Letters to the Editor
BryanS
Published Letters: 365 Editor's Choice: 1
-
@ Sandi78
[Read the article: Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi working to end race]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Are you really suggesting that it was because the nominee was decided at the Convention that those general elections ended up as they did?
I'm certainly suggesting that it didn't help matters. Three of the four examples you cited ended in a brutal kicking of Democrat ass in the general election. The one time it didn't happen was when the nomination was all but decided well in advance of the convention.
And please note, I was just looking at what happened down the road from the four examples that you chose. You asked why it was such a bad thing not to have a nominee by the time the convention rolled around. I responded by looking at the general elections from those four years, which is the only thing that really matters in the scheme of a presidential campaign.
What about 2000 and 2004? The Democrats had a clear nominee long before the Convention both times.
Al Gore ran a terrible, terrible campaign in 2000. He couldn't even carry his home state. He also chose not to run on his biggest asset -- being one of the architects of eight years of peace and prosperity -- because he was trying to avoid being stained with Bill Clinton's... er, stain.
John Kerry, god love him, came off as bland and irritated throughout most of the 2004 campaign. He ran against an incumbent president during wartime, and 11 swing states had anti-gay marriage initiatives on the ballot, which brought out social conservatives by the busload to vote for Bush. The Democratic party was in such disarray that it got killed during the 2002 mid-terms and wasn't in much better shape in '04. He also chose a VP who couldn't even carry his own home state, which would have very nearly tipped the election in their favor. And he refused to say that he would have voted against the authorization for a very unpopular war, because the thought it would make him look weak. Despite all of that, Kerry very nearly pulled it off (less than 2% popular vote difference, 35 electoral vote spread), thanks to a party that rallied around him early.
I believe it's more important to have the strongest possible candidate.
I do too. That's why I'm backing the guy who's blown all fundraising records out of the water, who has a disciplined campaign team that constantly stays on message, and who has a well-oiled 50-state organization in place to force the Republicans to campaign everywhere against him and take nothing for granted. He's running against two opponents simultaneously, and he's beating the pantsuit off of one and holding his own against the other. In what reality is he not the stronger candidate?
-
@ jebldmm
[Read the article: Ferraro wants study on sexism, racism in campaign]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]There are many more well-known candidates who could be considered for the position. Please don't insult my intelligence by suggesting that Sebelius is not on the short list merely to pacify feminists. If you doubt that, please explain why Sebelius is being promoted over more experienced and better known male candidates?
Jeb, I'm circling today's date on the calendar in bright red ink, because it's the first time you and I have ever seen eye-to-eye on anything.
I am totally opposed to putting Sebelius on the ticket just because she's a woman. While I have respect for her accomplishments, I think it's clear that there are many, many other more qualified candidates who bring a lot more to the ticket. After all, the last time an unqualified woman was tapped for the VP slot solely because of her gender was by Walter Mondale in 1984, and her name was --
Oh. Never mind.
-
@ sandi78
[Read the article: Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi working to end race]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Obama is not "beating the pantsuit" off anyone. Hillary Clinton has more popular votes, and will probably end up with only a few less pledged delegates, a statistically insignificant number. Has there ever been such a close contest? The Obama campaign is fully aware that this is not over yet.
Obama is currently up 200 delegates on Hillary, the only standard that matters for sealing the nomination. Only in the narrowest definition of the popular vote is Hillary leading, and it requires one to assume that no one in Michigan wanted Obama to be the Democratic nominee for president, which is kind of ironic coming from Ms. Count-Every-Vote, the newly minted populist who just wants everyone's voice to be heard.
The Obama campaign, like all of the rest of us, is aware that this is not over yet, and it won't be over until Hillary is physically removed from the race, kicking and screaming. She cannot win; she can only delay Obama's inevitable victory and hurt his chances at becoming president in November by keeping the party divided through August with phony claims of sexism, elitism, and disenfranchisement.
Hillary is a sore loser and a spoiled brat who can't come to terms with the fact that she blew it. She ran a spectacularly short-sighted campaign that had no plan B for when Super Tuesday failed to seal the deal. Obama went on to rack up a dozen victories in states that Ms. Count-Every-Vote didn't even bother to run serious campaigns in. I guess what the voters in those states had to say didn't actually matter much to her.