Letters posted here are associated with the following Salon Premium Member:

libertyson

Published Letters: 656
Editor's Choice: 23

Saturday, May 10, 2008 01:05 PM

@ Amity-- you're dead right

What Joan and the Clinton supporters don't seem to understand is that, like all people losing, the strength of her negotiating position diminishes the longer she stays in this.

You're right, they'd walk into the Senate chamber, bodily throw Harry Reid out and voluntarily install her in the most powerful position in the Senate TODAY. She would have COMPLETE legislative control over Obama's agenda. Don't like his healthcare plan? Don't pass it in the Senate. Make him negotiate with a dozen committees. Force your subordinates in the Senate to question Obama on it and make him compromise.

The longer this goes, the less likely it becomes that she can do that. And Democrats HATE losers. Our Party has a history of discarding them. The only way to avoid this is to lose gracefully and quickly bow out. (Stevenson, Kennedy, etc.) Otherwise your future in the Party is blown. They keep running as if this is the Republican Party. It's not. Anyone who really cared about Hillary Clinton's future in the Party (and who honestly thought Obama was going to lose this year) would be encouraging Clinton to exit the race NOW and wait for 2012. Every day she stays in this hurts her own chances at ever being the nominee again.

Saturday, May 10, 2008 01:06 PM

@ Amity-- you're dead right

What Joan and the Clinton supporters don't seem to understand is that, like all people losing, the strength of her negotiating position diminishes the longer she stays in this.

You're right, they'd walk into the Senate chamber, bodily throw Harry Reid out and voluntarily install her in the most powerful position in the Senate TODAY. She would have COMPLETE legislative control over Obama's agenda. Don't like his healthcare plan? Don't pass it in the Senate. Make him negotiate with a dozen committees. Force your subordinates in the Senate to question Obama on it and make him compromise.

The longer this goes, the less likely it becomes that she can do that. And Democrats HATE losers. Our Party has a history of discarding them. The only way to avoid this is to lose gracefully and quickly bow out. (Stevenson, Kennedy, etc.) Otherwise your future in the Party is blown. They keep running as if this is the Republican Party. It's not. Anyone who really cared about Hillary Clinton's future in the Party (and who honestly thought Obama was going to lose this year) would be encouraging Clinton to exit the race NOW and wait for 2012. Every day she stays in this hurts her own chances at ever being the nominee again.

Saturday, May 10, 2008 06:07 PM

Obama's going to win the general election (if he's not robbed of the nomination)

Every two weeks or so I feel like we have to post the map and the states again because the Clintons and the Clinton supporters somehow manage to convince all of you he's unelectable, no Jewish voter or Latino voter alive will vote for him, no person who works for a living and every single, solitary woman over 35 will vote against him.

That's nonsense and you know it.

He's winning against McCain in the following states where SHE'S not: Virginia, Maryland, Colorado, Wisconsin, Missouri and Connecticut. All swing states. But the media doesn't want to play up that narrative. Why can't she win Colorado? Why can't she win Missouri? Why can't she win North Carolina? Why can't she win any smaller states? Why does she have no organization? Why can't she win Missouri? Why does she have no money?

In the last polls taken in California, he would beat not only McCain but her in a head-to-head match-up.

TODAY's Bloomberg National Poll: Obama 46, McCain 40, undecided 9

Clinton 47, McCain 38, undecided 11

The margin of error's 3. So she beats McCain by 9 and Obama beats him by 6. Big whoop-dee-do. He's still winning and by far more than the margin of error. The notion that he can't win is a canard put forth by the Clinton campaign and her supporters because they're down to this last, desperate gasp. Notice we didn't hear this constant refrain of how he was "unelectable" even as late ago as 2 months. It started after he won the Potomac Primaries (with VA and MD), 11 straight contests and the huge swing state of Wisconsin. THEN they got scared.

Some other numbers to make you feel good, today's superdelegate haul: Obama 5, Clinton 0.

Relax. And for the last time here's the list of states Obama needs and will win. Some are tough, but even rabid Clinton supporters are down to arguing with me about basically 4 of them. That's it. I'm sure they'll try to pretend it's more now, but that's the highest number we ever disagreed on.

Oregon, Washington, California, Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado, North Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, Ohio, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Massachusetts, Virginia, Maryland, Delaware and Hawaii.

Relax, he'd win a GE.

Most Active Letters Threads

685

Obama's exceedingly familiar justifications for escalation

The "new" approach to Afghanistan touted by White House officials seems quite old
581

The commendably missing element from Obama's speech

There was no pretense that human rights is our goal, or the likely outcome, in escalating the war
543

The crazy, irrational beliefs of Muslims

Tom Friedman explains the real problem: stupid Muslims think the U.S. is about war and aggression.
440

The face of rotted Washington

Evan Bayh demands more debt-financed war - fought by others - while boasting that he's a stern "deficit hawk."
310

Yes, it's Obama's war now

An uninspiring speech sells a dubious policy, but progressives who feel betrayed have only themselves to blame

View all »

Letters Help

Currently in Salon