Letters to the Editor
Published Letters: 384 Editor's Choice: 5
-
It's over. Please, understand the math.
[Read the article: Some free advice for Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This thing is OVER. Strange how the meme is that Obama supporters "drink the Kool-aid", and yet it's Clinton-leaning folk who can't seem to grasp the mathematical reality of the situation. Let's spell it out.
Start with Newsweek's Jonathan Alter: "Hillary Clinton won big victories Tuesday night in Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island. But she's now even further behind in the race for the Democratic nomination. How could that be? Math. It's relentless." (http://www.newsweek.com/id/119010)
If you still think Clinton has a shot for some reason after reading Alter's article, move to this dKos diary: "[T]he way this is discussed in the media narrative does not fully educate the audience how daunting the math is for Hillary Clinton. Chuck Todd is clearly the best at articulating all of this, and I am convinced he understands these numbers in detail. However, even Todd has not been terribly aggressive in stressing the difference between needing 62% or 65% of the remaining delegates and the voting margins required to make that happen." (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/4/162042/3056)
If, after that, you're still unconvinced, you're a hard nut to crack. Nevertheless, look at the UAD (unpledged add-on delegate) situation (http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/convention-math-remember-the-u.php): "So add this to the long (and lengthening) list of reasons why the numbers just don't add up for a Clinton nomination. And every time you see a tally of the 794 superdelegates, look closely to see how it treats the 76 UADs."
Then, perhaps, one should note that Obama picked up four delegates from Clinton in California on Tuesday, meaning an 8 delegate swing in Sen. Obama's favor.(http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/6/18441/19312/64/470801)
That, of course, doubles Sen. Clinton's take from her theoretical "comeback" victory on March 4, when she pulled only 4 delegates (thanks to Obama's caucus victory in TX): http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=87961802)
If you're still not convinced after all that, then I refer you to Slate's Delegate Calculator. (http://www.slate.com/features/delegatecounter/) Please spin me any situation that makes any degree of sense involving a Clinton victory.
I'm sorry if I seem abrupt, but all the idiotic coverage, in full defiance of the reality of the situation, has grown really tiresome. The failure of most of the MSM to report the reality of the Democratic race smacks of either intellectual dishonesty, or -- sadly, more likely -- a pitiful comprehension of math. Either way, it's over. Add MI and FL back in, it's still over by a long shot. Add 5 more states to the union if you so desire, IT'S OVER.
Feel free to continue supporting Sen. Clinton -- given the usual tenor of conversation around here, I don't believe for a second this post will change your mind -- but at least recognize the mathematical situation. Otherwise, you're indulging in "false hopes," and Hillary has reminded us several times over how pernicious those can be.
As for Conason, well, it's hard to take him seriously anymore. When I worked for the Clinton machine, during l'affaire Lewinsky, he's a guy who'd run most everything before our outfit first. This article reeks of more of the same, and I'll be phoning him in the next few days to call him on it.
-
Luckycat.
[Read the article: Some free advice for Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The controversy is about her tax returns for the past 7 years (since 2000.) Presumably, 6 of those 7 are filed.
-
ljwalker.
[Read the article: Some free advice for Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]TURN OFF YOUR BOLD. Your case isn't any stronger for being written in darker ink.
And, apparently, you didn't read the very first link I offered, of many. There's not a single superdelegate who will overturn the pledged delegate leader, as Alter reports. And why would they? Every poll has Obama doing better against McCain than Clinton would. Again, it's over.
-
Also, ljwalker...
[Read the article: Some free advice for Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"However, many states that held primaries and caucuses have yet to hold their state conventions, where these 'pledged delegate' totals will shift between candidates even before we arrive in Denver."
So, you're suggesting the Clinton campaign should try to steal delegates at the state conventions? Well, to borrow a line from Sen. Clinton: Shame on you. Really, if that's what you're putting your hope in, find a new hobby. (That being said, as the UAD link I posted recognized, Sen. Obama's campaign has already prepared for that contingency.)
See my earlier post. It's over. And, none too soon, if that's the type of thing you're resorting to.
-
I hear ya, fauntleroy.
[Read the article: Some free advice for Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]But the perceptions are all among we political junkies, who'll spend a Friday night posting on Salon. Obama has already won the Dem nomination, and he'll do swimmingly against McCain/Bush/Cheney in November.
If you disagree with my first premise, scroll down. If you disagree with my second...well, that's what the general election is all about, right? :)
-
And, fauntleroy.
[Read the article: Some free advice for Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I won't defend AKA Smith. That guy/gal's a joker of already ill repute. But ljwalker has been an honest broker on these boards throughout the primaries thus far. I expect she'll disagree with what I've recently posted, and our posts may even overlap, but I really don't think she's operating from bad intentions. She's just down with Clinton. So be it, it's not a bad thing. I just fundamentally disagree.