Letters to the Editor
Sean SIberio
Published Letters: 155 Editor's Choice: 32
-
And you fall into the trap...
[Read the article: A bleak outlook for Hillary Clinton]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]After all, Hillary's leading in every poll in Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania - the only really large states left.
And you fall into the trap that the Clinton campaign evidently has, suggesting that winning big states is the most important. And while they are rich with delegates, the aggregate of smaller states often equals or sometimes surpasses, the effect of these larger states. That is true with the post Feb 5th contests (415 delegates) compared to Ohio and Texas (334 delegates combined). And the obsession with Pennsylvania is also misguided. A short time after their primary, comes North Carolina, which has 115 delegates to Penn's 158.
I also think its fair to point out the absurdity of people talking about McCain's "strength" as a candidate. The guy can't even wallop his opponent in what amounts to beauty contests since Feb. 5th. And while I'm sure the party base will vote for him regardless, but the Straight Talk Express doesn't run off the constant hot air that comes out of McCain's mouth; a campaign requires a significant donor pool to mount a credible challenge, something that even with public financing, McCain will find problematic, especially under the rules he helped legislate into law. Warm bodies have also proven a hard thing for McCain to find, as evidenced by the paltry turnout to his hotel victory speeches.
McCain's talking points as evidenced by his speech tonight, is a kind of re branded Giuliani; vote for me because al_qaeda may shoot us otherwise. His domestic policies don't even address the one big issue of this campaign, health care (he simply says we should let people buy policies from different states...though why this would allow competition as they are all owned by the same handful of companies is anyones guess). The rest of his policy positions aren't even ones he held until February 5th. So let's face it; McCain is dead in the water.
-
@nicole p
[Read the article: A bleak outlook for Hillary Clinton]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Actually, Clinton is behind far more than a mere 150K votes. She's behind almost 700K, and thats not including Wisconsin (or the Hawaii results that are rolling in). Admittedly, Texas and Ohio are large states, and will have a huge turnout, But thats presuming she wins those by large margins, which increasingly looks improbable. If she does win the popular vote, it'll be by very small margins and will be a wash probably delegate wise.
I'm with Carville on this one; if she loses EITHER state shes done for. Obama doesn't even have to win BOTH, he merely has to take one. Regardless of how the rest of the primary goes, I'll be very interested to read any dissection or expose of how the Clinton campaign managed to throw itself on its own sword.
-
There won't be any...
[Read the article: A bleak outlook for Hillary Clinton]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It takes years to learn that, especially when you consider how many GOP appointees will be left behind.
There won't be any. Any time theres a new President theres almost a complete refilling of all the over 5,000 appointed positions that the President can make. Some are left on (particularly the direct White House staff such as cooks, ushers, and the like) , but most pack up their officers and leave, even when the person is of the same party (George H. infact, got into a lot of trouble for kicking many Reagan appointees to the curb).
Now if you're talking about judges, well yes, there will be alot of those. I can't remember off the top of my head the terms of many of the judges on the bench, besides the Supreme Courts life appointments, though I think its somewhere around 10. And the staffing of certain boards and agencies also work off a term limit, so there won't be an immediate change in some of those organs. But for the most part, it will be a clean slate.
-
I find it amazing...
[Read the article: Hillary Clinton's Texas-size moment ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I find it amazing that people actually believe that candidates with multi-million dollar campaigns and in front of 20 million people, uttered either off the cuff or honest remarks. The truth is, that both candidates were coached and rehearsed to talk about any point that might come up. If something did come up that was unusual, they responded it seems, by pivoting towards something they were more familiar with. Anything that was "new" or "Fresh" was simply a response they hadn't managed to tee up yet. But if you think Clinton's closing response, or even Obama's rant about people calling his supporters delusional, wasn't rehearsed before, I have a bridge in Chicago and a piece of land in Arkansas to sell you.
-
And then what?
[Read the article: A non-paranoid's guide to superdelegates]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]We should have a national primary, each person should get one vote, and every person's vote should count equally.
And then what? We all get the person who can raise the most money and then blast ad's all over TV?
Anyway you slice it, someone, somewhere, is going to be getting the wrong end of the stick. But the best plan suggested thus far to ameliorate this problem, is the so-called America Plan that Fair Vote has proffered, with rotating states of different sizes etc. It allows for small candidates to get a leg up, initially, and does not have the front loading of Super Tuesday or doesn't necessarily err always on the side of Iowa and New Hampshire.
Honestly, the Democratic Party SHOULD lead the way for public financing reform, in such a way that its actually useful during the primary's, and encouraging all candidates to follow it during the primary. No more nuclear battles in an attempt to out raise the other.