Letters to the Editor
Mike LeP
Published Letters: 399 Editor's Choice: 6
-
@KStone
[Read the article: Obama: General election begins after Tuesday]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Of course it's fair. That you wouldn't like it is besides the point. The SDs can vote how they want and for whatever reason they want and, although it's unlikley, if Mich and FL gets decided how you posit so be it.
I'm not really talking about the superdelegates. I'm mainly asking if you believe it'd be fair to give Hillary the 50+ delegates she won according to the January vote versus zero for Obama. That's the solution Hillary is proposed, under the guise of making sure that "every vote" counts (except for votes that were cast for undecided, or the voters who believed their delegates wouldn't be seated and therefore stayed home).
-
Conservatives see messages in Dunkin Donuts ads
[Read the article: Conservatives see bias in McClellan coverage]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Does anybody think this perceived "bias" is anything but a dodge?
-
damnthatxanadu
[Read the article: A new low in Clinton bashing]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]All your whining is moot.
The Democratic party established the nominating rules, and according to those rules Obama is on the verge of clinching. If the rules had been different, the candidates would have adopted entirely different tactics. But this is a primary, not an alternative reality episode of the Twilight Zone.
Just be glad the party isn't holding a winner-take-all primary today, since Obama leads Hillary by double-digits in national polls and he's leading her in several states she won.
-
You can throw those polls out of the window
[Read the article: Top Dem pollster: Obama has "path to victory"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Comparing Obama to Hillary so far as their performance against McCain is ridiculous, because whereas Obama has all-but-clinched the nomination (and stands to gain a 5%+ bounce in polls once he does), Hillary's only path to the nomination would be unethical and illegitimate. You're comparing Obama to Hillary. What you should be comparing is:
1. Obama, after he wins the nomination fair-and-square.
2. Hillary, if she wins the nomination by convincing the DNC to seat MI/FL delegates according to an illegitimate vote and/or takes her case to the Dem convention.
Does anyone really think Clinton can win the general election after stealing the nomination?
The point is moot. Obama won, and the time for second guessing and buyer's remorse is long gone. The man has won a majority of votes, states, delegates and superdelegates, he's beating Hillary by double-digits in national polls of democrats, and without even winning the ticket he's running competitively against John McCain.
What else does he have to prove?
-
Misconception
[Read the article: Will Obama's "new kind of politics" involve new policy ideas?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Some other posters (and to his credit, Justin) have hit on a misconception about Obama's "change" meme. It's not about wildly new policy ideas. It's about a sense of decency in the dialogue in Washington and a commander in chief who's not wed to the same old boomer arguments we've been rehashing for 30+ years now.
-
Florida and Michigan
[Read the article: The fight over Florida and Michigan]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]My take:
The January vote was illegitimate, in that FL/MI voters believed their delegates wouldn't count and many of them stayed home. Look at the voter turnout: About 600,000 total votes were counted in Michigan - that's lower than the vote total in Virginia, Missouri, and several other less populous states. Turnout was depressed. Had there been an actual, legitimate vote there is no reason to believe the outcome would have been the same.
Of the two states, counting delegates from Florida would be most fair because at least Obama's name was on the ballot. The real problem is finding a compromise in Michigan. The state Democratic Party offered a 69-59 delegate split for Hillary in the state. This seems more than fair, since polls show the two candidates in a dead heat and there's no way Hillary would net 10 delegates in a valid MI election. But Hillary's campaign insists she take all the delegates she "won" in January and Obama wins nothing (since his name wasn't on the ballot). Her campaign has repeatedly claimed a lead in the popular vote, but Hillary only leads if you count her 350,000 votes in Michigan versus for Obama.
A six-year-old could tell you this is not fair, but Hillary pushes this assinine argument because it's the only way she can win.
Really, the DNC should stick to its original plan and refuse to seat any delegates from the state. It was a bad idea from the beginning, but changing the rules midstream to benefit one candidate is no more fair than discounting the states entirely. Despite all the feigned outrage from Team Hillary, I don't believe voters in FL/MI really feel disenfranchised. At least, I were an Obama supporter in Michigan who either didn't vote or voted for "uncommitted," I'd feel more disenfrancised if my vote didn't count on a technicality.
Barring that, the delegates should be seated in proportion to the January vote and all "uncommitted" voters should go to Obama. That still gives Hillary a near 15% advantage in a state she never rightfully won.
My guess? Most uncommitted delegates from Michigan are awarded to Obama, and despite making out like a bandit Hillary swears she's being screwed and uses that as an excuse to take the fight to the convention. The Clintons have no integrity or class whatsoever.
My two cents.
-
Why is it different for Hillary Clinton?
[Read the article: Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi working to end race]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Hillary Clinton does have every right to take her candidacy to the convention. The reason the DNC is getting nervous is that Hillary and her husband have signalled that they have no intention of ever quitting. Given their scorched earth campaign, insistence that they are winning the race according to bizarre interpretations of the math, and comparing this year's Dem primary to the 2000 presidential election, is it any wonder the party leaders are in a hurry to end the race? The Clintons are absolutely unhinged and seem willing to sabotage the party and Obama's candidacy if they don't get their way.