Letters to the Editor
debaser
Published Letters: 953 Editor's Choice: 11
-
Msakel
[Read the article: She's still in it to win it]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Looks like we got ourselves another attendee of Victimapalooza!
(hope you didn't only get the lawn tickets...sure you save a little cash, enough to buy the t-shirt, but everybody knows the real fun is up front in the "pit")
cheers!
-
jebldmm
[Read the article: Edwards endorsing Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Hey
I've been watching your posts with some level of interest as you always struck me as someone with whom one could have a reasonable debate.
I was just wondering, do you still agree with this statement you made way back in January?
"Gender is NOT important[Read the article: Edwards for president?] I don't understand how anybody who considers him/herself a feminist could say that gender was "important" in selecting a president. Feminism isn't about women being first, it's about our being equal. In a fair society, the best person wins, regardless of their gender."
Permalink Monday, January 8, 2007 05:24 PM
I might be off here...but you seem to be veering heavily towards the exact opposite of your earlier assertion.
I do apologise if this message is too forward, like I said - you're one of the few people here that seemed genuinely open to honest debate (unlike some of our more...vociferous friends, i.e lolcait, ShawnWM, PTG, rufus11 etc)
cheers
-
jebldmm
[Read the article: Edwards endorsing Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]fair enough, It's entirely possible that I'm confusing you with some of the more....strident Clinton supporters.
I apologise if I've offended.
However I do think that your earlier assertion is one we would all do well to remember, identity politics has never had much sway for me (although to be fair being a French Canadian Male I've never really been an under-represented demographic ;)
cheers!
-
KStone
[Read the article: Edwards endorsing Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]of course Edwards did just get 7% in an overwhelmingly blue collar state...3 months after he dropped out.
jus' sayin'
-
know who I miss?
[Read the article: She's still in it to win it]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I miss the Clinton we saw at the California Debate...she was a little bit of alright.
where'd she go?
-
damn...
[Read the article: Edwards endorsing Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I never realized just how much I missed this guy!
Edwards really does rock.
there's just something about a Distinguished Southern Gentleman that's awesome :)
-
well
[Read the article: Edwards endorsing Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I guess tonight puts the last nail in the MI and FL coffin doesn't it? Now that Obama has Edwards endorsement I'm thinking it'll follow that he also gets Edwards' votes in FL and you can't make anymore arguments about "Uncommitted" not belonging to Obama in total.
I'm sure Clinton will still argue for ALL of Michigan's delegates, but man...there's no way she'll be able to pull THAT putsch off.
-
kstone
[Read the article: Edwards endorsing Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]alright fair enough...Obama would have to wait until the convention. Whatever, I guess it's a valid point...an academic one, but valid nonetheless.
But if conventional wisdom is that once a former candidate endorses someone else then his pledged delegates are strongly urged to also support that candidate.
If Florida comes back in play as is (as Clinton's campaign has said all along) then Obama's camp would in all likelihood get the 13 delegates that Edwards won to go with his 63 to make 80 against 105.
As for Michigan...well yeah, I guess you can say that adding up all the uncommitted to Obama's camp (now that he has both Edwards and Richardson) is a bit of a stretch. But nowhere NEAR as big a stretch it is to say that Clinton should get ALL the delegates (which is what she's arguing)
-
RealityCounts
[Read the article: Edwards endorsing Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Yeah, I tend to agree with you...I was just saying that in response to someone else who had said that Edwards' pull with the "blue collar vote" has been exaggerated.
cheers!
-
what ShawnWM just said
[Read the article: Edwards endorsing Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Not that I want to reply to the OBVIOUS troll (Obama's a Muslim!) but one thing he said gets parroted alot and deserves to be hashed out.
He said that Obama doesn't do well with certain demographics (blue collar voters, hispanic voters, Catholics etc etc). This is superficially true, in the primaries he hasn't done as well with these people as Clinton.
However what he leaves out is that he's coming up short against a Democrat and not a Republican. These demographic splits are largely meaningless in the General because they're measuring his performance against another democrat and not against McCain. In the General these demographics get blurred heavily because these demographics do not tilt heavily in the direction of one party or the other...the two parties split these demographics to varying degrees. It simply does not hold that because Obama didn't win these Democratic voters in the Primary that they will then turn and vote for McCain in the General...because they're, ya know...democrats. A better question to ask would be "what percentage of blue collar voters self identify as democrats?"
Make sense?
btw - the only two demographics that this does not apply to are Evangelicals and African Americans because they tilt SO heavily towards one party that a candidates performance in the primaries actually is a good indicator of how they'll do with that group in the General - a fact that must give McCain reason for pause.
thanks
-
youch
[Read the article: Clinton supporters push back against NARAL endorsement]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]HuffPo has a link to the NARAL webpage where they announce their endorsement.
You should see the responses posted...there are some mighty angry people there. And I thought some of our favorite folks here was mad...man, they got nuthin' on those people posting on NARAL.
I'm beginning to think that Bush & Co has made everyone so mad these last 8 years that we're having trouble seeing the forest for the trees.
-
hmm...
[Read the article: Edwards announces his support for Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"The people have said not to nominate Obama"
I wonder what your definition of "people" is...actually I probably already know; it doesn't include Elitist Eggheads does it?
-
MaddieP
[Read the article: Edwards announces his support for Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]sweetie, I love ya!
Your optimism is FANtastic!
cheers!
-
Alice Palmer?
[Read the article: Edwards endorsing Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]can someone fill me in on this? I've never heard of her before.
-
Catholics?
[Read the article: Clinton supporters push back against NARAL endorsement]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Well I'm Catholic, practicing even.
and know what else? I'm pro-choice and pro-gay rights.
(and hey Shawn...know what? I'm not alone. There are MILLIONS just like me. We're called "a la carte Catholics", look it up)