Letters to the Editor
Published Letters: 21 Editor's Choice: 2
-
This conversation is depressing
[Read the article: Clinton: Wright "would not have been my pastor"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]A lot of venom being spat here.
Are people really going to vote for a Republican if their chosen candidate doesn't win the Democratic nomination? This makes so little sense I can't comprehend the mentality of anyone who'd say such a thing, beyond irrational hatred. Both candidates are competent enough to become President. Neither are perfect, but they're not warmongers with a tendency for tantrums either and neither are going to appoint right wing lunatics to the Supreme Court.
To not do your part to get the Republicans out of power this November is an act of treason. Whoever wins the Democratic nomination, they need our support.
-
No, honestly Joan, it isn't helping
[Read the article: How the long primary battle helps Democrats]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Just look at what's happening. Obama and Clinton's approval ratings are going through the floor. The media is ignoring McCain's scandals and highlighting the Democratic candidate's. The two are concentrating on attacking one another rather than attacking McCain (and have little choice, beyond occasional attempts to take the high road.) Meanwhile their supporters are tearing each other to shreds. And yes, Joan, I think a fair number really are willing to sit on their hands at the election, or vote for McCain, if "their" candidate doesn't come through, because that's what Liberals do. So obsessed with the cause we don't fight the battles.
This is awful. If the November election's results ever became pre-ordained, it was when both candidates scraped through the Texas/Ohio primaries with enough momentum to ensure neither felt able or willing to back down.
This is really, really, bad. Unless one or other candidate drops out very soon, and I mean "this coming week" is too long, McCain is going to be President in November. We're still banging away at each other when we're running out of time to patch up the damage.
-
I'd say the three most likely VPs are:
[Read the article: Obama-Bloomberg '08?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]1. Clinton - though only if the DNC forces it on Obama as an ugly "compromise", I don't see either candidate being overly happy with it, but neither candidate's supporters can realistically vote for McCain or sit the election out with "both" running.
2. Richardson. I don't think I need explain this.
3. Dodd. Very aligned, and very experienced, and the two have a history of working together. Don't think I need to explain this one either, but it's surprising to me it hasn't come up before.
-
Why would Richardson say that?
[Read the article: Richardson said Obama can't beat McCain?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]On the face of it, the Clinton's account seems improbable because of two issues:
First it's doubtful many people outside of the Clinton camp actually believe that Obama can't win against McCain yet Clinton somehow can. And, quite honestly, I doubt many people inside the Clinton camp actually believe that too. Richardson's major reasons for "supporting" Clinton seem to be the personal links, not a belief in Clinton somehow having more electability.
The second is that it's improbable that Richardson really has those views given he's endorsed Obama. Why would he do that? Why would he endorse someone he believes cannot win?
The best explanation that fits both is that Richardson was trying to find justifications for remaining "loyal" to the Clintons and essentially made this crap up, deciding afterwards he was fooling nobody, least of all himself. I don't think that it's that likely. If I were trying to find justifications, I'd fall back to Clinton's strong points, or at least the points her supporters find strong: her tenacity, her (albeit second-hand) experience, the extent to which a Clinton presidency will not be encumbered by high expectations.
The one thing that's clear though is that they really seem to dislike Richardson, and that's a shame. I have no idea what he did behind the scenes to engender such a reaction; I recall though after one of the first caucusses the rumor-mill was full of stories that Richardson's supporters had switched to Obama where Richardson hadn't garnered enough votes, with suggestions the switch was deliberate and coordinated. Meanwhile Obama's supporters, myself among them (like I make a difference...), have been promoting Obama-Richardson as the perfect slate or a perfect slate (hey, I'll also take Obama-Dodd). Whether the caucus rumors are true or not, it's hard to imagine that a Clinton team that was following what was going on really believed Clinton would be a natural candidate for Richardson to endorse.
The notion that Richardson owed Clinton seemed to be the only reason Clinton's team had for believing otherwise; and that's a poor argument - if you're picked to work for someone, you owe them the best job you can do, and nothing more.
I'm not saying the Clinton's are lying, I just doubt what they're saying is the truth, it doesn't make much sense, and I suspect it's the product of wishful thinking.
-
This is why I never renewed my subscription
[Read the article: Why Hillary Clinton should be winning]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The quality of what Salon has been posting of late has fallen through the floor. Given Obama's consistent lead in the popular vote, I cannot conceive of any reason why Salon would post an article claiming a different system would be "fairer" because Obama would lose in it other than to generate controversy for the sake of controversy.
Ms Walsh: this is indefensible. Please make the drastic changes you need to make to remake Salon as a credible paper for liberals, or resign.