Letters to the Editor
Picko
Published Letters: 265 Editor's Choice: 11
-
MICKI
[Read the article: Clinton backer McGovern now wants her to drop out]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I guess I'm really looking for a practical solution. Otherwise, it's all just useless finger-pointing.
As I've said several times before, I would have preferred for there to be revotes in both states. I do get annoyed because sometimes I think this is being brought up as a propaganda point against Obama, rather than out of a constructive desire to solve the problem. I imagine there has probably been a share of hypocrisy on both sides. Clinton's decision to stay on the ballot in Michigan and hold her tongue about the "disenfranchisement" of Michigan voters until AFTER her dubious victory suggests a candidate who is not acting in good faith, to say the least. But I imagine the logistical and legal reasons that Obama's lawyers have adduced for why a Michigan revote is unfeasible would seem less insurmountable to them if the situation was reversed and they needed the superdelegates.
I agree with you that the party was wrong-headed to impose such draconian penalties on Florida and Michigan - although it's interesting that Clinton fundraiser Terry McAuliffe was willing to play hardball as DNC chair in 2004 when Michigan threatened to move forward its primary date: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/27/mcauliffe-has-flip-floppe_n_98857.html. One of the big differences between Florida and Michigan is that the Florida voting date was determined by the state legislature (and thus wasn't the fault of the state party, at least not directly) whereas the Michigan voting date was determined by the state party itself. So, arguably in one case (Florida) the state party wasn't at fault, and in the other (Michigan) it was.
Anyway, this feels like ground that I've been over before. As I've said, I don't have a huge problem with the Florida results. I say let HIllary have her 50% and Obama his 33%, and penalize the state the rest of the pledged delegates.
With Michigan, the big problem is that the results we have are almost meaningless. We know that 40% of primary voters went to vote against Hillary, but we don't know how many of those were Obama voters and how many were Edwards voters. We also don't know what difference it would have made in turnout if the Obama and Edwards voters had had their candidate on the ballot instead of merely having the option to vote for "Other." Current polls show Obama doing better in the state in a general election scenario than Clinton does, so there's some reason to believe results would have been completely different if people had thought the contest had mattered.
For what it's worth, this is what the Michigan Democratic Party's executive committee said on the issue of revotes:
"The Michigan Democratic Party has carefully reviewed several proposals for a Party-run primary or caucus as a means of resolving the dispute over the seating of the Michigan delegation to the 2008 Democratic National Convention. We have concluded that it is not practical to conduct such a primary or caucus. We will continue to work with the Working Group, the DNC and the candidates to resolve this matter in a manner which is respectful of the views of Democrats in Michigan, and which is fair to those who voted in the January 15th Democratic primary."
So it's not just Obama who thinks a revote is impractical. And absent a revote, it's hard to say how those delegates should be seated in a manner that is fair to both candidates.
-
"With friends comparing his efforts to Kerry's losing campaign, Obama might not need enemies."
[Read the article: Can Democrats learn to talk about race?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This is sort of a cheap put-down, Joan.
John Kerry received over 48% of the popular vote, five percent MORE than Bill Clinton did in 1992 and only one percent less than Bill Clinton in 1996.
John Kerry received 59,028,444 votes, over 11 million more than Bill Clinton ever did.
Were it not for 2% of the vote in Ohio, John Kerry would be president.
All that needs to happen is for Obama to do a little bit better than Kerry, or for McCain to do a little bit worse than Bush in 2004.
John Kerry and Al Gore were much closer to being Bill Clinton in 1996 than are to being either George McGovern, Walter Mondale, or Michael Dukkakis.
And why is it that the Republicans don't excoriate their losers as bitterly as the Democrats do? Why don't I ever hear the Republicans publicly compare McCain to Goldwater, Ford, or Dole?
Maybe because they're not natural born defeatists?
-
MICKI
[Read the article: Carville says Obama is likely nominee]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I agree, if you mean what I think you mean.
It's especially important now for Obama's supporters to be gracious winners, if we hope for Clinton's supporters to bury their hard feelings and unite behind our candidate. No point in adding additional hard feelings into the mix, at this point.
Which involves having the maturity not to taunt Clinton and her supporters. It may be fun, but at this point it's completely counter-productive.
It also means ignoring the taunts from Clinton supporters - hello, W.E.S.! - who keep lobbing snide remarks our way.
I think some of the gloating in our hour of victory has been a little unseemly and - may I add - a little premature.
My impression is that many of the Clinton folks are insulted that we are declaring victory when there are six contests left - three of which they will probably win decisively.
Now that the worst of the primaries is over, let's try to show a little respect for the other side - or, failing that, at least a little civility.
We're going to need every vote we can get in November.