Letters to the Editor
tmaddin74
Published Letters: 41 Editor's Choice: 1
-
It's all about her
[Read the article: "Yes, she will"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I guess it's fitting that Hillary supporters chant "yes, she can", because at the end of the day, she has run a campaign that is all about her. Yes, she can run negative and threaten to split the party with divisive politics.
Obama supporters chant "yes, we can" because they know his campaign is about them, not his own personal ambitions. If Obama really wanted to win at all costs, he too, could easily go negative.
-
Obama dividing the party?
[Read the article: Scott Bateman: Hillary "I have a lifetime of experience" Clinton]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]To responsd to juneausmog, was the Democratic party supposed to hand the nomination to Hillary Clinton because she was entitled to it?
In case you didn't notice, Obama wasn't the only guy running against Hillary for the nomination. Did Edwards, Biden, Richardson, Gravel, Dodd, and Kucinich also threaten to split the party with their bids? If Hillary was indeed the overwhelming favorite, NONE of those other candidates would have even bothered. To suggest that Obama's campaign alone is splitting the party has no logic. Neither the party nor the country should be voting for the first black or the first woman, they should be voting for the BEST CANDIDATE to be President of the United States. It's that simple. It's not about candidates taking turns to make history. Afterall, Obama is not the first black man to run for President (Jackson, Sharpton, Keyes). He's just the first one at a legitimate shot of getting the nomination. If voters simply wanted to make racial history, they would have done so with the other black candidates that have run before him. People aren't simply voting for race.
Besides, if I were to vote for the first female President, I would vote for Nancy Pelosi. She has more experience in ELECTED office than Hillary Clinton ever has or ever will. Pelosi has experience that actually matters. Pelosi has built her reputation on her own terms without pinning her clout and reputation to a powerful spouse. Now if she were running for President, I may actually pay some attention to the experience argument. If anything, if anyone needs to wait their turn to make history it should be Hillary. Pelosi should be the first female President.
-
Like leader like follower
[Read the article: Quarter of Clinton supporters would vote McCain over Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Well, Clinton thinks that McCain is more qualified to be President, so it really shouldn't be such a big surprise that 25% of her followers feel the same.
Clinton's statement is tantamount to an endorsement to John McCain should she not get the nomination. At the end of the day, neither Clinton, nor some of her followers give a damn about the overall success of the Democratic Party come November.
I do question the fact that only 10% of Obama supporters would defect to McCain. The poll was conducted while Obama was doing well, so it's easier to be more positive with an abstract you don't think will really happen. However, should Clinton get the nomination, you may see more than 10% of Obama supportes defecting.
Afterall, if the Obama supporters only have a choice between two Republicans, they might as well vote for the best (and real) Republican.
-
The problem with the big state argument
[Read the article: Networks call Texas primary for Clinton]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The majority of the big states that Hillary Clinton has won (California, New York, New Jersey, Michigan) are the same big states that Democrats won in LOSING elections for 2000 and 2004. They are Democratic states, and they will generally fall in line with whoever the Democratic nominee is. There's this false assumption that Obama would lose in the same big states that Hillary won during the primary process. However, these states will more than likely back the eventual winner of the Democratic Primary process.
In 1992 Bill Clinton failed to carry both Texas and Florida, but he won his path to the nomination by splitting the Heartland and the South. No Democrat has done that since Bill Clinton's winning campaign. A Democrat hasn't carried Texas in a general election since Jimmy Carter in 1976.
As for Ohio, there's a little mythology that has to be dispelled. You can lose in Ohio as a Democrat in the general election and still be president. Kennedy did just that in 1960. However, the real concern is this. No candidate, Democrat or Republican, has reached the Presidency losing BOTH Texas and Ohio in the general election. A candidate can lose one or the other and go on to win, but nobody has lost both and reached the White House.
-
The Latino Vote-- It's about Nationality, Not Ethnicity
[Read the article: Obama, Clinton and the black-brown divide]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]There is one glaring problem with the way the press covers the Latino vote. Latino's are not a unified voting block, and they tend to vote along lines of nationality, not ethnicity. If anything, I do not believe that Obama has a problem courting Latino voters, so much as he has a problem courting Mexican voters. There's a difference. In states that have overwhelmingly huge populations of Mexican Latino's, Obama has not fared well with the overall Latino vote. However, in the Virginia primary, Obama won the Latino vote. It may also be worth noting that a significant portion of Latino's in Virginia are El Salvadoran, not Mexican.
If anything, the press should have a more nuanced analysis of the Latino vote. In Florida, Obama will probably have a problem with the Latino vote there because of the Cubans being offended by his position on meeting Castro. Such a stance would not necessarily hurt him with other Latino groups, but as mentioned earlier, Latino's are actually voting along lines of nationality, not ethnicity.
The Governor of Puerto Rico has endorsed Obama. Plus, people should not ignore the fact that many Puerto Rican's are Afro-Hispanic. Thus, they have just as much ties to African American culture as they do to Latino Culture.
The press should not be surprised if Obama performs better with Latinos in Florida and Puerto Rico, because at the end of the day, it is about how well he has courted that nationality, not ethnicity.