Letters to the Editor
Picko
Published Letters: 265 Editor's Choice: 11
-
ljwalker53
[Read the article: Hillary Clinton's petition ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"1] If Obama followers would read opinions other than those with which they agree they'd note that 22 percent of Obama's followers said they would not vote for Clinton if she is the nominee -- about the same number of Clinton supporters who said the same thing (if Obama is the nominee)."
You'll have to forgive me for citing data that the Clinton campaign itself was touting only a few weeks ago - can I assume that information from the Clinton camp is NOT information that is calculated to reinforce my support of Obama? If you have more recent and relevant data, please feel free to provide a link to the source. I found some data from gallup which suggests that the 10 point gap is pretty accurate as of March 26 (Gallup cites a nine-point gap). Maybe things have changed since then, though (you know the difference a week can make!). Here's the address: http://www.gallup.com/poll/105691/McCain-vs-Obama-28-Clinton-Backers-McCain.aspx. In any event, juneau's argument is nonsense if you don't posit that the attrition rate is higher with Obama as the nominee. If the attrition is equal, that's not exactly a good case to say Clinton is more electable, yes?
"2] What "women" are you talking about here, Picko? Women that I know do care about the issues and we support Hillary Clinton because we care about the issues. Most of us are probably more lucid thinking than a majority of Obama's followers (if the left hemisphere blogs and Salon postings I read are an indication."
Again, I'm accepting juneau's assertion at face value. She's saying that women will vote for McCain over Obama, or at least sit out and allow a McCain victory. In which case, you have to assume that these woman are more fixated on Hillary being the nominee than the issues that they purport to care about. Now, I'm not saying that juneau is correct about this, but if she is, then women are prepared to have a Supreme Court which will overturn Roe v. Wade if Hillary isn't the nominee. Now, I personally give woman a lot more credit for sense than juneau does, so I'm not as worried about mass defection. Juneau seems to be the one who thinks women are inclined to petulant fits of pique, not me.
"Obama's followers find every possible way to slice, dice, excuse and justify his bald-faced lies, and his smears, and his misstatements, and his bare-knuckle back-room politicing (in the Florida and Michigan fiasco), his doublespeak, his thin record of experience and accomplishments in the U.S. Senate, his "missing" files and records from the archives, of his tenure in the Illinois State Senate, and his flip-flops on significant legislation in the U.S. Senate. All for what? Apparently it boils down to one thing: you hate Hillary Clinton so much that you will sabotage Democratic chances for victory in November, for a so-called "progressive" agenda and fascist-like thinking that finds moderate and conservative Democrats too repulsive to deal with or tolerate in the "Big Tent Party.""
Is this an example of splendid lucid thinking and dispassionate analysis? Strange, it just looks like invective to me. How are you any different from the thing you claim to hate?
"Read some of the left blogs and tell me you don't see the absolute disdain for true-blue working-class, moderate and conservative Democrats who don't share the same unrealistic far-left agenda. I thought Republicans were bad! I'm beginning to think, finally, after all the years of calling myself a progressive Democrat that I'm being shafted more by members of my own party</> than by Republicans."
You realize of course, that Hillary and Obama are almost indistinguishable on matters of policy - and when Hillary tends to attack Obama, it's not for being too liberal, but for not being liberal enough ("his health care plan is not as comprehensive as mine" ring any bells?")
-
@ pointblank
[Read the article: Hillary Clinton's petition ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"While his male surrogates have called for Hillary to quit, when 10 states have not voted and 2 will not be counted and Obama's campaign is blocking resolution, it is they who are hurting the Party, not Hillary."
I find it interesting that you feel the need to point out that the surrogate calling for Hillary to quit is a male (the only surrogate I remember calling on Hillary to quit is Patrick Leahy, but if you have others in mind, please list them). Isn't this a blatant attempt to stoke feminist ire against Obama? Would this state of affairs be more satisfactory to you if the surrogate in question had been female? Are you claiming that Leahy is calling for Hillary to drop out because he is a sexist? Should men be banned from taking any role in the Obama campaign for fear of being labeled sexists?