Letters to the Editor
Whispers
Published Letters: 383 Editor's Choice: 11
-
a crying shame
[Read the article: Manchester United slides to the Cup]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Two teams that were equally matched for 120 minutes are forced to decide the "championship" by penalty kicks made at 1 a.m. in the pouring rain.
At that point it's a crapshoot.
Bad luck for John Terry to slip in the muck. But is there anybody who can seriously argue that Man U. is the better team, but if Terry had not slipped, that Chelsea was the better team?
Side point: at some point, Cristiano Ronaldo needs to pay a penalty for his illegal penalty kicks.
-
just wondering
[Read the article: She's in it to spin it]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]if this "popular vote lead"
a) counts FL and MI, which were not certified by the DNC and thus are meaningless
b) counts the caucus results in all the states
As I understand it, the usual Clinton trick is to not count all the caucus states (where she lost badly) and somehow count states that had beauty pagents.
Maryland also had a beauty pageant race. I know people who voted for Hillary in the meaningless race and voted for a slate of Obama delegates - because that was what mattered.
Just how long are we going to have to endure these arguments about how the race might have gone if the rules had been different? Enough with the Calvinball nonsense! If gaining the most rushing yards was how football games were decided, the 1978 New England Patriots were the best team ever!
Given how much Clinton is annoying half the Democratic party with this kind of sophistry, and has alienated a lot of voters who used to respect her, how can anybody argue with a straight face that she would be a strong candidate in November? Have you people never spoken to Republicans about how much they loathe Clinton with a passion?
Isn't it transparent that Clinton is the candidate the the GOP has wanted to face all along?
-
i seem to recall
[Read the article: Lawsuit seeks to force DNC to seat Florida delegates]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Hillary Clinton promised to not participate in this primary. Why should her delegates be seated? Obama actually honored his promise to not participate.
Florida broke the party rules.
I have no idea what the courts are supposed to do here. Though if they get a GOP hack as a judge, there is certainly an opening for more mischief.
-
Clinton completely out of line
[Read the article: A new low in Clinton bashing]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Jebldmm:
In response to the following comment:
" The entire subtext of her recent campaign has been, "Sure, maybe this guy will win the nomination but we all know a black man is unelectable in the fall." "
you say:
Where has she said that? Where has she even hinted that "a black man" can't win in the fall? She has not even publicly stated that OBAMA can't win in the fall. In fact, she has stated the opposite.
Well, for starters, the word "subtext" implies that her message need not be so overt. I had thought that this was the general message of her campaign for the past few months. Indeed, her comment about "hard working Americans, white Americans" seemed to be pretty clear.
Joan: when a candidate is asked why she is staying in the race, and her response brings up the fact that RFK was assassinated in June of 1968, the most obvious, logical conclusion to make is that she is implying that she is staying in the race because she is concerned about the assassination threat. What other possible motivation is there for such a comment?
As an earlier letter writer suggested, the explanation by Stephen Ducat is enlightenening. For starters, this was not the first time Hillary Clinton had brought up the topic of the RFK assassination. Ducat makes the case that this notion was first mentioned in March in response to a poll showing that a good majority of Americans were concerned about Obama's safety, should he be the candidate.
Clinton has been trying to run as the tougher of the two candidates. One way to do this is to portray Obama as a threatened individual. Hence the reference to the Kennedy assassination.
I cannot see any innocent explanation for bringing up the RFK assassination on the eve of its 40th anniversary. I really cannot. This goes far beyond any kind of credible discussion of how long the election calendar is.
-
and another thing
[Read the article: A new low in Clinton bashing]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]RFK was still in the race in June of 1968 because there was a good chance he would win the nomination. He was trailing Humphrey, a VP who refused to enter any primaries, and RFK and McCarthy together had more delegates than Humphrey at the time of the assassination. The Democratic party was a complete mess in 1968. The chaos and the split between the pro-war and anti-war factions cost the Dems any chance at the White House. It seems strange that Hillary would want to recreate that mess in 2008.
If Hillary wants to claim that she is running in June 2008 just like Jerry Brown did in June 1992, that's fine with me. But we should probably dig up all the derisive comments made by the Clinton camp about Brown's candidacy at the time.
-
regionalism?
[Read the article: Clinton makes appeal to superdelegates]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"From Ohio to Pennsylvania to West Virginia..."
Last I checked, a person could drive from Ohio to Pennsylvania via West Virginia in less than an hour.
By all means, any superdelegate who thinks the wishes of Appalachia trump the wishes of the rest of the country should vote against the delegate count implied by the sum total of the caucuses and primaries, and instead place his or her judgment ahead of that of the voters.
Of course, it would be hard to reconcile such a stance with the generally accepted notions of democracy, but hey, what's voting for anyway? Including results from primaries that were known to be meaningless ahead of time is a good thing. But including the overall result is a bad thing.