Letters to the Editor
iowademocrat
Published Letters: 27 Editor's Choice: 6
-
Is This Sexism?
[Read the article: Diamonds and pearls and the b-word]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Is it sexist? Well, yes. But, it was faux sexism in that the substantive question already had been posed and answered to the extent it could have been in a TV debate. "Diamonds and pearls" were intended as a light ending to a tense couple of hours.
Nevertheless, this "lightness" is (as Chris Dodd is wont to say) troubling.
The very fact that CNN thought the "diamonds or pearls" question was a good way to end the debate reminds us of an underlying discomfort that is impolite for us sophisticates to acknowledge - that no woman has achieved the Presidency, and that a significant number of voters still believe that's a good thing. They don't like strong women.
The second is that CNN thought of "diamonds or pearls" as a "gift" question to the front-runner at the end of the debate. This question has no effect other than to pay Hillary Clinton a backhanded compliment and to soft-pedal criticism of her. More regrettable is that it comes from an old ugly stereotype, the image of women as grasping gold-diggers.
Imagine that a similar question had been asked of one of the men. There is no equivalent question to any of the men that could be considered anything but awful. Imagine if "which do you prefer, watermelon or chicken?" had been posed to Barack Obama. Or, if Bill Richardson had been asked, "tacos or burritos?"
I have no doubt that Hillary Clinton is qualified and capable. I prefer Barack Obama because he has less ties to the unhappy past than any other candidate, and because, despite the fact TV debates are not his natural element, he is the sharpest, deepest thinker in the field, and he is the most gifted leader the Democratic Party has produced since JFK.
It is unfortunate that both the first viable woman and the first viable African-American are running against each other. It's more unfortunate that CNN thought reminding voters of one of the most insidious stereotypes in American society was a good way to end a serious debate.
-
Iowa Lt. Governor
[Read the article: McClellan's meaning, Oprah's impact and other mysteries]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]FWIW,
The Lieutenant Governor of Iowa is not independently elected; That post is part of a single ticket. More impressive was the election of Patty Judge as Secretary of Agriculture, a post she won before being selected by Governor Culver to be the Democratic candidate for Lieutenant Governor. The Ag post is usually filled by a Farm Bureau candidate vetted for reactionary policy ideas. Progressive women like Judge are very seldom elected to anything at the state level, although State Rep Helen Miller of Fort Dodge is a rapidly rising star in both Party and statewide politics.
Anyone who doubts that the Obama surge in Iowa is real hasn't been on the ground here. For a while this summer, the experience issue was playing well for the Clinton campaign, but since then, two factors have changed - Obama's message has been significantly sharpened in his appearances in the state, and, as caucus day draws closer more Iowans are beginning to pay attention. There is a big streak of mistrust of Mrs. Clinton among Iowans in general, especially among older Dems. Since this is the base in her national campaign, she's in big trouble here. There is strong sentiment on the streets that she has peaked way too early here.
I'll be surprised if Obama's lead doesn't widen over the next three weeks.
-
The Math Is Not So Hard To Explain!
[Read the article: How Barack Obama swept to victory in Iowa]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I was co-chair of the Obama campaign in Fort Dodge Precinct 2 in Webster County, Iowa. it was my 8th caucus, and my third go-round as a candidate chair. I assisted the overall caucus chair in the tallies. I'll leave out the events that lead to Richardson, Biden and Dodd people to realign, but the result was only three viable candidates.
Obama had 93 supporters there; Edwards had 63, and Clinton had 49. The Clinton and Edwards numbers are approximate due to my bad memory, but the caucus math works with those numbers for our purposes. The following math shows exactly what happened.
FD2 precinct, based on the number of registered democrats that voted in the last general election, earned the right to elect 15 total delegates to the Webster County Democratic Convention.
To earn a delegate to the County Convention, a candidate's supporters must number 15% or more of the total people present. 205 people were present.
A quick percentage Calculation (205 * 0.15 = 30.75) was rounded up to 31.
So, a candidate supporter group needed 31 members to be viable. A group with 31 people in it is guaranteed 1 delegate to the County convention, and that delegate is bound to support the candidate for which those supporters gathered together.
To allot the delegates a simple equation is used.
Where W= the number of supporters a viable candidate has
Where X= the total number of delegates to be elected
Where Y = the total number of caucus attenders
Where Z = the number of delegates to be elected to the group.
The equation is: (W * X)/Y=Z
For Obama, Multiply 93 by 15, and divide by 205. The result is 6.804
For Edwards, Multiply 63 by 15, and divide by 205. The result is 4.609
For Obama, Multiply 49 by 15, and divide by 205. The result is 3.585
When rounded to the nearest whole number, these become:
Obama = 7
Edwards = 5
Clinton = 4
7+5+4 = 16. Too many delegates. There must be only 15 delegates. The excess delegate is deleted from the total of the group with the lowest fraction. In this case the Clinton group loses the delegate because .585 is less than .609 AND less than .804.
The final numbers are:
Obama = 7
Edwards = 5
Clinton = 3
These are the results the media reports; and added together with results from other precincts statewide, it's how they declare a winner.
This system is mathematically absolutely fair, and it works for all precincts that elect at least four delegates. Simpler formulas are used in the rare precincts that elect fewer than four.
The example I gave is the most complicated it can possibly be, but at the core it's simple. Get 15% of the people there in your group, and you get at least one delegate.