Letters to the Editor
Renegade Iconoclast
Published Letters: 616 Editor's Choice: 11
-
concernedCitizen1954 isn't using all of its brain cells
[Read the article: The fallout from the Democratic debate]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Obama's people were in MI and made it clear that a vote for uncommitted would later go for Obama, so to say he wasn't on the ballot is a misrepresentation of what actually went on in MI.
Wow, where to start? First of all, it was never ever stated that a vote for uncommitted was going to "go" anywhere. The point of uncommitted was to show dissatisfaction with the fact that only one person was on the ballot. A person who, may I remind you, refused to remove her name because it was too much trouble for something that didn't matter anyway. It was clear that none of the delegates were going to "go" anywhere, contrary to your assertion; the DNC doesn't even have hotel rooms for them at the convention.
Furthermore, you can't say how the vote would have turned out if it were a real vote. Millions of people were told their vote would not count, and that it was basically a straw poll. So people stayed home. I don't care if the turnout in FL was a record. It might have been double the record if it had been a real vote.
You say Obama only cares about the votes that were for him. Pot, meet kettle. Clinton doesn't give a rat's ass about all of the Obama voters who didn't bother to show up because it was a fake election. She only wants them to be counted because she won.
Finally, to say that it wasn't your fault and you shouldn't be punished is a ridiculous, meaningless statement. You elected your state officials. MI drew up its plans to defy the national party LONG before the election, at all times fully aware of the consequences. Did you do anything at all to protest? Did you even write a letter to the editor?
No, I suspect that you, like most people, enjoyed the idea of thumbing your nose at the DNC, Iowa, and New Hampshire. Hell, that's probably how I would have felt too! Only after it became clear that this would be a historically close race did MI and FL start to cry about their delegates not being seated. The plan all along was for Clinton to take the nomination in February, magnanimously seat the delegates in MI and FL and be a hero for doing so.
Well, it didn't happen. Them's the breaks. Tough.
-
Hillary is done
[Read the article: The epic battle for Pennsylvania]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]What will Cytheria and Wes and KateTex and all the other hysterical, divisive, shrill Clinton trolls do when Hillary drops out?
Nice sleight of hand. Nothing much has changed except for 10-20% in the polls. Obama pulls a close one here and the race is all but over. Clinton could hold out hope if she pulled 20-30% in PA. That isn't going to happen.
In all likelihood, Obama will need 80-150 of the superdelegates to Clinton's 200-300. That means you need 200 or 300 people dumb enough to rip the Democratic party in two pieces by throwing the popular will under the bus and endorsing Clinton.
She'll find a few people that stupid, but not 200-300. The race is over. Every loyal progressive should get behind the winner and quit trolling for the right wing.
-
Nonsense
[Read the article: The epic battle for Pennsylvania]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Sorry, but this is just one more battle and it's not over yet. And to all who are now whining and complaining, go find something else to do if you can't hack it anymore.
Where is it written that a win is a loss? Hardly. Hillary Clinton, for all her shortcomings, is far better than many of the men who landed in the White House who also had their own peculiar "shortcomings."
PA is just one of 50 states. You merely assert that the race isn't over, without facing the reality of it. If Obama loses PA by 47-53%, and ties the remaining races, he'll need 95 superdelegates to win. Clinton will need 230.
This is pretty likely how it will shape up. Clinton will kick ass in PR (and Guam?), Obama will stomp her in NC, and the remaining delegates will basically split, with Obama winning a few more than Clinton. I'm guessing Obama will actually need about 80 to Clinton's 245 superdelegates.
If you think they're going to go 3-1 in favor of Clinton, what do you base that on? Nearly all of the undecideds since Super Tuesday have come out for Obama. The reason why is obvious: the electorate as a whole favors him, and they don't want to piss off the electorate.
Clinton trolls, shills, and naive but innocent minded bystanders who think she has a chance of winning never like to talk about the numbers. There's a reason why. It starts to look like a fantasy when you try to make it happen for her.
-
Cytheria can't seal the deal
[Read the article: Attention, pundits. It ain't over]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Um, it's not working out that way for him since Ohio... He's spending desperately in the hope of success--and falling short. A bad sign, frankly. He will have a huge money advantage over McCain, but if he can't seal the deal with voters in key swing states, he's going to lose, no matter how much he raises and spends. And Clinton is proving, in Ohio and today in Pennsylvania, that he can't seal that deal.
Going from 20 points down to a horse race is not falling short. In fact, it's part of the reason he will win the nomination, because he consistently does just enough to win. You constantly conflate primaries and general elections as though they are related by some super-pixie-magic-formula that no one (including you) has explained to date, but rather have merely asserted to exist. People point it out, and you don't justify your leap of logic, you just ignore the criticism. Now you're trying to spin a record number of small donors and record amount of money raised by Obama as though it's a bad thing and spells his doom in the general election. Is there any limit to your backwards, counterintuitive, unbound by any facts, "reasoning?"