Letters to the Editor
Rocky57
Published Letters: 213 Editor's Choice: 4
-
Obama & HIllary on the Same Ticket?
[Read the article: Night lands Clinton closer to oblivion]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Politically, it makes sense; practically speaking, it won't work.
Obama, if he were to finally secure the nomination and win the presidency, would have to be constantly looking over his shoulder to see what Bill was up to [and that's if he were even able to neutralise Hillary in that VP straitjacket J. Nance Garner so piquantly reviled.
-
@yojimbo
[Read the article: Night lands Clinton closer to oblivion]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"...And while I appreciate and understand Sen. Clinton's fighting spirit, I get a sense of entitlement despite her being a historic candidate. Her campaign hasn't portrayed her well although the right wing media gets a major assist...."
The irony of it all is that if she had listened to the better angels of her nature, instead of Lil Red Hot perched on her other shoulder and gone with Geoff Garin, to begin with, instead of the incredibly mean-spirited arrogant campaign trope manufactured by Mark Penn, she probably would have won despite what I consider to be one huge stinking albatross around her campaign's neck: her war authorisation vote.
Just think: if she gone with the idealistic nature shown off at Wellesley's commencement all those years ago, plus used her commonsense in regarding George Bush, she would have voted against the War Authorisation act, like 23 of her senate colleages and probably cake-walked to the nomination, "fierce urgency of now," or no.
If she had ignored the snuffling of the Ray Harding like Mark Penn, even having voted for the war, she may have beaten Obama. Can anyone deny that the candidate who emerged after Garin took over pushed Barack to the Wall and was the more energised--and energising--candidate?
Alas, she didn't and has all but strangled her candidacy. Death by triangulation.
-
August
[Read the article: Night lands Clinton closer to oblivion]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"...I see her standing strong until August. Any student of history knows strange things happen at party conventions and there are months and months left in this process. Things are too close to justify Senator Clinton meekly rolling over now no matter how many talking heads demand it"
The problem is, Bohica, that modern-day parties that nominate their candidates at their conventions rarely, if ever, win.
The Party pooh-bahs and super-delegates know this and will be putting intense pressure on Clinton to get out of the race. Couple that with the meagre campaign resources available to Clinton even before N.C.'s double digit loss and Indiana's squeaker and that pressure will only increase.
If I were Obama and I saw that her actions going into W. Virginia and Kentucky, and beyond, belied the gtacefully elegiac undertone of her speech, last night, I'd Ronald Reagan her in those two primaries and spend her into oblivion.
Drive that stake through her heart, once and for all.
-
@Hutman
[Read the article: Night lands Clinton closer to oblivion]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"I agree with this. I think she second-guessed her better instincts. The same mistake Al Gore made."
Right!
-
RphillipstoMLepay
[Read the article: How Hillary Clinton botched the black vote]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Hillary Clinton not only courted the black vote in 2007, she pandered to it, as did John Edwards. Neither of them used their campaigns to to criticize Barack Obama and his record and plans, in part because they wre so "sensitive" to the black community...."
But then when she lost Iowa to Obama, she panicked. The odious Mark Penn probably said, "look, ya gotta remind people he's black, not jesus-walking-on-freakin' water" So, in white New Hampshire they trotted out Shaheen, Johnson, Rangel and Penn himself to parrot the "drugs-in-the-neighbohood," "drug selling" lines. After that fiasco failed to pan gold and when they took a look at the numbers coming out of S.C. showing a shift of black voters to Obama [of whom Hillary had had a significant portion going into S.C., by the way] they further panicked and tried to patronisingly "inform" black voters that the guy couldn't get elected to do all the things needed to vanquish the evil Republicans and set the world right. That at such a crucial time [for blacks as well as the Party to which they had invested so much] a vote for him would be the equivalent of a vote for Jesse Jackson, a "black" candidate who couldn't get within a flying snot's distance of the Presidency in '84, in a country even more conservative than it was a quarter of a century ago. Blacks, predictably, didn't take kindly to the civics lesson.
That was the beginning of the end for Hillary's campaign. And, probably, her and Bill's legacy with the black community. And, this is before the "I guess he's christian," "he's all talk" and "all-martin luther king-did-was-risk-his-life-to-nudge- johnson-to-finally-get off his duff-but-that-wuz-nothing compared-to-johnson's-[finally] passing-the-legislation" rancid tropes.
Anyone who refuses to even contemplate the above scenario as a reason for Clinton's current campaign predicament and, specifically, her getting slumgullioned vis a vis the African-American vote reminds me of the idiots I ran into over at one of the tennis sites I frequented several years ago who, despite the best efforts of african-american and other fair-minded correspondents to employ reason, the powers of observation and common sense, blamed the Williams Sisters, two other strangers-in-a-strange-land, for the brutish treatment they received at Indian Wells, in 2001 and elsewhere in the tennis community. Their capacity--and the capacity of their salon counterparts--for denial seemingly had and has no limits.
But, what else is new?