Letters to the Editor
SueNJ97
Published Letters: 175 Editor's Choice: 4
-
Both, or neither
[Read the article: Should Florida and Michigan vote again? ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I think it's going to be a problem for the Democtrats in November if they tell the voters in either state (who had no control over either the stupidity of their State Democtrats, in MI, or the Republican Party, in FL) that so sorry, you didn't count before but please, turn out and support our nominee in the general!
Since these are actually states that might matter to them in the general, I think saying, Fuck you and the horse you rode in on, but we want your vote, even though you had nothing to do with the situation that made your primary 'illegitimate' is not a good idea. But, it would be even worse if they decided to re-do MI and seat the delegates and tell FL to fuck off. Or, the other way around. I think they need to find a way to seat these delegates, not for the candidates themselves, but for the sake of the general election. If a do-over is what it takes, then a do-over it should be.
So, if they are going to have a do-over, it should be both. And, it should be in the same format as the first go-round. If it had been a caucus the first time, they would do a caucus. But it wasn't. These states are set up for primaries and that's the way they should do it, if they do it.
Will this cut into the funds the DLC might have available to fund House and Senate races? Yes. However, do they want to get this resolved, and seat the delegates, or not? If they have a do-over and seat the delegates from both states, I suggest all of you who were so angry over this issue dig into your pockets and contribute when the DLC calls to fund the congressional races.
-
Debie Robbins/Body Parts under scrutiny
[Read the article: Should Florida and Michigan vote again? ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I don't know if hair is considered a body part. But, if it is, your thesis falls apart immediately. Both John Edwards and Mitt Romney were subjected to intense media scrutiny about the 'perfection' of their hair. They were mocked for it. In fact, when Romney decided to go with a more 'mussed' look, to look less 'robotic', I guess, that was discussed at length as well. I saw letters discussing the fact that with Romney especially, anyone who looked that 'perfect' just couldn't be real, he's untrustworthy (the fact that he had changed almost every position he ever claimed to hold in a matter of about 3 years should have clued people in, but no, it was the hair). Edwards was also accused, in part because of the hair and his smile, of being insincere. By voters. The last time I looked, they were white and male. And don't get me started about what some people used to say about Kucinich's height, the fact that he looked like a 'geek', etc. You somehow missed this stuff?
Have people spent lots of time discussing Hillary's ankles, her voice, the fact that she's obviously physically older than Obama and in many people's eyes, that makes her unacceptible (many voters don't understand that they are actually from the same generation, they are both Boomers). I've seen people fixate on Obama's ears. But, it doesn't just happen to them.
-
Will you people grow up, please?
[Read the article: Quote of the day]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Hell, I'm an independent and my preferred candidate, Edwards, is already gone. Both of the remaining candidates are using parts of his platform to forward their candidacies. Fair enough.
I'm not stupid - I'll pull the lever or push the button for whoever is the Democratic nominee. Why? Three major issues:
Supreme Court Nominees (and other Federal court appointments): McCain has made it clear that he would have signed the SD law banning all abortions. Anyone who believes that either Obama or Clinton would nominate judges who are anywhere as conservative as McCain is just not thinking realistically. You are blinded by hatred for one or the other candidate.
Who is most likely to withdraw from Iraq sooner: Both Democratic nominees now have the same position on withdrawal from Iraq and the same voting record on FUNDING it. Their stated positions on withdrawl are different than McCain's, who is not looking to get out anytime in my lifetime, and I'm only 43. Period.
Heath Insurance: Yes, Obama and Clinton have slammed each other over this. Yes, their plans are different. Have you seen McCain's? Essentially, you get a tax credit if you already get insurance through your employer or if you can currently afford to buy it on your own. Perhaps, just perhaps, this will enable a few healthy, lower-middle income people to afford health insurance. It will do nothing for others who have pre-existing conditions or those who need to be subsidized but hey, it will offer another tax break to his buddies.
I can name other areas where Clinton and Obama essentially agree, and are starkly different than McCain. These are the three that matter to me. But, hell, sit it out or vote for McCain or for Nader or whatever. Call her a traitor and a criminal. Say he's just an empty suit. Personally, I think you've missed the entire point of the original article. All of you are worse than anything, anything, either Democratic candidate has said or done and YOU are causing more problems than the candidates ever could (yes, I know, I will inevitably hear how Obama has committed such and such sins and Hillary is just evil, spare me). Suck it up. If you really don't want McCain for at least the next 4 years, vote for whoever wins the Democratic nomination. And shut the hell up if you don't, McCain wins, and you are shocked, shocked that you hate what happens afterwards.