Letters to the Editor
Rob H.
Published Letters: 122 Editor's Choice: 30
-
@Odog (and the Hillary Drones)
[Read the article: Attention, pundits. It ain't over]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Is this your only rationale for voting for Clinton? That she won the big states in the primary? Putting aside the apples and orangutans nature of declaring that only Hillary can win these states because she won them in a primary, people like yourself completely ignore so many issues it's mind boggling.
Let's start with the fact that you ignore that Clinton's approval ratings are approaching Bush's and are not likely to pick up steam. Or you fool yourselves into thinking that her blatant lies and holding two positions on the same issue (many of which have not received much play) won't come up again in the general. Or you dismiss the praise she's heaped on McCain and think that won't be used in a TV ad. Or you conveniently forget that she's run one of the crappiest campaigns ever seen in political circles. Or you don't want to broach the subject of what Hillary basically stealing the election through the use of superdelegates would do to the party. Or you'd like to paint over her blatant insults to Iowa and New Hampshire voters, as well as insults to voters in other states that Clinton lost.
Those little purple states DO matter and Hillary has thrown them under the bus. If Al Gore had won New Hampshire in the general, we would not be having this debate. Simply put, there's a lot you Hillary drones would have us conveniently forget through use of the same, tired, shopworn arguments. Well, the people ain't buying.
You can blather on all you want about big states vs. little states, but the fact remains that Obama can and will win the needed big states in November. And shit, dog, why don't we just screw the rest of the country and only have primaries in big states. They're the only ones that matter, correct?
-
Obama Already CLOSED The Deal
[Read the article: Obama can't close the deal ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Following the MSM, whose only interests lie in hyping this supposedly ongoing fight, Walter Shapiro takes the same, lazy path to his final analysis.
Obama can't close the deal? Just what planet do you all live on at Salon? Obama has already CLOSED the deal. Hillary cannot catch him in elected delegates and it's close to impossible for her to overcome him in the popular vote. Any ground he lost in Pennsylvania, he'll surely make up in North Carolina and even Indiana. And oops, Obama added another Super Delegate today.
And then you extrapolate that 43 percent of Pennsylvania voters don't watch any cable TV news, or, as you really meant it, they simply don't care about the world around them. In the next breath you tell us that these voters did not decide to vote for Obama. Is that any wonder if you're lecturing us on their supposed indifference to this race?
Far from it being Obama who can't close the deal, it's Hillary who's never even come close to sealing the deal. She had the megawatt name and starpower, the party establishment, tons of money, big time consultants, a popular ex-president by her side, an air of inevitability and the MSM all but coronating her. That she can win in states such as Pennyslvania where a popular governor is her biggest cheerleader, where she once held a huge lead, and where the Clintons have been campaigning for years and years is no surprise.
No, the surprise is that Obama is not only standing at this point, but has won. And by any reality based measure, Obama won Pennsylvania simply by forcing Hillary's campaign into the red. He cut in half a once mighty 20 point lead and all but bankrupted her. Sure, she'll raise some cash off the win, but that well is drying up.
The only way Hillary can win the nomination is to destroy the Democratic Party by stealing an election she and her high priced consultants lost through their own ineptitude. Any objective and reality-based analysis quickly cuts through all this BS about Obama not closing any deals. He's already won. Deal closed.
-
Shoddy Reporting
[Read the article: Is Obama really standing up for gay rights?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If you're going to criticize Obama for having Donnie McLurkin perform at a gospel concert, then why don't you at least do one minute of research and include the fact that McClurkin has also performed for the Clintons.
Or discuss Hillary's relationship with anti-gay ministers Bishop Eddie Long and Rev. Harold Mayberry. She gladly accepted a $1000 donation from Long and publicly praised Mayberry for his work on civil rights (except for gays, I guess).
Or why not take a moment to talk about Hillary's pandering appearance on Pat Robertson's 700 Club in late February? You know Pat. The man who blamed 9/11 on gays among other groups.
As for the Philadelphia Gay News, well, that story was debunked long ago. That rag is operated by a Clinton donor and his accusations that Obama had not spoken to the gay press since 2004 were baseless. Obama had done an interview with The Advocate a little over five months before the PGN piece came out. Obama's sin had simply been in not talking to that particular newspaper.
I'm not going to argue that Obama has been great on gay rights. I can't. But at least I see him trying and addressing gay issues head on, unlike Hillary, who was accused of throwing gays under the bus with her support of DOMA. She seems to throw a lot of people into that particular spot.
Finally, I don't know if you guys work to slant your coverage or if it's just shoddy reporting, but as journalists, except for Glenn Greenwald and some of Farhad Manjoo's older pieces on election fraud, it's getting pretty damn poor.