Letters to the Editor
dog-walker
Published Letters: 81
-
weeping for brunnhilde & episcomom,
[Read the article: Will Obama's debate stumble hurt him?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]just want to say thanks for your great posts.
i've finally made it through all the letters and it does seem like the pretty close to unanimous response has been that joan was way off base in her post.
that kind of thing (for the 1000th time) is irritating and provokes a lot of bilious complaint.
but weeping for brunnhilde and episcomom, i particularly appreciate your responses. weeping for brunnhilde, for your constant focus on what's possible (even for joan) and for your reminder that her job is a public trust. that's a great concept that we are practically bereft of, to our GREAT detriment. And ipiscomom for your interesting dissection of the whole gaffe thing. I never thought of it like that.
-
"Tough" questions?
[Read the article: Looking past Pennsylvania]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Joan,
I don't think you can substantiate your repeated assertion that Obama has ducked "tough" questions. You say you read the letters on your debate post, but you seem to have missed the main argument they make. You don't address it at all. You don't make a case for why the type of questions asked in that debate can be considered "tough" rather than just stupid and demeaning. You simply skip right over the issue and assert your (vociferously and persuasively refuted) contention as a premise.
That's pretty obdurate of you.
-
And he IS winning.
[Read the article: Looking past Pennsylvania]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Why should he change anything? Where does this idea that he needs to "put her away" come from? What does that mean? This isn't a boxing match. There's this other trope about "match point" vs. "deuce." (BTW, whoever came up with that one better not also be saying that Obama comes off as "elitist.") This isn't a tennis match either. It's a series of primary elections in which voters express their opinions, by a variety of rules (caucus, etc.), and at the end of which one candidate has won more delegates than the other. If the leader hasn't won the magic number, then the "super" delegates add their opinion to the mix and you end up with a nominee.
In that process, Obama is winning. If you want to use a sports metaphore, Pennsylvania was just another inning in a long game. Obama doesn't need to win every inning. He doesn't need to win any particular inning. He needs to win most of the innings by enough runs to cumulatively come out ahead at the end.
He's all but done that. It's practically impossible for Clinton to catch up. Saying Clinton could still catch up in the popular vote is like saying she could still get more men on base. Doesn't change the outcome of the game.
Now, there's always the possibility that the "super" delegates could deny the nomination to the first African American to have cumulatively won the primaries. That's their prerogative.
Are you suggesting, though, that that's a real possibility? If you are, then you need to take on the possibility of the great darkness that could descend on our nation as a result.
What happens to a dream finally achieved and then stolen away?
Those of you hoping for a Clinton back room coronation need to genuinely look at that. THAT is what you are rooting for.
How can that be a feminist position? How can it be a liberal position? How can it be a progressive position?
-
Picko
[Read the article: Looking past Pennsylvania]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]has a very good point. Any Hillary supporters want to answer it?
If she's a fighter, why didn't she fight Bush?