Letters to the Editor
Mike LeP
Published Letters: 399 Editor's Choice: 6
-
@damnthatxanadu - one more time
[Read the article: Fact-checking Clinton's RFK comment]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]So 238,168 votes for "uncommitted" don't count?
According to Hillary Clinton they don't, since she and her campaign don't count any of those votes for Obama when they claim a lead in the popular vote.
Ummmm...is there some other democrat STILL running for the nomination that we don't know about:
"Supporters of Joe Biden, John Edwards, Barack Obama and Bill Richardson are urged to vote “uncommitted”..." from the Voting guide for Michigan.
Joe Biden, John Edwards, and Bill Richardson are somehow STILL running? Wow. Very interesting.
And this constitutes a political campaign? A voting guide that suggests non-supporters of Hillary can vote "uncommitted"?
Michigan is the 8th most populous state, but for some reason more raw votes were cast in the democratic primaries in Tennessee (16), Missouri (17), Virginia (12) and many other states with much smaller populations.
I have a radical theory to explain this. Do you think maybe, just maybe, turnout was so low in Michigan because voters knew ahead of time their delegates would not be seated? And perhaps this disproprtionately hurt Obama since, unlike Clinton, his name wasn't even on the ballot?
Crazy, I know!
You know, Obama had an opportunity to correct that if he had wanted with a revote. He did not. Why? Because he was afraid of losing. So, you can keep your "shitsandwich" for all the other Obama believers who think's he can win the national WITHOUT that state and Florida.
Since when is Obama in charge of Michigan? The state opted not to revote because of the expense and time. The Michigan Democratic Party did offer a compromise - 69 delegates for Hillary versus 59 for Obama. But the Hillary campaign shot that idea down, because her campaign is entirely sustained by the delusion that Hillary supporters in MI/FL were somehow unfairly punished by rules that Hillary herself agreed to.
Crybaby. ;)
-
More bulldung from Karen
[Read the article: Fact-checking Clinton's RFK comment]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]So Obama gets 59 delegates? Why? Those "Uncommitted" voters weren't just for him. Biden, Edwards, Richardson also told their supporters to vote for "Uncommitted."
Because he and Hillary are neck and neck in Michigan according to the polls, so a 69-59 split is better than Hillary could possibly hope to do in a true primary? For all you know a percentage voters in Michigan voted for "Hillary" since she was the only viable candidate with a name on the ballot.
And please stop quoting polls to me. Polls are media ploys to create a "Bandwagon Effect." The only poll that counts is the one on election day.
You sound like Hillary arguing that economists are a bunch of pencil-necked ivory tower geeks. How do you guys feel about doctors?
But if they do give him 59 delegates that he didn't win, then I would say that his "Uncommitted" plan worked.
Yes, extremely devious of Obama to withdraw his name, thereby opening the door for Hillary to claim 350,000 votes to his zero.
Rube.
-
@damnthatxanadu - one more time
[Read the article: Fact-checking Clinton's RFK comment]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Why should Obama cede 18 delegates to Hillary in a state he'd have likely won?
Karen, I'm not aware of Rep. Conyers' role in the Obama campaign, but I give him credit: He anticipated Hillary's depthless Clintonian narcissism and lack of principles and counted on her to try to steal delegates after the fact.
Smart man.
-
Karen
[Read the article: Fact-checking Clinton's RFK comment]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]See, Obama doesn't have enough experience with the poltiical process to be President yet.
If by "experience" you mean soul-corrupting decades in Washington that reduce a once idealistic and well-meaning politician into the kind of craven panderer who not only endorses the AUMF against Iraq but follows that monumentally awful vote up with another vote to label Iran a terrorist state ...
... then you're right. Obama really lacks that kind of "experience." Unfortunately, Sen. Clinton and her husband have that kind of experience in spades. ;)
I'll take my chances with Obama's supposed naivete.
-
I'm shocked - SHOCKED! - that Joan has no problem with Hillary's remarks ...
[Read the article: A new low in Clinton bashing]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Right off the bat Joan starts in with the excuses:
The world is divided between people who consider Bill and Hillary Clinton monsters, and people who don't. It used to be that the monster faction was limited to Republicans and certain mainstream media fixtures like Maureen Dowd and much of the MSNBC lineup. Now, increasingly, it involves too many Obama-supporting Democrats -- and the Clinton-hate is in danger of damaging the Democratic Party.
You know what? I'll admit it. I came into this race with a general regard for Bill and no particular feelings one way or another about Hillary Clinton. Now they both make me sick. Instead of writing this off as Clinton-hate - which sounds a lot like W supporters who dismiss all criticism of the President as "Bush derangement syndrome" - you might want to explore why so many Democrats can no longer stand Hillary. Maybe, just maybe, it has something to do with the disingenuous and craven way she's run her campaign.
Let me guess Joan, it's all because Obama supporters hate women, right?
But to argue that she was suggesting she's staying in the race because Obama might be assassinated -- even after both Clinton, and the journalists who interviewed her, said her reference was to RFK's June campaign, not to his heartbreaking murder -- requires either a special kind of paranoia or venal political opportunism.
I understand the fears many people have about Obama's safety; given our country's tragic history, they are real and understandable. Suggesting Clinton was trying to play on such fears is different.
Is it really so different? The entire subtext of her recent campaign has been, "Sure, maybe this guy will win the nomination but we all know a black man is unelectable in the fall." That is the basis of her campaign. The kind of person who makes these kind of bald racial appeals is capable of just about anything.
Throughout this long campaign the Clintons have been turned into a vile caricature: amoral, power-mad narcissists who are not beyond using racism and even worries about Obama's safety to press their political cause.
And they have repeatedly lived down to that reputation.
Blah blah blah. You are so completely blinded by identity politics that your "commentary" is nothing more than Clinton propaganda.