."
Umm, that's a good point, except it isn't true. She garnered exactly 100,858 more votes out of 2,816,224 - hardly a WIDE margin.
Another thing, it's not some kind of bizzare re-vote, it's part of their selection process. Think of it like a Mixed Member Proportional Representation (Like Germany)...both votes count, you can't win one part and claim victory, you kind of need to win the whole thing. You can't claim that the part your candidate won is the be all end all...and you certainly can't claim that the caucus part is not valid somehow (I mean what would the people who voted for Hillary say about that? That the effort they put into going out that night was useless? Seems suspect to me - but then your candidate seems to be quite content to tell great swaths of her support that they don't really count based on which state they live in, so I guess it's par for the course)
I just wish the media would be even just a smidge more honest and say that Texas has yet to be decided (which is, you know, the truth)
cheers!
-
Amazing
[Read the article: Blame Canada]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm just amazed that the smarter Clinton Supporters - the ones who are so quick to parse every last shred of news about Rezko were also so quick to jump all over the NAFTA leak, without bothering to even dig around the internets to see where the leak came from. You know, the details of Harper's office leaking the mis-representative memo have been well known, and well covered in the media up here. In fact, if I recall - the initial report on CTV also mentioned Hillary's camp saying the same thing...curious how Harper didn't include that in his leaked memo...
Can these Clinton supporters really not be as interested in the truth as they claim to be? Surely it's not true!
Well this tempest in a teapot cost Obama Ohio (still hasn't lost Texas yet)...on the bright side even with the kitchen sink, in a state where she had a 20 point lead two weeks before, all Clinton could muster was a 10 point win.
p.s. next time Canada comes up in relation to this campaign PLEASE do us a favour and check in with The Globe and Mail, The Toronto Star, or the Ottawa Citizen. Stay away from The National Post (owned by Conrad Black - who's now in jail for stealing millions from his company) or the Toronto Sun (The New York Post of Canada). It's all this Canadian boy can ask.
-
@instantgratification
[Read the article: Blame Canada]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Fair enough, I should've said it was the paper founded by Conrad Black...the implication still stands, it's a right wing rag (albeit one with a good Arts section ;).
One quibble for you then: Mulroney negotiated FTA with Bush Sr. in 1988, NAFTA was Mulroney and Clinton.
cheers
-
@jebldmm
[Read the article: With Obama on the offensive, the Democratic campaigns trade attacks]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I get it now...what you really mean is "this portion of the nomination selection process doesn't help my candidate so I deem it undemocratic and bizarre and therefore stupid".
fair enough.
I disagree, but whatevs, no biggie
cheers