Letters to the Editor
AlecsMom
Published Letters: 608 Editor's Choice: 17
-
@Estark
[Read the article: Clinton: "I am in this race"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]First, I have to say that your perspective on how Obama has run this nominating race is unamerican. We don't live in an oligarchy where a few people decide what's best for the rest. The DNC uses a proportional representation system to choose the candidate. I didn't see a whole lot of complaing over this in the years prior to this election so I don't give a lot of credence to complaints on that order now. Frankly, most complaints are about the superdelegates system and this is certainly one aspect that needs changing.
If you don't like the Democratic Party, form a third party. There's a problem though. Third parties exist and can succeed when *issues* are not being addressed within parties. Is that true here? Absolutely not. The policies between the two candidates are largely similar.
The great argument I've heard, repeatedly, from Clinton supporters here is essentially that some whites simply won't vote for Obama. I won't argue that point 'cause it's true. What I will point out is that these people have not sufficiently turned out for Clinton to change this race. This race is after all the race Hillary is in. OTOH, new voters, young voters, black voters, and yes, educated upper-class voters have all turned out for Obama. In huge numbers. This has been his route to success and clear evidence of that is seen in his performances in both NC and IN. Given that Obama's campaign has mapped out a winning strategy againt a standard-bearer within the Democratic Party, I think it's very premature to assume he can't do the same against McCain.
-
Beat the Odds?
[Read the article: Clinton Veepstakes]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Clinton's odds are somewhere down around lightning strike territory. Really Joan, why is Clinton included?
-
The Path to Victory
[Read the article: "There's a pattern emerging here"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Obama and his camp organized a very long time ago, a path to the Democratic nomination against huge odds. They accomplished their feat. Why then is this extremely savvy group of people being so totally underestimated now? They know the numbers, probably better than Hillary's camp. They know the odds. I look forward to reading about their strategy in the upcoming weeks and months.
As for Hillary, she needs to seriously reflect on how many black voters will EVER vote for her again if she is seen as underming the efforts of the first black man to win the Democratic nomination for president. She will need those voters, even more than Barack needs blue-collar whites.
-
@jpetty
[Read the article: "There's a pattern emerging here"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You wrote:
"And how is it exactly that saying Jesse Jackson won SC a racist comment? It is simply a statement of fact. It is apparently all right for commentators and pundits to say that Obama overwhelmingly gets the black vote, but when Bill Clinton says Jackson won SC, that's somehow "racist."
_________________________________________________________
That comment isn't racist, it's racializing. Bill Clinton equated Obama's far more successful campaign (than either Jackson or Hillary) up to that point with a man who could basically only win a state with a large black electorate. The only thing the Obama and Jackson campaigns have in common is (kind of) the color of their skin. It's insulting, demeaning and untrue.
-
@jpetty
[Read the article: "There's a pattern emerging here"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Racializing. It means to make something racial. The issue of Barack's campaign and SC win was racialized by Bill Clinton by equating it with the other black guy who ran for president. Frankly, you have to be pretty thick not to see that. Obama's campaign should not have been equated with Jackson's because, obviously, it was already, BEFORE SC, far more successful. It was an insult and a racial insult at that.
-
@lilybean
[Read the article: What did Clinton do wrong?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You are resorting to factual distortions to make your case.
Barack Obama used the media well, I'll grant you that. He also used the power of the Internet masterfully. In other words, he publicized himself and marketed himself to the many tens of millions who simply had no clue about him. It certainly doesn't hurt him that he has a great "story", a beautiful and baggage-free family and is a great stump speaker. There's a reason why 3 million people are registered on his website and donate to his campaign. He's inspirational to many. The media or more specifically the MSM did not help him so much as he helped himself. OTOH, the blogosphere and online media certainly boosted Obama considerably.
But all of that wouldn't have mattered so much if Clinton had simply run a real campaign, instead of a coronation lap. Surely you aren't going to suggest that this very bright, motivated and talented woman just didn't do her homework, are you? Hillary Clinton assumed (wrongly) that she didn't HAVE TO fight for the nomination.
-
@Proud Texas Girl
[Read the article: Was Hillary channeling George Wallace?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I don't know if you are racist but you certainly sound like it. This is mot likely due to ignorance. Your easy way of lumping so many different people together, your implication that black people want handouts and latinos don't...what's to say? You're ignorant.