Letters to the Editor
kenkapkk
Published Letters: 131 Editor's Choice: 13
-
Re Joan again: Kenkapkk
[Read the article: How much can John Edwards help Barack Obama?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Joan,
Thanks for your time and availability to all who respond to you. Just a few thoughts after reading your archive posts and the more recent ones. I never said YOU were reiterating Republican talking points. I said Hillary Clinton was.
I am truly puzzled, as others are, and I think Carol R's and others posts kind of hit the mark around this acceptance of a narrative about "snobbery" or "elitism". You spent a lot of time in the posts you referenced about Pa and the working class and Obama's inability to "connect". You attribute her win to this factor. I live in Pennsylvania and realized a few things. One, Hillary won not exclusively because she "connects" but because she had the entire party apparatus behind her. Not only Rendell, but the *two Mayors* of the *two largest cities*. As Kos has pointed out sagely, in his opinion Mayors endorsements arethe most important (although Rendell's popularity and party influence can not be underestimated, he was a former Mayor) because they are the ones who are close enough to have hands on effect of the party machinary. Thus, Michael Nutter, the newly elected and popular Mayor of Philadelphia was a Clinton supporter, plus Obama refused to pay WAM money for the ward leaders in the city. His AA vote percentage in Philly due to these factors was 20% *lower* than what he had been averaging.
Also, in Pa 10% of the white electorate in exit polls said that race was a factor in their voting. Pa is part of Obama's "Rust belt-Appalachia problem". As I mentioned previously, the "bitter" comments came at a bad time, because in seeing his ad blitz here, he was clearly making headway.
But conversely, the Clinton's campaigned furiously in North Carolina and still lost by a greater margin than Obama did in Pa? Was that attributable to some deficiency in Clinton, or did the demographics and other factors just not match up for her in a similar fashion?
Furthermore, both Clinton AND Obama began to make a populist turn after Edwards departed and the economy began to become a more pressing issue. All of Obama's PA ads were aimed at that and were particularly effective originally. Remember her thrust in Ohio-Texas had as a focus a fear tactic
around "experience" and relied heavily on her past association with the Latino community. She still only won by three points in TX and lost the delegate race. The only reason it was perceived as a big victory for her was his supporters inflated expectations considering the near miracle of what he had achieved so far at that time.
I understand that a candidate might do anything to win. Like many Obama supporters, I was initially excited by the strength of two really good candidates. And nobody is completely clean. But my stomach began to turn in Ohio. When one adopts a "kitchen sink" strategy, the implied or explicit message is winning trumps principle and we will begin to go down the road of smear to do so. That's why the 60 minute interview was so troubling, as was the "elitist" charge, as was the back stabbing on Ayers in the debate to cite just three examples. These are tactics well beyond the pale.
In reading, listening to your archive posts, yes they are more balanced, but I was again troubled by allowing Clinton to use a double standard, (again because he is no more "elitist" than she is), and really signing off into some fantasy that she wasn't a serial lier about Bosnia, which was truly bizarre. Plus, I dd a search for Mark Penn and Colombia for you and there was nothing. (And she surreptitiously let him in the back door afterward). Your interest-focus on specifics is strange not only because it ignores the reality as others have pointed out but bears less often on an election than other intangibles. More on that later. So yes, there has been more balance than I had seen recently, but I still see a skewed landscape in which Clinton does not get the same scrutiny as Obama, and a certain narrative is bought into that I just don't think completely reflects reality. And one that as I pointed out she has unfortunately (or fortunately according to a savvy Republican strategist) fostered to the detriment of all.
Concerning your view of leftist elitism that never allowed a more "Democratic Socialism" to evolve here, I think you are simplifying a very complex process. In 1968, the two most progressive figures in the country were assassinated, one most certainly because of reactionary forces, the other possibly. How in the maelstrom of that convention could anything positive emerge? The 1972 election was influenced deeply by Nixon's illegal interference and crimes, not only in the Democratic primary process but in his prosecution of the war and the persecution of his enemies. His successful racist appeal to whites in the South was foretold by Johnson who said by advocating and passing Civil Rights legislation the Democrats would lose that region for a generation. Not to mention his demogueing on "Law and Order", playing on people's fears around the upheavals of the 60's.
The rise of Reagan is a whole other issue. As a folklorist and storyteller I'll share my perspective-later.
-
Jebldmm
[Read the article: Maps show Clinton better against McCain than Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Here's the other way to look at it.
Obama is at his nadir because he has been in a bruising primary campaign with one of the strongest opponents in recent Democratic history, an opponent who has resorted to much of the Republican game plan to counter him.
McCain is at his height, flying under the radar with virtually no scrutiny or wounding of his image. Yet he can't separate significantly.
When the GE starts and the hot lights turn on McCain's enormous contradictions, brutal policy decisions, and vapid personal style, it won't be pretty.
Initally Obama will need to adjust, but the Democratic tide and fury against the Repubs and Bush puts this at 300EV for Obama or higher with a congressional sweep.
Book it.