Letters to the Editor
Uberbah
Published Letters: 89 Editor's Choice: 1
-
Clintonball
[Read the article: What Pennsylvania tells us]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Y'all remember the comic strip Calvin & Hobbes? They played a game, Calvinball, where they would make up rules on the fly, just as Hillary and her supporters are now making up rules on the fly. Hunter:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/4/23/54624/9063/994/501398
Listening to Clinton campaign surrogates on television, before the PA votes ever started to trickle in, was truly painful. Suddenly one state was the only state that mattered. All those other states were merely prelude: if Clinton could eke out a victory in this state, trailing in the delegate count would no longer be significant, and it would be a brand new race, and Obama would be on the ropes, and Clinton would suddenly win a billion dollars, a pony, and the moon; attention must be paid. It is not enough for Obama to simply be winning the nomination according to the rules laid out in advance: no, he must win the "right" way, according to the Clinton campaign and surrogates, or it doesn't count. He has to win the "right" states. And he has to win primaries, not caucuses. And he has to "close the deal", shutting Clinton out of remaining wins entirely, or it proves something ominous (the fact that Clinton has not been able to "close the deal" against him, and is instead trailing him badly and irreparably, barring superdelegate do-over, somehow does not count against her own merits.) And he not only has to win the "popular vote", but he has to win that, too, the right way, which is to say by counting only certain states and not counting others. And he has to win small towns, not just big population centers, because winning big population centers is elitist. Except that if he wins small towns in the West and Midwest, that doesn't count, because it's more important to win the big population centers. And all of this somehow proves that Clinton is a better candidate against McCain than Obama is, even though the polls to date have consistently shown Obama is a better candidate against McCain than Clinton is.
And somehow the candidate that has lost the popular vote, won fewer states, won fewer delegates, owes money, has higher negative ratings is "more electable" than the other guy with millions in the bank who will raise millions more.
Obama is to be faulted for not defending Hillary against bogus attacks since he's "taking the high road", even though he has stuck up for her on more than one occasion. Hillary, of course, has not only not defended Obama, she's piled on to the bogus attacks by questioning his "association" with Louis Farrakhan and Rev. White. We are, of course, still waiting for her to "denounce AND reject" Ed Rendell for praising Farrakhan ten years ago. And so on.
The Hillary candidacy at this point is one big game of Clintonball. You only have standards for how Hillary is supposed to be treated, how Obama is supposed to act, and make increasingly bad rationalizations for why the loser should be the winner.
You're getting to be as bad as Republicans.
-
there is no sexism
[Read the article: Keith Olbermann apologizes for his Clinton remark]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]As I responded to Rachel's HuffPo piece, the two of you are using the same method Bill O'Reilly used to show that HuffPo and DailyKos were "far left hate sites" and "no different from the KKK": you cherry pick anecdotes to make your case. Problem is, the plural of anecdote is not data.
Name me a single media meme against Hillary that's a gender based attack. A single one.
Rachel also lined to a site the reputed to show 83 examples of sexism towards Hillary. Perusing the site, most of them are as lame as this was was on Olbermann, like bitching about the media's coverage of "the sob". People who hop up and down that this is misogyny need to google Ed Muskie.
83 examples of sexism to Hillary? In thousands of hours of programming and hundreds of thousands of articles and editorials? What do you want to bet that Rev. White has already been mentioned 83 times TODAY on cable news?
You're at a ten, you need to be at a two.
-
it's Appalachia, stupid
[Read the article: Breaking the Democratic deadlock]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Obama has done just fine with white working class voters - in Utah, Colorado, North Dakota, Iowa, etc etc. He just doesn't do well in Appalachia. Where was the handwringing on Hillary's ability to appeal to voters when she was getting blown out 11 states in a row in February?
This "Obama has a problem with working class whites" is nothing but a lame media talking point.
-
how was it? refused to watch because of dumbass ad at the beginning
[Read the article: The awesome experience of Grand Theft Auto ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]When will people learn from Google? Make ads short and unobtrusive, and we wont go out of our way to ignore them. We might even pay attention. But a big, pain in the ass advertisement leads to people hitting "mute" for 30 seconds or skipping the content entirely.
-
balanced it?
[Read the article: Clinton: "I am in this race"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]How does a nailbiter in a smaller state balance out a big win in a big state?
And Hillbots, it's time to put aside your megalomania and deal with reality. If Hillary was really more electable...she would have been elected the nominee in the primaries.