Letters to the Editor
Picko
Published Letters: 265 Editor's Choice: 11
-
@juneausmog
[Read the article: Hillary Clinton's petition ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Spare me all the @juneausmog letters."
Which means, essentially, don't subject my highly analytic argument to analytic scrutiny.
"Yes, yes, we all know Clinton eats babies and tortures puppies when she's not championing children."
Yes, yes, just as we all know that Obama supporters secretly worship him as a diety. Great - at least each side knows the other's talking points. Now we can move on...
Your argument boils down to the theory that we should nominate Clinton because her supporters are less loyal to the Democratic party. This is not a novel argument since it has been pushed by the Clinton team themselves, who have cited polling that shows Clinton supporters are 10% less likely to support Obama if he is the nominee than Obama supporters are to support Clinton if the situation is reversed. Now, first of all, I think this flies in the face of the constantly repeated refrain from the Clinton hacks that Obama is all cult of personality, right? Because if his support was only cult of personality, Obama supporters would be LESS likely to support the rival candidate if she won. Is is possible that there is a cult of personality around the Clintons, hmmmm...?
"Yes, yes...the risk of Hillary staying in the race and winning is that she'll piss off African-Americans and keep them from voting. I see that as a smaller risk than the one Obama is facing if he pushes Clinton out (vis-a-vis lobbying the superdelegates to end the race). Here are the risks Obama faces due to the demographics of Clinton's voting base."
Apparently, according to your reasoning, Obama's lobbying of super delegates to support him is somehow unfair and illegitimate, whereas Hillary's lobbying of the same super delegates to overturn actual voting results is fair and just.
"1. By refusing to do anything about Michigan and Florida's delegates, the voters in these (important) states may very well stay at home if Obama is the nominee. Not because they don't like Obama, because they're pissed at the Democratic party."
That's why it would a great idea if the two campaigns worked together in good faith to find a fair solution.
"2. Women, a larger Democratic party voting block than African-Americans and who are spread more evenly throughout states, will stay at home as they perceive men supporting Obama (Leahy, Kennedy, Kerry) pushing her out of the race and Olbermann/Matthews/Wolfe/Alterman (male pundits) telling her to get out."
This argument gives a lie to the notion that Clinton supporters really care about issues. Apparently women are willing to give up the right to choose just for the sake of Hillary Clinton (or do you really think John McCain will appoint pro-choice justices to the Supreme Court?). All their much-touted passion about policy goes right out the window if they don't get their woman. If a man were to claim that women are so irrationally emotional, he would decried as a sexist. I guess it's NOT the economy, stupid.
"3. Older voters will stay at home or vote for McCain as they do value experience and will vote that way."
Which makes it strange that they threw their support behind Hillary Clinton instead of, say, Chris Dodd, Bill Richardson, or Joe Biden. The fact is, the three Democratic frontrunners - Obama, Clinton, and Edwards - were all politicians of comparable experience. (Notwithstanding the resume puffery that Hillary likes to engage in.) Also, have you factored in all the young voters who won't turn out if Hillary is the nominee because Obama is what inspired them to care about politics in the first place?
"4. Blue-collar voters will vote McCain or stay at home."
Why? Because they don't recognize their own class interests?
"5. Hispanics will stay at home."
Why? Because they want the Republican Party, which has been demonizing them for the past four years, to win? Also, bear in the mind that the African-American population and the Hispanic population are roughly equivalent in size, but the African-American population is more solidly behind Obama than the Hispanic population is behind Hillary.
I'm afraid you're assuming that every demographic is so personally loyal to the Clintons that they are entirely blinded to their own interests if Hillary Clinton doesn't win the nomination. Or is it just possible that these demographic groups prefer Hillary if the choice is between Hillary and Obama, but would prefer voting for Obama if the choice is between him and McCain?
"6. This will compound the problem people have about his Pastor (and just coming back from vacation, my Obama-supporting husband spoke to several people who expressed how much that bothered them and that it is changing their minds)."
Yes, the Clinton people must be so grateful for Jeremiah Wright. I'm not going to pretend for a second that I'm not concerned about the effect Wright is going to have on the election. I guess having a crackpot minister trumps all the voting - out you go, Barack!