Letters to the Editor
MaddieP
Published Letters: 708 Editor's Choice: 9
-
What? It seems like he's suggesting
[Read the article: McAuliffe: "We are in through June 3"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]that shell be done after the 3rd.
I saw him on Meet the Press and that's how it sounded to me. He could have explicitly said that the nominee isn't decided until the convention so we'll take it up to the convention. He didn't say that. He SAID the last race is on June 3rd.
He also said (more than once) that "whomever the nominee is" blah blah "united" blah blah.
I gotta be honest, for me it was the first time i listened to him and despite some of the typical spin and delusion, got a sense that things are settled.
So what if they run through June 3rd. At this point is virtually decided and i feel strongly that those voters who want to vote should be able to. (I regret that here in FL we were unable to see the candidates. (although Barak is supposedly coming here on May 21st)
Then Kennedy comes out and says they won;t be running mates. So did some other heavy hitter. Then today Clinton comes out and criticizes MCCAIN instead of Obama?! And talks about party unity? Impressive. I don't know. I don't think this is going to the convention.
-
You can't win them all
[Read the article: Can Barack Obama win West Virginia?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This nation's Original Sin (as Condi put it) still has remnants even to this day. As a black person living in rural area (but who came from a city) I am well aware of people with attitudes like this. They're typically decent folks, but they cannot get over the things they were taught all their lives. Most of them know or think its an incorrect viewpoint and maybe they're wrong but they just can't get used to it any other way.
It happens mostly with white folks but also with black folks too.
No matter. If anything, we are a nation that is evolving and catching up to the the post-racial attitudes in some of the more 'civilized' places in the world. Its our only hope if we are going to be able to remain a viable and powerful influence in this world.
In another 10 or 15 years this will all be a thing (almost) of the past.
-
Saw Wolfson on Today Show this morning
[Read the article: Can Barack Obama win West Virginia?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It was interesting because he said something to the effect of:
"If Obama loses West Virginia by 15 points, we have to ask..."
To which I thought to myself 15??! I though he was behind like 40 points? WTF?
Obama has acknowledged that he won't win in West Virginia. And has tried to create strong expectations of a blowout, which is what I have been thinking. But then Wolfson comes on Today Show with a number like 15% (still a handy beating, to be sure) but that's nowhere near the 40 points I was hearing about last week.
What's up with that?
-
No offense but define capable
[Read the article: Can Barack Obama win West Virginia?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I would vote for either democrats this fall but so far we've watched Hillary squander a seeming insurmountable lead in money and name recognition (Like Bush squandered our budget surplus).
She had the best staff available.
She kept Penn on too long, even when staffers said not to. And his poor planning and strategy practically ruined her campaign (like Bush kept Rumsfeld, despite being told to stop and it has make things so bad in Iraq we'll need a generation to begin fixing it)
She has run into overspending the resources she had/has (again, like Bush has run us into a 4 trillion dollar deficit)
She has changed her campaign slogan and tone multiple times, indicating a lack or strong focus (first it was experience, then it as ready on day one, then she found her vote, then it was ready for change). This confusion is not a good thing
Leadership: i can't say she's a poor leader necessarily but I can say Barak has done better job with organizing and motivating not only his staff, but his supporters. He seems to be leading the way and allowing others to become very involved in the process.
Hillary's campaign has changed the rules so many time throught the campaign. In October FL and MI she acknowledged, would not count. Now, its a federal case. (FYI I want them to count even though DNC said they wouldn't) Bush similarly, changed the Iraqi Mission based on what was expeditious. First it was WMDs, (unsustantiated claim but he manufactured papers and got respected general to lie about it), then when no WMDs were found it was a link to Al Quaeda. Then when it seem people were buying that, it become Iraqi Freedom...to bring democracy to the region. And on and on. He keeps changing the mission and hoping nobody notices how absurd it is.
Temperamentally she's been all over the place. Sometime she seems together and really sharp (loved her on the O'Reilly Show) and sometime she seems really disjointed and spastic. GW at least has maintained an even temperament but McCain is very much like Hillary in this regard. He comes across really even sometimes but we know he's unstable too...and that scares us so why wouldn't it concern us if Hillary displays it too?
I understand that you may THINK Hillary has better capability to lead, but WHAT PRAY TELL or you basing that on?
I don't hate her and as i said I would vote for her in a second if she was the nominee. But based on JUST THE CAMPAIGN ALONE, i'm not so sure she'd make a good "Chief Executive". Her policies and Barak's policies are nearly identical. So for my dollar i'd choose someone who has demonstrated an ability to lead effectively, efficiently manage huge sums of money and 10's of thousands of supporters. Who managed to maintain equilibrium in the face of the Wright scandal PLUS who has policies I agree with.