Letters to the Editor
Prolix
Published Letters: 21 Editor's Choice: 2
-
Let it play out.
[Read the article: Politico: "Clinton has virtually no chance of winning"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]After Florida in 2000, I think calling a race (or a state) early is pretty much a cardinal sin in the media. I would like to see Senator Obama as the candidate, but only if it's fair. Let it play out.
The delegate math, and the popular vote, should be clearer right now. They aren't. This is largely the fault of the state governments who decided to try to make the rules themselves, and a bumbling DNC.
Senator Clinton has every right to stay in for as long as she likes. If she were to win Florida 60%-40%, it would net her 42 delegates (126+84=210). If she were to win Michigan 55%-45%, it would net her 16 delegates (86+70=156). Catching up by 58 additional delegates, she would be trailing by less than 100 delegates, instead of the current shortfall of 135-to-150 (NY Times and CNN's numbers).
If you stretch the numbers as far as they can possibly go in Senator Clinton's favor, you can get her +70 delegates in Florida (140 to 70) and +86 delegates in Michigan (86 to 0, pretending that zero people in Michigan would have wanted to vote for Senator Obama).
Because there is this gray area built in, and because the media is (correctly) hesitating to call the race too early, it needs to play out for several more states in order to be perceived as a more fair race. In other words, those gray areas need to be vaulted by more real results.
I, as someone who likes numbers, would rather see the media seriously reporting on why the polls have been so god-awful bad in this campaign. When they tell you a poll is plus or minus 5% and then it's off by 15%, either the polls are unreliable or there is massive voter fraud. I cannot believe that 10% of the people change their minds overnight. In my opinion, that's where the news focus should be right now, boring as it sounds... debunking the fictions of the polls, and making sure there is no voter fraud.
-
Cynicism
[Read the article: The Democrats' anti-momentum]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]What Richardson's blessing signified was that an ambitious politician with close ties to Bill Clinton (they watched the Super Bowl together) decided that his self-interest would be enhanced by choosing Obama rather than Hillary.
When you're this cynical, you don't perceive momentum.
-
Thank you
[Read the article: Rev. Jeremiah Wright isn't the problem]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]. . . for the thoughtful article. I will share it. Hopefully those running for office will read and think about it.
-
Need to get Bill out of the picture.
[Read the article: The GOP attack plan for Hillary Clinton]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Bill Clinton left the White House with his popularity intact, even after his antagonists tried -- and failed, resoundingly -- to remove him from office.
It seems to me that while Clinton did indeed serve for 8 years he effectively lost the election for Al Gore in 2000, and effectively gave Bush the incumbent boost in 2004.
I like Hillary Clinton and will vote for her in November if she is the candidate. I don't say that in a "hold my nose" sort of way.
My problem with her campaign is that Bill is so central to it. I had to unsubscribe from her mailing list because everything I was getting was FROM Bill Clinton. I simply don't want to hear from him.
I think the attack plan would simply be to watch when Bill comes to the surface and call attention to him. Post 1998, the GOP has proven that they can't oust him from office, but they can beat "him" in a general election... all they have to do is make people feel like he's running.
-
Because Any Endorsement Will Backfire
[Read the article: Why John Edwards hasn't endorsed Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]John Edwards has been in a no-win situation when it comes to endorsement. The last time Edwards "teamed up" with Senator Obama in a debate, the media had a field day with how the two men were being mean to the woman, and it totally backfired in terms of public sentiment and served to add bitterness to the competition. I imagine the same thing might happen if he "teamed up" with Sentator Clinton. He is wise to wait until later to give his endorsement, to whomever he chooses.
If his private mandate were for each candidate to pledge to end poverty, I'm not surprised that neither candidate was able to reach deep enough or left enough to please him; a serious, practical "hand up" to the impoverished by either of the two remaining democratic candidates will do a great deal to drastically reduce the poverty level. To entitle everyone to wealth isn't really plausible in a democracy or a free-market economy, and I think as Edwards became more of a fringe candidate, he let idealism overwhelm his sense of the practical. He did make many good points and I think his endorsement is worth something, especially in North Carolina, but I see no problem with his waiting until then to express some opinion.
-
Deficit Spending = Inflation Tax
[Read the article: The endless Democratic party]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Will reporters please start looking into how deficit spending devalues every dollar in the world, effectively taxing those who hold cash (read: the middle class)? In other words, how a "gas tax holiday" can effectively cause a dollar devaluation and an inflation tax. In other words, the "holiday" simply exchanges one middle class tax for another.
Will democratic candidates please start presenting intentional high inflation as tax? Just because the relationship between deficit spending and dollar devaluation isn't precise doesn't mean it's not direct.
McCain will lower the integers for income taxes, but he'll run up the deficit, devaluing the dollar, taking wealth away from citizens. He would effectively raise taxes (especially on the middle class) more than either democratic candidate.