Letters to the Editor
MaddieP
Published Letters: 708 Editor's Choice: 9
-
I clearly said
[Read the article: The epic battle for Pennsylvania]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]the LONGER YOU SPEND THERE the tougher it is to resist.
I'll tell you what NOBODY on washington has clean hands and i dont believe I said that in my post. I don't think i even implied it. I said it is harder and harder the longer you stay there and that his short time there was a PLUS in my book.
I also said that my support comes from his push for PEOPLES involvement in government. I guess i should have spelled it out: accountability. Including him. He seems to be able to get people motivate to hold elected officials accountable by becoming a partner in the political process.
That, to me, is central to an effective government and the one thing we've been lacking. For me he represents that fundamental shift.
Thats what I said. You read something else completely.
-
KellyLark
[Read the article: What Pennsylvania tells us]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Confused
Are you suggesting that because Hillary won in CA and NY obama would lose there in the general? That's not happening even her own people say that. CA and NY and other such states will go dem. even rendell said PA will go dem in nov,
The issue is the swing states. See I don't have a single problem with Clinton as President and Obama as VP but i can't see how it works if he has more pledged delegates. If Obama only has blacks and kids (as you say) he would not be ahead. But obviously the numbers he's holding are not made up of only blacks and kids. So that doesn't really stand. Look I'm not argumentative. I like to think I am reasonable and open minded. I am. But if he was only getting blacks and kids this would have ended in Iowa. Ok? So stop. Please.
I have no problem with a Hillary/Obama ticket IF
1-She has more pledged delegates than Obama by the time this is over
2-there is some sort of actual analysis as to vote splits and projections, not just your feelings or mine, that indicate such. (i mean not only polls but comparisons of voting behaviors etc. Problem is, we've never had a woman or a black guy before so a lot of this is pure guessing. Example. much of the territory Clinton won tonight have historically voted red over and over in every election. So would they do it in the general? Not sure. the economy really sucks. Maybe they'll vote that way instead of listening to the right wing guns and beer stupidity. But who knows. This the problem. )
ThinK of it this way
If Hillary had the lead in pledged delegates obama has now (and probably will have after June 3rd) and the supers chose to award Obama with the nomination, wouldn't you want to know WTF? Wouldn't you want to see some charts and graphs or so deep polling by independent pollsters? Wouldn't you? and If the supers just said, well, we think Obama has a better chance would you have a problem with that? If this happens, its suicide for the party.
In the end i think they will both face tremendous pressure to concede their own interests and egos and create a joint ticket. My only point is that the supers will likely try to make the leader in pledged delegates the head of the ticket. Its easier to explain to voters. That's all I'm saying.
BTW I am a independent who has voted republican multiple times in my 40 years. I wouldn;t even be called or polled most likely if they only polled dems. This polling they do needs to include ALL voters in every state at a minimum. We are trying to predict outcomes in a very very different election -an historical election and one that also is coupled with a dual-oversees occupation and an economy on the brink of collapse. Add sexism and racism and who the hell knows? This is not easy. But the supers will insist on this ticket.
-
They want the position but not the responsibility
[Read the article: Burden on superdelegates gets even heavier]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The supers make me super sick.
They have enjoyed party privileges and status and have not had to display any leadership ever. Until now. And they are all a bunch of chicken shits.
Listen, I am an Obama support but if they think Hillary is more electable, fine. so say it already. If they think he has a better chance, they get it done already.
I think they are waiting waiting hoping someone will screw up so badly that it will take the heat off of them...and that's not very likely from either camp.
What wusses.
After this election, we dems need to revamp this whole shit.
-
what this needs to be is
[Read the article: Burden on superdelegates gets even heavier]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]the rest of the contests need to be a race for the TOP of the ticket. Period. The supers need to get with Obama and Hillary and put some serious pressure on them to reconcile by suggesting that whomever they opt for it would be conditioned upon the *loser* getting the VP slot.
Any argument that either candidate could win nationally without the great majority of other's core constituency is foolish.
If the supers had any balls this is what they'd be doing.
And the rest of the race could go on.
-
i cant see how either of them win without
[Read the article: Burden on superdelegates gets even heavier]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]the other one's core constituencies.
Just sayin