Letters to the Editor
Number Six
Published Letters: 127 Editor's Choice: 2
-
the way it looks to me
[Read the article: Is it really time to count Clinton out?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The Clinton campaign is kinda like Germany after the invasion of Normandy. Still dangerous, and still powerful, but essentially beaten. Her campaign can still fight hard, might even bloody Obama's campaign here and there, and who knows, a major screw up can give her a legit second life. But short of that, she really has no chance. In WWII the allies may not have executed everything perfectly, but thankfully they were too disciplined to give the kind of opening the German army would have needed to get back in it. And from all appearances it looks like the Obama campaign is too disciplined to screw up badly enough to help Clinton as well.
And no, before anyone says it, I am not suggesting Clinton is a nazi, anti- semitic, or in any way evil the way Hitler was. It's purely a comparison of the military facts of the German army against the allies and the Clinton presidential campaign versus the Obama campaign. Go no deeper into the comparison than that.
-
@ uncle fester
[Read the article: Is it really time to count Clinton out?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I can see the Maginot line military comparison too. Although the difference is with the Maginot broken, the Germans pretty much took most of France with little or no resistance, like in a weekend or something. For that reason the Normandy invasion comparison I think works a little better, because the Germans still had some fight left to continue on for some time, even though everyone in the Third Reich (with the probably exception of Hitler) secretly knew it was pointless. And that is more than anything the way I see the Clinton campaign right now.
Not to make a big deal about the comparisons like this. It's just a comparison, not a portent of what is to come.
-
about this sexist article
[Read the article: The dude vote]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I strenuously object to this article's premise, that people, like myself, who support Obama, yet will vote for McCain over Clinton are doing so out of sexism.
Is it really all that hard to grasp that I find Hillary Clinton an elitist snob, as well as totally corrupt? It has nothing to do with her being a woman. I simply do not vote for corrupt politicians. I didn't vote for Bill Clinton for the same reason. I cannot vote for someone who I do not trust in any way, no matter what they pretend to stand for. Or what their gender is.
And while I may disagree with a decent amount of McCain's policies, I at least respect him and trust he means what he says. That has been shaken quite a bit recently I admit, but I still trust him far more than I trust Clinton. And if my ideal choice, Obama, somehow screws up this nomination or has it stolen out from under him, I will vote for McCain and hope for a democratic congress to hold the line on social issues. Or perhaps I'll vote for Nader. But I never vote for a politician who I do not believe or trust.
I would happily vote for a woman for President. Just not this corrupt one.
-
anon @ 10:47
[Read the article: The dude vote]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Been on this site for a month or two now. Only have one identity.
Unlike yourself, who apparently has no identity.
I don't talk to people who think a screen name is too much to expect.
-
Wow
[Read the article: It's OK to vote for Obama because he's black]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]And I thought that 'the dude vote' article was offensive. This one made me downright sick.
-
@ Xrandadu
[Read the article: The dude vote]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I get really suspicious of a lot of them myself. Specifically how their word choice smacks of a political pamphlet or other kind of phony marketing ploy. I swear halfway through their spiels you get the feeling they're going to try and sell you long distance or a set of white wall tires.
Just ignore them. They're probably not real people anyway.
-
nobody says she should... yet
[Read the article: Should Hillary Clinton drop out?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Nobody is saying Hillary should drop out now. A reporter here or there, maybe, but name one prominent Democratic elected official who has. I haven't heard one do so.
Look, I don't think Hillary has any realistic chance any more of winning the nomination, short of some real ethically challenged tactics with super delegates, but I wouldn't say she should drop out now. Her chances of a comeback are pretty damn bad, but not quite at the level of hitting the lottery just yet.
If she doesn't win both Ohio AND Texas, then yes, then she should drop out, because then her odds are equivalent of getting the mega millions numbers. Only one of those states isn't going to be enough. And then I think the long procession of Democratic leaders will come knocking to ask her to bow out gracefully for the good of the party, if not outright taking her out back to the proverbial chopping block.
Of course if she loses both Ohio and Texas, then it wouldn't matter if she officially dropped out or not, because she would so obviously be done that nobody would cover her campaign any more.