Letters to the Editor
Number Six
Published Letters: 127 Editor's Choice: 2
-
This whole thread is is getting really stupid
[Read the article: Obama hits back at Clinton ad]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Honestly. The crap that that this thread has devolved into is pathetic. Never mind that I haven't seen anything even remotely regarding the original war room posting in several pages, but really, arguing over some vague comment that ODonnell may or may not have made, and what it may or may not have implied? Repeating all the various scurrilous lies about either Obama or Clinton? Trying to to win points in some odd way over Obama's Grandfather's war stories?
War room really shouldn't close down over the weekend. At least if there were some kind of weekend war room poster the stupidity would get spread over more threads and be less noticeable.
Short of that, let this thread die. Go somewhere to talk that's actually active over the weekends. Huffington post or something.
-
Mark Penn
[Read the article: Quote of the day]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I made a vow a while back to stop saying nasty things about Clinton anymore, to keep my support for Obama to what I like about Obama, and not about all the things I hate about Clinton. And while she has made it really hard to keep sometimes, I have managed it, I think.
But this guy, Mark Penn, I made no vow about him so, man, what a dick. Really, a true ugly little knee-biter. This mess that is Clinton's campaign has his fingerprints all over it, and for him to not act like a man and take his fair share of the blame is really shitty.
-
@dkmoorhead
[Read the article: Quote of the day]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]That is possible, and I wouldn't totally put it out the realm of possibility, but I get the feeling this is a little too extreme for it to be a tactic like that.
Of course, if Penn is doing this because of his poll analysis, that might not mean too much either, seeing as how much of a moron he appears to be.
-
My pre-election statements (as if anyone cares (but I'm kinda drunk right now, so just bear with it))
[Read the article: Hillary Clinton makes her stand in Ohio]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Okay folks, these past few days of pre-spin aside, here are the stark naked realities, as I see 'em:
Clinton will most likely win Rhode Island, and Barack Obama will most likely win Vermont. Based on all of the polls I have seen, these two smaller states are essentially a wash. Rhode Island has more delegates, but the margin of victory in Vermont will be much larger. So I think as far as the ever precious delegates go, they cancel each other out, for a result of no gain either way. Of course, I'll be calling my sis who lives in Vermont tomorrow to influence her vote regardless.
That being said, as far as the two big boys tomorrow, Ohio and Texas, Hillary Clinton must win BOTH Ohio and Texas or she is officially done by Wednesday morning. Winning one is not going to be enough by any standard other than her own campaign's increasingly shortening goalposts. It is simply impossible for her campaign to continue in any way after losing either by any margin that does not resemble something out of a Joseph Conrad novel. She has to win both.
She's just too far behind in delegates to allow any rational argument to the contrary to work. If she loses Texas, but touts winning Ohio as a sign that she's still viable (even though losing Texas will probably mean she falls even farther behind in delegate total on the night), what we'll have is yet another delusional moment like we got when she went and celebrated her 'Florida victory'. No, at the very least, it has to be both states for her to continue.
If she wins both by less than double digit margins, or even only one by double digits and the other by less than four, then she can reasonably continue. But she really still is, as I have said before, just like Germany after the invasion of Normandy. Still potent, still dangerous, but basically still also very fucked. If she wins both by less than four points on average, then there just are not enough delegates left in the country for her to catch the pledged delegate lead Obama has, and the supers will follow the pledged delegate's suit. If she wins both by small margins, she can still continue on, if she so chooses. But unless Obama gets up on stage in any of the following states, whips out his dick and proceeds to piss on the front two rows, there's little hope she'll ever catch him.
And if she doesn't win both Texas and Ohio, I predict Bill Richardson and Al Gore will be leading a procession of major Democrats to Clinton campaign headquarters to convince that her run is over. It's one thing to give someone enough rope to hang themselves, but it is entirely another thing to let them hang their whole party for one person's vainglorious ambition.
-
@lateagain
[Read the article: Hillary Clinton makes her stand in Ohio]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I thank ye.
It's amazing how, while my grammar is lightly roughened, my spelling, word choice, and syntax don't seem effected at all by a six pack plus. I credit it to writing poetry in high school.
-
@Reality-Based Lefty
[Read the article: Hillary Clinton makes her stand in Ohio]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I could not have summed up the Clinton's record better myself, and I have actually tried to.
I think it has a lot to do with the fact that there has not been a really good democrat in the White House since John Kennedy, maybe LBJ, so most democratic voters really have no idea what a real Democrat looks like anymore. Bill Clinton got re-elected and somehow that in itself means something. But they neglect to remember how he cow-towed GOP issues to do it. Not to mention how much of a slave to public opinion over his own convictions he was.
But, enough of politics for now (for a lifetime!).
I am drunk, and I feel like playing Alpha Centauri till dawn.
Be back tomorrow to either tell you so or take my comeuppance.