Letters to the Editor
BryanS
Published Letters: 329 Editor's Choice: 1
-
@ Rose Hann
[Read the article: "You can't win this nomination"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Time to set up the T-ball and take a few whacks at some easy ones...
"You can't win [the] [n]omination." Thanks to the nasty Tim Russert, that may be true...
Well, that and the fact that Hillary is way behind in pledged delegates, about to lose her superdelegate edge, behind in the popular vote (even counting Florida), and has only managed to win half as many contests as Obama. Oh, and she's apparently at least $20 million in the hole, while Obama is building campaign offices out of huge stacks of cash. But if you want to blame it all on Fat Tim, go right ahead. Reality is a harsh mistress.
... but I believe after all the hard work and time spent campaigning why quit today?
I'm on record as saying that Hillary should stay in until the bitter -- and I mean bitter -- end. The longer she overstays her welcome in a race that she cannot possibly win, and the more tin-eared and ludicrous statements she makes (like conflating "white voters" with "hard-working voters"), the less we have to worry about her making a run in 2012. I hope she Ron Pauls it all the way to the convention and completes her transformation into the screechy, say-anything caricature that's earned her 50% disapproval ratings. I say that if only half of America hates her, she's not trying!
There are still a hand full of states yet to hold primaries. Let it play out instead of pushing a strong woman in a direction she is clearly unready for.
Sure, those six contests and their 217 delegates might go 90-10 for Hillary, and then it's a race again! Unfortunately, that would also mean that we've fallen into a parallel universe where everyone is evil and wearing goatees.
Hillary needs an intervention at this point. She's the political equivalent of a meth addict. She can't see the damage that her choices are doing to herself and the people who care about her. Just because she's a strong-willed person doesn't mean she's right. I'd have though that the last seven years would have driven that point home quite clearly.
I am sick and tired of people telling the experienced candidate who can beat McCain begin a coronation on an intern candidate who has no experience and cannot beat McCain.
Right, because what are the odds that Obama could run a successful race against an established political legend with vast resources, strong party support, deep and wide political connections, and almost 100% name recognition?
At best, McCain has one or two of those going for him. And despite having the last two months to himself and not having to fend off any attacks, McCain still can't poll any better than even against Obama, who's been relentlessly attacked by an opponent whose only strategy has been to drive up his negatives. Also, there's a very real chance that McCain will crumble to dust in a stiff wind between now and November.
It's time to face real facts, Obama doesn't have a shot at the amount of delegates necessary to secure the nomination.
If Obama, who enjoys a 150-delegate lead over Hillary, "doesn't have a shot at the amount of delegates necessary to secure the nomination," by what possible logic could you claim that Hillary does?
If Howard Dean would have found a way to make MI and FL count, Hillary would have been the nominee along time ago.
Uh, no. At best, if the Michigan and Florida delegates were seated according to the invalidated primary results, Hillary would have only picked up 55 delegates from those contests, which means she'd still be 100 delegates down. It would have been a closer race, but she still would have gone on the epic losing streak in February and still would have fallen behind in delegates by March 1.
That 55-delegate count, by the way, is from the Clinton campaign's own estimates:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/04/clinton-camp-considering_n_100051.html
Thanks, this was fun. Please keep posting!
-
@ jebldmm
[Read the article: "There's a pattern emerging here"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Obama needs to prove that he can get the votes of a significant number of all non-black voter's. His performance amont Latino's, an important contituency, has been dismal. The reality is that among every group but black voter's Obama does not win enough support to win the general election. It is likely that some, or even many, of these people will vote for Obama in the fall, but will they be enough to win the election?
There's a mountain of statistical evidence that indicates that Obama does just fine with white voters who were born after it was considered socially acceptable to attack black people with dogs and blast them with fire hoses. Some of it has already been posted here. I know it's been rehashed time and time again whenever you or one of the other reality-defying shrill Hil shills tries to claim that Obama can't win the white vote. If you insist on remaining so willfully ignorant that you won't accept that, well, congratulations. You're backing the candidate who matches your mindset perfectly.
But if reading all of those numbers makes your tiny mind ache, could you just explain to all of us why Obama, who you claim can't win a significant number of non-black votes, is leading in the popular vote (even counting Florida), despite the fact that only 12-13% of Americans are black?
-
Wow, Alex
[Read the article: What did Clinton do wrong?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I have to say, I'm kind of impressed. You didn't pull your punches. Did Hillary loan you one of her three balls or something?
You could have saved yourself some time by just writing about the things that Hillary did right in her campaign. But to your laundry list of missteps, I'd add that she either never should have voted for the Iraq war, or she should have made a complete, sincere, and abject apology for it. Also, it wouldn't have hurt if she'd used her time in the Senate to make some news by directly challenging Bush and company, even when it was politically inconvenient to do so.