Letters to the Editor
Green Job
Published Letters: 220 Editor's Choice: 3
-
There's only been 1 Obama/Clinton debate
[Read the article: Clinton campaign continues pressing for debates ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]so I wouldn't mind having a few more.
I'd love to see a debate moderated by John Edwards, but I know that'll never happen.
-
Maybe the Democratic Party should change its name
[Read the article: NAACP head wants Florida, Michigan delegates counted]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]to something more accurate. What that would be I don't know.
But Florida + Michigan + Superdelegates doesn't look very democratic.
-
Follow the money
[Read the article: What's the Obama campaign's position on superdelegates?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]because Obama has more money with which to bribe superdelegates than Clinton does. See http://www.capitaleye.org/inside.asp?ID=336
-
Re: If Henry was such a devout Catholic
[Read the article: "The Other Boleyn Girl"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Ever hear the expression More Catholic than the Pope?
-
Big Deal
[Read the article: Obama sets another fundraising record]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It was a leap year.
-
Obama - please stop patting yourself on the back
[Read the article: Obama's speech on race]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I suppose the politically safe thing would be to move on from this episode and just hope that it fades into the woodwork.
You gave this speech because you had to give it, because you know that it wouldn't just fade into the woodwork, not because you're some Kennedy-endorsed Profile-in-Courage.
-
Re: margin of error
[Read the article: The return of Joementum]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...in week 3 Candidate A is at 53% and B is at 49%
Isn't that a 102%?
-
New Hampshire Cheated Too
[Read the article: New Michigan delegate compromise offered]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]as Senator Carl Levin & DNC member Debbie Dingell point out here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/opinion/19levin.html
But no one's taking away their delegates.
Maybe the entire Democratic Primary season should be a do-over
;)
-
The problem isn't proportionality, but proportionality + super delegates
[Read the article: Why Hillary Clinton should be winning]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The super delegates are approximately 20% of the delegates. Therefore, a candidate has to win about 62.5% of the elected/pledged delegates (5/8 of the remaining 80% of the delegates), to win the nomination without the benefit of super delegates. In other words, a candidate has to win consistently by a 2:1 margin, really 5:3, but close.
If one candidate consistently wins by close to a 2:1 margin, I would expect the other candidate to withdraw pretty quickly. But if two candidates are relatively closely matched, there's no reason for the second candidate to withdraw (providing funding doesn't dry up), and thus no reason to expect the nomination would be clinched by the end of the primaries.
Take out the super delegates and all the winning candidate has to do is win 50% + 1 of the elected/pledged delegates. Under those circumstances, I would expect that one of the candidates will have more delegates than the other by end of the primaries (unless by some freak chance, they have exactly the same number of delegates).
I think it would be useful for Salon to have an article, or series or articles, on how to reform the nominating process for 2012 and beyond, but due to its partisanship, this article is not it.
Some reforms that I would like to see:
1. Eliminate the super delegates. If the purpose of super delegates it to prevent the party from nonminating an unelectable candidate, they didn't help much in 1984, 1988, 2000 or 2004. And there are worse things than losing a Presidential Election. See Republicans, 1964, Nomination of Goldwater, Barry.
2. Award delegates proportionately by popular vote within the state, not by congressional district or region within the state. I think Nevada and Missouri were both examples this year of the "winner" being awarded fewer delegates than the "loser" because the "winner"'s votes were concentrated in a few areas within the state.
3. If a winner-take-all system is instituted, it should only be done after the candidate field is whittled down to 2.
4. Award extra delegates to states that have primaries. An exception might have to be made for Iowa. Primaries seem more inclusive (to me anyway) and better mirror a General Election.
5. A state can hold a primary or a caucus, but not both (We're at war, as Stephen Colbert might say).
6. All primaries should be open to Democrats and Independents. Once again, the purpose is to mirror the General Election as much as possible.
7. All voters should be registered as Independent or Democrat in their state before the first state (Iowa) holds its caucus. This is to prevent Republicans from crossing over.
Anyway, just some thoughts.
-
Don't expect reality to intrude in his thought process about this any more than it does about Iraq
[Read the article: Remember the Lieberman "hack attack"?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]After all, the absence of evidence just proves what a good job the Lamont hackers did in covering their tracks.
Violence in Iraq is up: It proves the surge is working because the evil doers are getting more desparate.
Violence in Iraq is down: It proves the surge is working because the evil doers are less effective.
Violene in Iraq is about the same: It proves the surge is working because the evil doers are stalled ina holding pattern.
-
The Pledge of Allegiance
[Read the article: Spare votes?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Lori Moschella-Keller, a nurse's assistant, is a registered Democrat who plans to vote for Clinton. Part of the reason: "I have a real problem with Obama saying on the news that his country is so important to him, but he can't put his hand on his heart for the Pledge of Allegiance.
My, oh my. It's nice to know LMK's got her head together on what's most important in politics in this country. I kind of wished she'd also chided him for not wearing an American flag lapel pin, too.
You'd think a registered Democrat would be sick of shallow, symbolic, cynical political button-pushing..."
In contrast to all the posters praising Obama's self-confidence and common touch for not having a hissy fit after throwing a couple of gutter balls. Or as apolloscreed said,
"What...was the point? Obama bowled badly, was loveable, and six people in Altoona were used as anecdotal evidence. What's tomorrow's follow-up? HRC gets her ass kicked at bingo and is "humanized". McCain drinks Pepsi and rocks out with a boombox at a nursing home, making him seem young and vital. Isn't there something else (like, I dunno, a war or financial crisis) that we could be discussing..."
By all means, we should judge candidates on how they react in a bowling photo-op, not on whether they hold their hands to their hearts during the Pledge/National Anthem or wear a flag pin.
-
This ad need some work
[Read the article: A Willie Horton ad for a new generation]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It's too long and loses focus with the tie in to the War on Terror. After all, even GWB doesn't want to execute terrrorists summarily (first beat the confessions out of them).
As it stands, I think this ad would be more effective at getting out the base then convincing undecided voters.