Letters to the Editor
Reality-based Liberal
Published Letters: 774 Editor's Choice: 100
-
@Bernovac
[Read the article: On to New Hampshire]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I supported Edwards and I have problems with Obama, but I think your post is unfair.
First, I think Obama can beat anyone from the GOP hands down, except for McCain, who he could still beat if he plays his cards right or if McCain implodes (which is possible given that he is anything but stable or consistent).
Second, regardless of Obama's chances, I find comments chastising voters for voting their candidate of choice offensive -- and felt the same way about attacks on Nader voters. This is a republic and voters get to vote for their candidates; it's their decision and they can make it any damn way they want to.
I wish Edwards had won and I think some voters may have made a mistake by voting for Obama (he will have a tougher time beating someone like McCain and he is probably not the change agent some young voters think he is). But that gives me no right to tell them they were wrong. I'll say what I think and take on supporters of other candidates when I disagree with what they say, but I am never going to blame a voter for the vote. I may tell them they got what they asked for when their candidate wins and isn't what they thought, but that's not the same as blaming them for my candidate's loss -- no voter owes my candidate anything, whether it's Obama voters in Iowa who didn't vote for Edwards or Bush voters in Florida who didn't vote for Gore.)
-
If the DNC seats MI & FL -- and if that makes the difference...
[Read the article: Twenty-nine innings of firewall?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The party will alienate so many new voters that it will have a Nader-type problem for decades. I'd say they wouldn't be that stupid, but...
-
Is it wrong to vote for Clinton as a woman?
[Read the article: The witch ain't dead, and Chris Matthews is a ding-dong]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The previous poster who said that the Clinton campaign is a black eye for feminism makes some excellent points. I think there is a case that Clinton can set back feminism by turning it into a brand and watering it down. It is one thing to stand for all the tenets of feminism, which I don't think Clinton has done, and it's another to wear it as a lapel pin (see Fox and the flag).
But to be fair, Clinton is not any more dubious than her only remaining rival. Obama has backed industry repeatedly: helping kill an amendment to the bankruptcy bill that would have limited credit card rates at 30 percent; supporting liquid coal in the Senate; voting for the appalling 2005 energy bill; promising industry he would water down a House bill that would charge mining corporations for exploiting resources under public land. One wonders exactly what kind of change Obama brings other than his own imputable birth characteristics.
But the purpose of my email is to ask people to think before they blame voters for voting on gender or race.
It is one thing for a candidate or the media to argue for support based on such characteristics, and quite another for a voter to use that information for their own purposes.
How people choose to vote is their domain.
I am equal opportunity in this view. I don't blame Nader voters for their personal choice in the voting booth, because it is none of my business. And I can certainly understand a female or black voter, living in a white-male world, coming to the conclusion that a woman or a black is less likely to fuck them over.
Some Americans have had consistent bad experiences that ran along the lines of race and gender (not just rape, violence, psychological abuse, etc., but also constant, low-level discrimination that white men can't fully understand, let alone notice). For those Americans, seeking out a woman or a brother might have proven a good strategy over the years.
And in truth, it would be hard for Clinton to compromise on reproductive rights. It would be hard for Obama to sign a "tough on crime" bill that put more young blacks in jail.
For some the bar is low -- but realistic.
[NOTE: I do not endorse voting on these characteristics. I think the fact that it is reasonable for people to do so is an indictment of our public sphere. The bar is far too low.]
-
Misses the point, as with Ohio
[Read the article: Was the New Hampshire vote stolen?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]When it comes to elections, it should not be up to folks to prove it was stolen in order for there to be a recount. Sure, it could be that voters in hand counted precincts voted substantially different than those in machine counted ones, but that does not prove that it wasn't stolen either. And like Ohio, the fact that we don't know is the problem. Voters shouldn't be in that position.
I would argue for all paper ballots all counted by hand, like most modern nations. Private corporations should not count our votes. But if they do, recounts should be normal.
No one can prove that the NH election was stolen yet. But the official results are statistically unlikely. They are possible, yes. You can come up with rational explanations for them. But they are unlikely.
Voters deserve to KNOW who won. I find it disturbing that people on the left want to leave this problem buried. We should support recounts whenever there's a question, until states and localities give up and go with paper ballots.
There is no downside, other than that some people's preferred candidate will lose (or remain the loser). And that should be no barrier at all.
-
Additional reading
[Read the article: Was the New Hampshire vote stolen?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Another thing I find disturbing about this article is that it calls the discrepancies allegations.
Readers should know that it is a fact that Obama won in hand counted precincts and Clinton won in machine counted ones, by nearly inverted margins. Look for yourself:
http://ronrox.com/paulstats.php?party=DEMOCRATS
This proves nothing, but you should know that the discrepancies are real, regardless of how they might be explained.
You might also read this article on Alternet:
http://www.alternet.org/story/73551/