Letters to the Editor
Mike LeP
Published Letters: 376 Editor's Choice: 6
-
Riconap
[Read the article: She's in it to spin it]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]1) After the entire process is completed, Hillary will have had more people actually voting for her than Barry.
So what? We're supposed to give Hillary the nomination because rust belt and Appalachian states ended up voting after the Midwest and South?
2) There was never an "agreement" officially signed by any candidate that stated the "votes" in Florida and Michigan would not be counted. There was also no agreement to exclude these states for violating the DNC Primary calendar. That is purely an administrative position taken by the DNC. The ONLY signed agreement was that there would be "no campaigning" in these two States, a point violated by Barry who ran interstate political commercials which aired in Florida. As far as Michigan is concerned; BARRY WAS NOT FORCED BUT RATHER "CHOSE" TO REMOVE HIS NAME AS AN INSURANCE POLICY AGAINST A PROBABLE THRASHING.
The DNC ruled that FL and MI delegates would not be seated and the candidates signed a pledge agreeing not to campaign in those states. There is a long public record of Hillary acknowledging this fact, back when she thought she'd have the nomination wrapped up by Super Tuesday. I'm not opposed at all to some kind of equitable solution, but seating delegates in MI/FL in proportion to the vote in January is simply not fair. Hillary knows it, you know it, I know it, so please stop playing make believe and get real. Far as Barry's probably thrashing, he actually leads Clinton by 5-10% in Michigan polls which is why Hillary never wanted a revote or a 69-59 delegate split in her favor; she wants delegates and 350K raw votes versus zero for Obama. Then she has the gall to say this is in the name of democracy, and rubes like you apparently swallow that shit sandwich.
3) There is not and never has been either a rule, by-law, regulation or precedent that concedes the Primary victory to the individual who has the highest number of Pledged Delegates but is short of the mandatory required count for a declaration of "nominee." There is likewise no such prescription which suggests that Super Delegates must or even should, cast their votes based on any set of contingencies other than "personal choice."
True, but anyone who thinks a candidate (Hillary) with negatives hovering around 50% can "win" the nomination without a lead in the popular vote or delegates AND beat McCain in the general election is nuts. Part of the decision does have to be electability, and Hillary's lone path to the nomination ensures her defeat in the fall.
4) If Barry is the candidate, he will lose more Democratic and Independent voter support than Hillary would if she prevailed.
Hillary has almost no independent support so that's no huge loss. Non-partisans know she's one of those creatures from the V miniseries. Far as Dems defecting ... if Democrats who support Hillary are really going to stay at home because their nominee lost fair-and-square, I say fuck em. You really think the party is supposed to buckle because you throw a little temper tantrum?
5) I refer to Obama as "Barry" because if he is the candidate we shall see a "TRANSFORMATION" (one of his favorite terms) from "African American" to "Bi- Racial", all as part of his effort to garner white blue collar and female votes.
You mean he'll try to appeal to voters of all genders and races? That bastard!
Junior, nobody really cares what you do. Take your vote and go home.
-
The gas tax holiday (HP)
[Read the article: She's in it to spin it]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I still think the gas tax holiday pander was a huge gift to Obama. It pushed the Rev. Wright scandal out of the news and highlighted Hill's biggest negative: The belief that she is a pure pandering liar who will say or do anything for votes. Just when I thought the Hillary campaign was getting smart they go and throw Obama another lifeline. Her campaign has been a comedy of errors...
-
@ Manyctnj
[Read the article: She's in it to spin it]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Why is it "spin" to say, if it's true, that she's received more votes than he has? As long as she says (or someone says --and there is no shortgage of "someones" out there checking her math), this is what I'm including, this is what I'm not including when I count?
It's spin because 1) it's a bald-faced lie and 2) I've read at least a dozen quotes from members of her campaign and from Hillary herself, claiming that she has the popular vote lead. And not once have these people qualified that by explaining their math includes Michigan - giving Hillary about 350,000 votes versus ZERO for Obama (since he wasn't on the ballot).
To call that "spin" is kind. It's demonstrably false.
If there's a need for anger about the nomination remaining undecided (Obama supporters feel the need to be angry about this, as if they'll crap in their diapers if they have to wait another couple of weeks), why isn't the anger directed at the superdelegates who haven't made their choice clear yet?
I'm not angry at Hillary for continuing her candidacy through the remaining contests or at superdelegates who want to be as thorough and fair as possible. I am angry at Hillary constantly moving the goalposts and outright lying about her prospects, and I'm angry at her supporters acting like they actually believe this tripe. Really, I'm mad that the Clintons are trying to steal the nomination and so-called Democrats really don't care.
-
PLEDGED delegates votes are not set in stone
[Read the article: She's in it to spin it]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If that's true, why spend tens of millions of dollars campaigning and months of caucuses and primaries, just to have the delegates decide whoever they think is more electable? I think voters in every state of the union would be mighty surprised to learn their vote doesn't matter at all.