Letters to the Editor
Published Letters: 260 Editor's Choice: 45
-
So it's on Obama to Make Nice?
[Read the article: A split Democratic decision]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]. Certainly it's easy to imagine if Obama patches things up with the Clintons, Democrats will have Bill and Hillary and Chelsea campaigning for him in Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky and other places he hasn't done well, making these big blowouts just a bad memory
This is utter nonsense. The Clintons have no option in the general election to sit on the sidelines if they want any role in the Democratic Party after this election, win or lose. Moreover, if you look at Bill's election results in these four states (and it was a long time ago, and nothing that has happened since exactly makes him more popular there), he got a majority of the votes exactly once (WVA in '96, and then was so popular there in 2000 that Gore lost a state the Dems had not lost in recent memory other than the Nixon and Reagan landslides). I don't think Chelsea campaigning in Lexington and Columbus is going to decide this election.
-
Teddy 1980 versus Hillary 2008
[Read the article: She's in it to spin it]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Ted Kennedy in 1980 stood for something: the last stand of the liberal wing of the Democratic Party against the centrism that would reach its apotheosis with Bill Clinton. That he would do it against an incumbent President of his own party, that he would, in fact, run a terrible campaign (his speech at the convention, when he had already lost, was the only good speech he gave) brought a certain pathos to the campaign.
It was a terrible reading of the mood of the country, as the Reagan landslide in the fall would demonstrate. But it was what Teddy stood for, what he continues to stand for (albeit with a lot more political insight than he showed in 1980).
There is no longstanding fight between Hillary and Obama; they were rarely on opposite sides of issues (and Hillary is unlikely to claim her "stand" is against the issue on which she and Obama most decisively disagreed, the beginning of the Iraq War). Ted Kennedy and Jimmy Carter had clashed on many things, most importantly on health care (with differences far more profound than the tiny issues between Hillary and Obama on their health care proposals).
To me, the question is: what does Hillary stand for, other than Hillary?
-
Why not just hire a hitman, Hillary?
[Read the article: Argus Leader editor responds to RFK controversy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]She knows the implication of everything she says, she just doesn't want to pay the price for it.
-
@ Bobby G
[Read the article: Argus Leader editor responds to RFK controversy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You give her too much credit. Don't forget "As far as I know." Hillary doesn't misspeak; she practices her "gaffes" and focus groups them before using them.
-
Learn some history, DamnthatXanadu
[Read the article: Argus Leader editor responds to RFK controversy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]In 1968, the first presidential primary was in March. The second was in April. There were only a handful of them, ending with California and South Dakota in early June. The vast majority of delegates were selected in caucuses, and the caucuses were not even begun in June. Hubert Humphrey, who was the eventual nominee, didn't run in any of the primaries, and in fact received fewer total primary votes than George Smathers, who ran as a favorite son in Florida.
There is effectively no meaningful analogy between what happened in 1968 and what could or might happen this year. Hillary was alive then and she should know this history as well as I do. Don't create talking points that make you look like an idiot.
-
@RoseHann
[Read the article: Argus Leader editor responds to RFK controversy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]He had a heck of a nerve putting out a statement after the insults me as a white woman had to endure from his 20 year love of a bigoted Pastor The Rev. Wright.
In the words of a great sage, WTF?
-
@ElectroRobot
[Read the article: Argus Leader editor responds to RFK controversy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Perhaps Hillary will renew her Sopranos-style contest and include that as a choice, along with Abraham, Martin & John.
-
@KateTex
[Read the article: Argus Leader editor responds to RFK controversy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Do you just put your little comments into a template without reading what you're saying, or what?
RFK, Jr. (for whatever value his ocmments may have) didn't say anything. And if you're so completely offended by someone calling your champion's comments "unfortunate" might I suggest that you retire from politics and take up something like tiddly-winks.
-
@independent Learn Some HIstory
[Read the article: Argus Leader editor responds to RFK controversy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]RFK did not have the nomination sewn up or even close when he was assassinated. All he had done was to show that he could come back from his defeat in the Oregon primary (the first time a Kennedy had ever lost any election) to beat McCarthy in California and South Dakota. But most of the delegates had not even been selected yet; they were picked in caucuses over the summer. Delegates pledged to RFK generally moved either to McCarthy or to George McGovern (who entered the race after RFK's assassination as an RFK surrogate). They were swamped by the party regulars in the caucuses who supported Humphrey. If RFK had had the nomination sewn up, McCarthy would presumably have been the nominee, but certainly not Humphrey. The rules, the schedule, everything was entirely different then.
Again, this is why Hillary's "history" about 1968 is totally bogus. There is simply no historical parallel between a campaign that began two years ago and a primary season that began in January and what happened in 1968.
-
@phkjgxvi You have no idea what you're talking about
[Read the article: Argus Leader editor responds to RFK controversy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Hubert Humphrey was not on the ballot in the 1968 California primary. It was entirely between Kennedy and McCarthy. Humphrey wasn't on any primary ballots, because LBJ hadn't withdrawn until it was too late to get on most ballots, and he chose not to run on the other ones. The vast, vast majority of delegates were decided in caucuses that were attended solely by party regulars and the anti-Administration, antiwar forces did not contest them. That is how Humphrey won the nomination; he likely would have won it if RFK had lived. In part, though not entirely, because by then the Kennedy and McCarthy supporters so hated one another they would have split the antiwar vote.
I'll say it again and I challenge anyone to provide any facts to counter it: the 1968 nominating process and timeline have no historical relevancy to 2008.