Letters to the Editor
Dubmanny
Published Letters: 63
-
Tha gas tax is regressive anyway -- shold be done away with or changed
[Read the article: Obama is wrong about the gas tax]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The poorer you are, they more it hurts you. Of course the wealthy educated libereals are sniffing at this idea. The few bucks means much less to them proportionately.
Due to this country's terrible public planning, the poor are now further away from their place of work, lured by the promise of of their own home in a far out exurb. The wealthy in our nation now reside in urban areas, not in suburbs. Suburbs are for the less wealthy, who are beholdent to their automobiles. Over the past 20 years cities have become home to the higher income residents. Europe is a bad example and does not have the sprawl phenomena or lack of public transportation services of the US.
According to the advertising information for Salon.com, most of us here are definitely not in the demographic that needs the 30 bucks the most (read: upscale, educated, urban, liberal). Nor do we live in areas where we need to drive to survive. It seems reflexive to me to just kill this idea with a wave of the hand. Just saying.
-
Not all roses for Barack Obama now, however
[Read the article: Night lands Clinton closer to oblivion]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]My friend brought up a interesting point: the more important way of looking at this though is that Obama hasn't WON. Not in the overwhelming way that we want the Democratic nominee to, to carry our hopes of a victory in the fall. That's the ugly truth of this primary battle.
The real story here -- the one everyone's missing cause all they can talk about is what will Hillary do -- is what does it mean that Obama hasn't been able to take hold of this party. Are people suggesting that the only way Obama could have taken hold of the party is if no one (Hillary) was running against him in the primary? That doesn't sound like a win in November to me.
No, I think that what this race has proven -- and quiet your whining and calls for the race to end, media; what else would you be doing if not covering this anyway? -- is that neither candidate is very compelling on his/her own. In order to win in the fall they both need each other. That's the way to victory.
-
@John McCall
[Read the article: Night lands Clinton closer to oblivion]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"I think it's quite the opposite. Both are strong candidates, and both are quite unique. We had the first woman and first African American to run for President. That's huge, and that's powerful.
Further, a record turnout refutes your point decisively."
Ok, I take your point, I wouldn't say that my point is refuted decisively.
Over the past several primaries, the % splits in demographics, ethnicity and polulation density per candidte have been consistent and unwavering. Clinton maintians the same % of white, working class and rural voters. Obama gains the same % of African American, affluent and educated. 90% of African Americans vote for Obama, 60% pf Whites for Clinton. Same splits every primary. I think, in fact the splits and percentages were identical in both Indiana and North Carolina meaning the biggest indicator of Obama's or Clinton's success now is the percenatge of African American Democrats in a given state. Neither candidate can efectively eat into each other's base and it is the demographics of a state that is the biggest determining factor. It is obvious that these candidates have strong and clear dividing lines and it goes beyond their performances in a given state.
Plus, when such large percentages of either candidate's supporters say they are not inclined vote for the other candidate in a general election, does that not suggest that neither Obama nor Clinton is able to cross over and attract voters from the other's base?
I think they have to be on the same ticket at the least.
-
@John McCall
[Read the article: Night lands Clinton closer to oblivion]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Thanks for the insightful post, Sir. You paint a hopeful picture for the general election.
And, it is interesting that you use so many boxing analogies with regard to Obama; "he clocked her..." "the gloves are off..." deadly with his punches," etc. It is precisely that aspect which is missing from Obama's campaign that gives many people such pause. And it is the very quality in Clinton that so many hardscrabble Americans relate to and admire. I don't know if you read Maurenn Dowd's article on Obama's awkwardness nd disconnect with working stiffs in Indiana. I have mixed feelings but it was, as ususal, a good read.
The rationalist in me knows that either Democrat -- heck, any Democrat-- would wipe the floor with McCain in a one-on-one. But, it would be nice to see something out of Obama, or his running mate that would bring old-school working class whites into the mix more (I'm an "ethnic" American so I say this without being self-serving). The fact that Clinton did so well with this segment as a Democrat is remarkable and, in it's own way, very forward. It would be nice to see Obama's base be about something other than racial demographics and the same old left-liberal vanguard (students, white eggheads, journalists, etc.). A lot can be learned from Clinton's approach in these primaries. If Obama is as smart as I'm always being told (and if he ultimately gets the nomination, which is still not yet in the bank), he could use these lessons to build a more inclusive Democratic candidacy.
But I do like your scenario and the optmimism that you exhibit. Power to you.