Letters to the Editor
mdlewis
Published Letters: 70 Editor's Choice: 5
-
Re: Brunnhilde
[Read the article: How the long primary battle helps Democrats]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Picking this up from a while back...
First, for the sake of clarity, let me say that I don't believe Clinton, at this point, is doing anything for good reasons. I think she is being highly selfish. I just happen to think her selfishness may actually be doing some good.
I will admit that in weeks like these, it would be nice if we could attack McCain. I'll say two things here. Firstly, we can trust that McCain will continue to say stupid things up to the election. (Particularly in debates where I think he'll be stomped.) Being ignored, though, can be just as problematic as saying something stupid. I remember in 2004, the Democrats got a surge of attention when Kerry won Iowa, while Bush was giving his State of the Union address. His speech was practically ignored as the media talked up Kerry's win. Stretch that over a couple months, and you have the conundrum for the McCain campaign.
There's probably some line where this vetting will become destructive. I'm not sure where this is. The worst case scenario for me would be at the convention. If Clinton pulls some stunt (ala last minute shenanigans of Kennedy and Reagan in the past), or just plain doesn't whole-heartedly endorse Obama (or at least fakes it really well as McCain has done with Bushie), we will definitely have a problem on our hands.
If Clinton keeps trying for the little gotcha issues, though, I don't see this hurting Obama. He's shown he can get knocked down and get back up again, as opposed to Kerry in the past, and Clinton will just continue to look foolish.
Clinton is a Democrat, but she's also... Hillary Clinton. Rightly or wrongly, she has taken on a reputation as the ultimate insider D.C. partisan. I think for a while she was able to poke holes in that by casting herself as intelligent and experienced. The policy wonk vs. the pretty boy. Going negative has only served to reinforce the worst stereotypes about her to the general populace. From the plagiarism thing to the SNL reference (booed at a debate? Hell I don't even think Ron Paul got booed at a debate) she is only further associating herself with everything that people disliked about her husband's administration. The more she tries to get her foot in the door on every gotcha issue, the more the public (and for that matter the Democratic establishment, as seen with Bill Richardson's endorsement and Pelosi's recent words) wants to slam the door on said foot. (Ever see Bush tackle Kerry on the Swift Boat issue? No, he let his supporters and the media hit him on it while appearing above it all. Honest? No, but if you insist on a "kitchen sink strategy, I'm going to assume honesty is not your preferred policy.)
Personally I agree that I would like Clinton out. I don't want to find out where this line is when all this coverage starts to work against us. (Plus negative stories get boring after a while.) Having said that, I don't want people to think she was forced out by an elite who wants this wrapped up neat and tidy. My highest of hopes? Gore endorses Obama. Edwards (who I actually wanted over Obama) follows suit, and actively campaigns for him with blue collar Democrats, effectively giving the speech that he was giving throughout his campaign. Likewise Richardson campaigns with immigrants in Philly and Pittsburgh. Talking up liberal and populist causes, Obama pulls an upset in Pennsylvania. Clinton drops out shortly after.
One can dream.
-
Agreed on Obama
[Read the article: How the long primary battle helps Democrats]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I've gone back and forth on Obama since he came on the scene in 2004. After Edwards dropped out, I was really pulling for Obama, because he wasn't Clinton. His speech on race moved me firmly into his camp, and I hope Edwards has been listening closely. Obama has really picked up Edwards' narrative and folded it into his own, something Clinton has not been nearly effective at doing. (Which is odd considering the economy is supposed to be her strong suit.)
-
Re: JSumm
[Read the article: Time columnist: Gore-Obama in '08?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]No worries, mate. We got a ways to go before the election. Obama has slipped a bit due to the vetting by Clinton, (See previous posts for my thoughts on that.) but when people realize that it's John Freaking McCain, those votes will start to turn around.
Actually there's quite a bit of good news in this poll. If things stay constant (big if, naturally) a Democrat could win Virginia for the first time since 1964. Iowa is in the Democratic camp, too. As of February Obama was within one point of McCain in Texas!
Take it all with a big grain of salt, but I think Obama's stellar campaign organization will win back some of the states that are on the fence and make some key gains in states that have long been thought to be Republican strongholds. (Seriously... North Dakota?! I know, small state, but every gain counts.)
Sorry if no one else wants to analyze this any further (particularly after I said it doesn't mean much), but any clues what's going on in Massachussetts. There's some odd gaffes in our northeastern block that I think might be worth analyzing. New Jersey, I get, as there are some fairly rural, Republican areas that can balance out the solid Democrat urban areas. New Hampshire loves McCain so I see where that's going on. But Mass.? Endorsements from Patrick, Kennedy, Kerry, solid progressive reputation, and yet polls are decidely mixed. What's the deal? I know Boston has had some racism issues in the past, but is that enough to turn the state? Anyone with some Mass. history have some ideas?
And before the Clinton folks start beating me upside the head with talking points, please note that Obama is set to take Clinton's state of New York by anywhere between 8 and 13 points.)