Letters to the Editor
MaddieP
Published Letters: 706 Editor's Choice: 9
-
definitions
[Read the article: Attention, pundits. It ain't over]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]No Hillary will not surpass Obama in pledged delegates. Yes the SDs will probably not (unless they have a very compelling reason to) overturn the pledged delegate counts. So in THAT regard it is over. BUT OVER can mean a lot of things:
Fast-forward to the day Obama get the nomimation. Won;t you be GLAD he campaigned in every single state and has some recognition and personal contact with the voters? He seems to do well whenever that happens: State after state he has dwindled her lead from double digits - heck, she was supposed to be the nominee by now! Its WORSK for him to get to know people and he'll need that against McCain in the GE because people are already familiar with McCain, he's been around a long time.
So why is it that you think its BAD for him to visit states, sign up literally hundred of thousands of new voters and energize the party? Why? (Frankly I thin one of the FIRST things he should do when he gets the nomination is come to my state Florida and also to Michigan, sign up some voters get people amped up).
Its also a good thing that he's up against "GOP-lite" style attacks of teh Clinton campaign and to a much lesser degree the McCain campaign. What's wrong with that? Its good for him. He will be the nominee.
So come on, there's no way around it: this is NOT a bad thing but will ultimately work in the party's (and Obama's) favor.
-
HP
[Read the article: Attention, pundits. It ain't over]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Sorry I was away and could respond to your reply on from page4 (or was it 5?)
I Don't have a single problem with McCain getting a free pass. I said this earlier in a letter: he has gone around preaching to the converted. People who already agree with him. Those who won't point out how profoundly stupid the things he's saying are. THIS IS GOOD! This way he repeats it OVER AND OVER AND OVER again - to many time to claim he MISSPOKE when we finally release the full fury of our attacks on him.
We'll couple all his stupid statements with his legislative record that often is the exact opposite, add a dash of the triangulation he's made just DURING the campaign (remember when he said the economy was OK, then a week later he *realized* it wasn't and unveiled is *economic plan?) Then as icing, he'll come across as the codgedy old fart he is, in a 21st century he is clearly unfamiliar with (what's this internet thing I keep hearing about?) and the race will be ON. Bring it ON.
I think its great. I think he's being lulled into a sense that he's OK, his policies are OK and he's making an impact on the possible electorate. He also has no reason to believe the press is going to stop this love affair with him. More and more he's trying to sound like a liberal (its disgusting) and it will backfire on him.
Relax. I'll take a *sleeping* enemy any day over a wide awake one that has been fighting...McCain is sleeping right now. And a surprise attack is being prepared.
Relax. Its all good. We're quietly keeping track of all his foolishness. This will be SWEET.
-
@cyntheria
[Read the article: Attention, pundits. It ain't over]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I don't like to be referred to as an *obamabot*, i find it derisive but I'll answer your question about sealing the deal and pose a question to you.
I don't consider cutting Hillary's margin but more 50-75% in those swing states a failure. I know youll try to say I am changing the bar. YES she got the most delegates beciase she got the greatest percentage in the state. I'm not arguingthta.
BUt I do find it interesting, and not insignificant, that most of these states (even Texas) she STARTED with a 20%+ lead ion the polling. That she actually lost Texas and saw her lead dwindled significantly in those swings states is as disturbing to me as the fact that Obama didn't *seal the deal* is to you.
I think there are lots of reasons but I think he made a very good showing in every state where she was so heavily favored (including PA). So I don't ahve an answer about WHY, except that for many people she is their preferred candidate, as Obama is for many others.
The point of your argument is the unstated assertion that Obama should have won those states given the *advantages* he had and the fact that he didn't is reflective of some flaw in him or his campaign. I don't think you want to argue that considering that Hillary started this campaign with many (actually more) of these same advantages you claim Obama couldn;t capitalize on: 140 Million+, all the party backers, nationwide name recognition, a popular ex-president on her side, the *top* politcial strategists etc etc and the list goes on. My SC she was broke and needed to load her self money to continue. And today (again) her camapign is in teh red.
My question for you is WHY hasn't (can't) Hillary *sealed the deal* and why are we even in this position that she is in the campaign of her life. A campaign she never though (actually NO ONE thought) would look like this?
The *why hasn't Obama wrapped it up* argument sort of pales in comparison. Don't get me wrong I like them both. Hillary would be a good president, but I find it hard to understand or take seriously your assertion that Obama should have wrapped it up since he had all this money and ??? when the same could be said of Hillary's inability to be in a better position right now herself.