Letters to the Editor
Wonhyo
Published Letters: 47 Editor's Choice: 8
-
Clinton has what Gore and Kerry lacked in challenging the Republicans
[Read the article: Barack Obama in suspended animation]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Another Salon article, "Why Hillary Clinton should be winning" makes a compelling case that Clinton would be winning if the Democratic nominating process were set up like that of the general election. It further points out that Clinton is strong in large state primaries, which are important for winning the general election against McCain. Thus, there is logical, practical, and rational reasons for Clinton to persist in her campaign.
This demonstrates that Clinton has the tenacity and strength (call it stubbornness if you want) that Gore and Kerry lacked in '00 and '04. Had Gore pushed for a complete Florida recount in '00 instead of graciously conceding to Bush in '00, Gore could have won that election. Similarly, if Kerry had stood up to the Swift Boat campaign with a simple message of "I served in Vietnam", highlighting Bush's lack of service, he could have won in '04. Kerry should have pursued recounts as well, but didn't. In both cases, the Democratic candidate graciously conceded "for the good of the nation", exactly what Republican strategists were counting on.
The fact that Clinton is willing to go against popular (and media-fueled) opinion to fight for the best possibility of a Democratic win in November tells me she has the tenacity required to take on the Republicans. The question is, does Obama have the presence of mind to recognize Clinton's advantage in a general election? If so, does Obama have the humility (which Clinton is faulted for lacking) to concede to Clinton to ensure a Democratic victory in November?
-
Valid criticisms, but most relevant issue is winning the general election.
[Read the article: Why Hillary Clinton should be winning]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The comments I've read include many seemingly valid criticisms of the article and the author, but none of the criticisms explains away the most relevant issue: winning the general election. We can discuss a lot of "what ifs" and "should haves", but the Democrats are in the situation they are in now and must convert this situation into a win at the November general election.
It does no good to the Democratic Party, for Obama to win the nomination only to be defeated by McCain, especially if Clinton has a compelling advantage over McCain. The article contains sound interpretation of polls to support these expectations.
Obama's popular vote margin is too small to claim a popular mandate. The process by which Obama has a lead over Clinton threatens to nominate the candidate that is less competitive against McCain. If the goal is to win the general election, the process is flawed. The Superdelegates have the power (and I believe, the mandate) to correct this flaw by throwing their support to the candidate who will be more competitive against McCain.
If Obama wins the nomination, he'll have a huge burden of debt to win the general election. If he loses to McCain as the polls suggest, the Democrats will have only themselves to blame for setting up a bad nominating process, and for failing to use the power of the Superdelegates to nominate the more competitive candidate.
Obama has his current delegate lead fair and square, but does he have the presence of mind to understand Clinton's advantage against McCain? The Superdelegates have their special voting powers, presumably because they are wise keepers of the Democratic party. Do they have the courage to exercise this power against (a marginal opposition in) public opinion? Does Obama have the humility to postpone his presidential ambitions to help the Democratic party win in '08?
For all the criticisms and ill-will directed toward Clinton, this article suggests she has compelling, rational reasons to stay in the race.
-
Clinton has what Gore and Kerry lacked against the Republicans
[Read the article: Why Hillary Clinton should be winning]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The Republican party has been a formidable force, using Rovian tactics to prevent complete ballot recounts in the '00 and '04 elections. Gore and Kerry humbly (some might say cowardly) conceded those elections because they did not want to rock the vote. I credit Gore and Kerry for acting in (what they thought) were the interests of the nation, but when you turn the other cheek to Rovian tactics, you end up getting slapped even harder on the other side.
This articles presents a compelling, rational line of reasoning, for Clinton to carry on her campaign, just as there were compelling reasons for Gore and Kerry to persist in demanding full recounts. The tenacity displayed by Clinton in carrying on her campaign against (a marginal opposition in) public opinion, tells me she has the tenacity take on a Republican party employing Rovian tactics, which will no doubt continue beyond the election and well into the next presidency.
When Clinton promotes herself on the basis of experience, I think what goes unsaid is that she has experienced the machinations of the Republican Party firsthand. Given the power wielded by the likes of Karl Rove and John Yoo, with no checks or balances, the ability to deal with the Rovian tactics of the Republican Party may ultimately be more important than the ability to deal with Iraq, the economy, or climate change. As likable as Obama may be to (a marginal majority of) voters, a Democratic president must be able to deal effective with Republican influences that work outside of the checks and balances of the government. Clinton is better prepared than Obama, at this time, to take on this challenge.