Letters to the Editor
Mike LeP
Published Letters: 326 Editor's Choice: 6
-
How dare he??? @#$%#$%&^%
[Read the article: Obama aide predicts final victory after primaries]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]How dare Obama claim he'll have won the nomination after securing a pre-determined number of delegates? Hillary may appear to be down but she's really like Joe Montana, about to hit a grand slam touchdown in the 13th and final round! Obama's reliance on so-called "math" is a slap in the face to Hillary and all her supporters. In fact, it's more like he married her, then cheated on her, then punched her in the nose, and while she was lying there unconscious he took a crap on her face. THAT is how insulting this is! I'm so outraged that I'll vote for John McCain, whose stated policies are the polar opposite of the stated policies of the candidate I claim to endorse!
@!$$%&$%^&
-
Obama has the right idea
[Read the article: Fact-checking Clinton's RFK comment]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]He should continue to focus on John McCain and the general election, and ignore these outbursts by Hillary and her husband. The Clinton campaign is going to implode all by itself, there's no sense in being associated with their mess.
At best, Hillary is incredibly tone deaf and tempermentally unfit to be president. She makes that point better than Obama ever could.
-
@Karen22
[Read the article: Fact-checking Clinton's RFK comment]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]And I don't understand why Hillary even thinks she has to justify staying in the race.
Speaking as an Obama supporter, I have zero problem with Hillary staying in the race through the remaining contests. What bothers me is that her campaign keeps moving the goalposts with regard to MI/FL and the number of delegates it takes to win. For example, the extremely disingenuous claim that Clinton leads in the popular vote, which is true only if you give her 350,000 votes in Michigan versus zero for Obama.
This signals to me that Hillary won't back out of the race even if Obama does reach 2,026 delegates. Instead, she plans to press her case right up to the convention and initiate legal action, even if Obama wins the nomination according to the rules set down by the DNC at the beginning of the campaign.
So I'm not bothered by Hillary continuing to run. I'm bothered by her campaign's transparent attempt to theft the nomination. And I hope this is just bluffing to keep supporters on her sinking ship.
-
@ Karen, once again ...
[Read the article: Fact-checking Clinton's RFK comment]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]... the point I'm trying to make is that I have no problem with Hillary's continued campaign. What scares me is her seeming willingness to make unhinged arguments about her claim to the nomination; for example, her campaign claiming that Hillary leads in the popular vote (which she clearly does not).
If Obama reaches 2,026 delegates, Hillary could claim that Florida / Michigan voters were disenfranchised or press the case up to the convention. But to what end? At this point, having lost a majority of the pledged delegates to Obama, there's no fair or ethical way she can win the nomination.
I guess some people are wondering, at this stage of the game, what's the point?
-
Karen
[Read the article: Fact-checking Clinton's RFK comment]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Neither candidate is going to reach 2,026 without superdelegates, who technically aren't committed until the convention. But when one candidate has an insurmountable lead in pledged delegates and at least the public support of more than enough supers to clinch the nomination, I think it's fair to wonder what the other candidate stands to gain from taking the fight all the way to the convention. At some point, a responsible candidate should weigh his or her slim and rapidly shrinking chance at securing the nomination against the potential damage to his or her party. We're nearing that point.
-
@damnthatxanadu
[Read the article: Fact-checking Clinton's RFK comment]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You do realize that vote count includes 350,000 votes for Hillary versus ZERO for Obama, right?
-
Give me a break
[Read the article: Fact-checking Clinton's RFK comment]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Obama voluntarily took his name off the Michigan ballot and told his supporters to vote for "Uncommitted." So did Edwards, Richardson and Biden. That's not Hillary's fault. Are we all supposed to pretend that over 300,000 people didn't vote for her in Michigan? Get real.
I can't believe you're really this stupid.
Obama and Hillary are dead even in Michigan polls. There is no way Hillary would beat him in a true primary to the tune of 55-40, which is how she ran against "Uncommitted" back in January. How does giving Hillary 350,000 raw votes and a handful of delegates in any way reflect the will of the voters? You're trying to tell me that giving her all the delegates and votes in the state versus zero for Obama is "fair"?
The Michigan Democratic Party agreed to give Hillary 69 delegates vs. 59 for Obama. This seems more than fair, since Hillary would net 10 delegates in a state she probably would not even win. Her campaign shot it down though, because Hillary isn't interested in solutions. Hillary is interested in perpetuating the idea that she was cheated according to rules she originally agreed to.
Apparently some folks like you are so stupid or blinded by identity politics that you're willing patsies to this farce.
I hope they actually do seat the MI/FL delegates according to the January vote. Obama would beat her on superdelegates anyway, and it would rob Hillary supporters of their shameless self-pity and persecution complex.
-
@damnthatxanadu
[Read the article: Fact-checking Clinton's RFK comment]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]How funny it is that all of those people thought they were voting for Obama and really now that it's not convenient for Obama, their vote means less than zero.
And if it counts for zero, Obama made damn sure of that didn't he?
I see you've conveniently sidestepped my point:
Hillary repeatedly claims to lead in the popular vote, but she only leads if you count 350,000 votes for Hillary in Michigan versus ZERO for Obama. Then she has the nerve to couch this farce in an argument for every vote to count, and rubes like you are actually gullible to swallow that shit sandwich.