Letters to the Editor
Number Six
Published Letters: 127 Editor's Choice: 2
-
Big State nonsense
[Read the article: No, Hillary Clinton shouldn't be winning]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I scan through the letters here a little, and see that there are STILL people trying to prop up this big state lie. Even though the article deals with this nonsense. Even though this whole notion is totally without merit.
Why are people still bringing up this big state lie? I am so tired of hearing it, because it is the biggest bunch of dingo kidneys.
Again, I should say, anyone who actually thinks that Obama cannot win the big blue states, California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, et al, simply because Clinton won them in the primary, is a complete and total idiot. In the same way that if Hillary was the nominee she will win Illinois, Wisconsin, and Connecticut.
Those states will always vote Democrat. Everyone knows it. You could put a half eaten ham sandwich on the ballot and it'd still beat any Republican in the country in those states.
And if you actually still spout that foolishness about the big state lie, then you have to also accept that it also means Clinton can't win either, because she didn't win enough of them either get to to 270.
-
Remember...
[Read the article: Spare votes?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]A Clinton win of under ten points in PA, which is what all signs point to right now, won't change even the slightest bit the outcome of the primary, which is Obama is the Democratic nominee.
Remember- all he has to do is keep it under fifteen points. No matter what the Clinton campaign says from now till the 22nd. I'm sick and tired of the Clinton campaign's ever moving goalposts. She has to win by fifteen or more, period, end of story. Just like everyone has been saying for weeks, and no poll can change that reality. If she doesn't, she lost.
-
Sorry WES
[Read the article: Spare votes?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It's pretty much over. Has been for a couple of months now. If she wins PA by 15 points, she may be able to get back in it. But it seems that's not gonna happen.
The question now is when she is finally done, are you going to start sniping for McCain or Obama?
-
That's odd, WES
[Read the article: Spare votes?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I would have thought Democrats would not be struggling over whether to support their party's candidate so much.
-
@ Rose
[Read the article: Spare votes?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Does water still go down the drain counter-clockwise in this parallel universe you write from?
-
@WES
[Read the article: Spare votes?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Damn, that sounds like some real sour grapes there. I'm sure they'll come around. If they don't, then they get exactly what they deserve.
-
@WES
[Read the article: Spare votes?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You can try that. Although I think Clinton has treated the Senate as a stepping stone to the Presidency, so I don't know how much she would want that if it means she will never be President.
If it really is an issue of gender, you might want to point out just how sexist an approach that is. If that doesn't work, then point out the plethora of very impressive female politicians across the nation who could run for President in the near future.
-
@Wallman
[Read the article: Spare votes?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]When you attest that Obama cannot win because of the electoral map, you are wrong. I actually don't know where you get this from.
Here's a link to a sight that actually has drawn up the map based on polls, and is updated daily.
First, Obama vs. McCain:
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Maps/Apr11.html
Now Clinton vs. McCain:
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clinton/Maps/Apr11.html
As you can see, Clinton actually does worse than Obama. She is ahead in both Florida and Ohio, and McCain still has enough to win the Presidency. You can argue that Clinton won't end up losing Michigan, but if you do you have to also admit she probably won't win Florida, so she still loses.
Obama, on the other hand, fares much better. He is not going to lose Wisconsin or Michigan, and I really doubt New Hampshire, as this has it right now, and with that he doesn't need both Ohio and Florida, and he may not need either of them. He has a stronger base of states than Clinton does, and he is competitive in far more places that Clinton is. He's competitive in Texas, fer crissakes. He won't win Texas, fine, but he clearly has the better electoral chances.
-
@WES
[Read the article: About that flag-pin question]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Just out of curiosity, if Obama 'hanging out' with a member of the weather underground is bad, what is it that Clinton's husband pardoned a weather underground member and commuted the sentence of another? Is that treason?
-
Well, I may have paraphrased what Obama said the other night,
[Read the article: About that flag-pin question]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]But just like Clinton, you avoided the question.
-
'Buckwhaeat', WES?
[Read the article: Dean looking for superdelegates to decide "now"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I enjoy snarky, sometimes crude humor, more than most people do, even, but Buckwheat? Really? You want to go there? I really don't want to think you made such a negatively race tinged description of Obama, I really do, but its really hard with that comment. I hope you mean to take it back.
I'm really starting to worry about Clinton supporters on the internet, here and elsewhere. I think the strain of trying to defend Clinton's indefensible campaign, or trying to parrot her campaign's increasingly absurd talking points with any sincerity is starting to take a toll on their brains. The stress cannot be good. The last thing we need is a massive wave of people stroking out at their keyboards trying to make hay about flag pins.
-
Oh Please
[Read the article: Keith Olbermann apologizes for his Clinton remark]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If in the face of wage disparity and women's second class status in some third world countries, to name a couple actual problems, this barely gender specific comment (which is really just a metaphor Olberman kinda mangled in his delivery) is what you think is worth talking about?
I'm sorry, but if you think this is something feminism should be expending any of its energy on, then it really is no wonder the American women's movement is so useless. Honestly, I might hear three things directed at me ten times worse than this just in my next shift at work.
Perhaps in the same way that if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen, if human interaction frightens you, then don't leave your home.