Letters to the Editor
Wonhyo
Published Letters: 47 Editor's Choice: 8
-
@ WriterInLA and others
[Read the article: Why Hillary Clinton should be winning]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I present my reasoning after accepting the article's premise that Clinton's support is strongest in the states that are most important in the general election (large primary states), as well as the article's conclusion, based on polling data, that McCain will beat Obama, but would lose to Clinton. If these assumptions are wrong, then my argument is invalid.
Assuming those assumptions are not fundamentally flawed...
At this point Clinton has good reason to stay in the race. If she gives up just because she feels like she is going to lose, she would be just like Gore and Kerry giving up in '00 and '04, without pursuing full recounts (all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary). In '00 and '04, I felt Gore and Kerry acted in the best interest of the party and the nation, but in retrospect, I was sadly mistaken. If Obama were the one with the larger polling lead against McCain, I would feel differently.
I'm disappointed in Obama's inability to secure John Edwards' support. As much as we fault Clinton for being a spoiler, Obama has not secured an overwhelming lead, either. If Obama had gained Edwards' support, as I had expected, I would have far more confidence in Obama's prospects in a general election. When the #3 candidate teams up with Obama against Clinton in the debates, but then fails to support Obama after dropping out, I feel like Obama missed an important opportunity to gain #3's support. This can be a fatal mistake in the general election, especially with Karl Rove as the hidden adversary.
Perhaps the polls are wrong or perhaps Obama can break out the charisma to change people's minds in his favor at the general election, but those possibilities are not compelling enough, at this time, to expect Clinton to just give up.
Again, I base my position on certain assumptions. To anyone who disagrees with my assumptions, I withdraw my position.
-
@Hhatchet - Red Herring
[Read the article: Why Hillary Clinton should be winning]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Bill and Hillary" Clinton's impeachment is a red herring. Hillary was not impeached, Bill was. The reason for impeachment was the Bill Clinton sex scandal, having nothing to do with Hillary's suitability as a president. This is exactly the kind of attack Hillary can expect from the Rove Republicans, and one that I think she is well prepared to handle.
Hhatchet concludes by asking why Hillary is trailing, if she is such a strong candidate. The whole point of the article is that the Democratic nominating process is not producing (so far) the candidate that will do best under the rules of the general election. Poll results show Clinton will do better against McCain than Obama will. Based on the results showing Hillary strong in large primary states, the writer suggests these are the states that are important in the general election.
In summary, Hillary will be the stronger candidate in the general election but is trailing in the Democratic nomination because the Democratic nominating process is very different from the general election process.
Perhaps this is the lopsided situation the DNC was guarding against when they created the Superdelegates. The Superdelegates have the power to shift the nomination. Presumably, the Superdelegates have their voting privilege because they are the trusted keepers of the Democratic party. If they cast their vote based on who's most likely to beat McCain, they should consider voting for Clinton.
-
Why didn't Hillary divorce Bill?
[Read the article: Hey, Obama boys: Back off already!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I've sensed a similar fanatical hatred of Clinton, even from my generally very liberal and rational friends. Most disturbing is the assertion that Hillary made a cold, calculated political decision not to divorce Bill because she felt her political future would be better with him. My otherwise rational friends make this assertion with greater certainty than the Religious Right's (professed) faith in God.
First of all, we don't know why she didn't leave Bill. Only Hillary's closest friends and confidants can make such an assertion with any authority (and even then, very little).
If we are going to speculate, we should put all the possibilities on the table. At the top of my list is the motherly instinct to protect the (only) child's interests by keeping the family together. Isn't this at least as plausible (if not more so) than a "cold calculated political decision"?
After spending so many years in marriage, with a shared passion for public service, could it be that she's willing to forgive this fault because she has so much else in common with Bill? Many women stay with husbands who've been unfaithful.
Could it be in her financial interest to stay with Bill? They've obviously done well together since their White House years. I have my doubts because I'm sure Hillary had plenty of opportunities to make money, with or without Bill. But even this reason sounds more plausible to me than she made a cold calculated political decision.
Could it be that Bill begged and pleaded for her to stay? Or, perhaps it was Chelsea, who touchingly stood between Bill and Hillary, holding both their hands, as the scandal unfolded? Some of the same people who casually dismiss Bill's indiscretions have a seething hatred for Hillary's decision to stay with Bill.
Even if we are going to lean toward the most vile motivations, why is the vileness directed solely against Hillary? What about John McCain who left his first wife after she was disfigured in a car accident? I'm not saying John McCain had selfish motives (I really don't know), but for all the Democrats so quick to assign the worst possible motives to Hillary, why isn't it dispensed equally to McCain?
This unexpected, unexplained hatred of Hillary is as scary as... no, scarier than, the Right's devotion to the war in Iraq. At least with the war in Iraq, there is a plausible motive for control of oil. What is driving this hatred of Hillary?