Letters to the Editor
blacktop
Published Letters: 151 Editor's Choice: 4
-
ABC Dereliction
[Read the article: The fallout from the Democratic debate]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]ABC is rightly reaping the whirlwind of revulsion stirred up by last night's shameful debate. The network and its sub-par moderators were derelict in their only true responsibility: to question the candidates on issues of weight and interest to voters seeking to form opinions in advance of the primaries or the general election.
Smarmy Stephanopoulos is disingenuous in declaring that he was right to press Sen. Obama on questions pertaining to "electability." This in not an issue relevant to any voters, only to the ABC executives who were seeking a ratings boost.
Oh, and of course to the GOP, which would dearly love to run the campaign focussed only on such deep concerns as flag pins, geriatric 60's radicals, bitter blather, and the loudmouth Rev. Wright. If the campaign were instead to be focussed on such issues as the disasterous war in Iraq, the calamitous decline of the U.S. economy, our stricken educational system, the endangered environment, measley support for our veterans, and the poor standing of America in world opinion, then the Republicans would lose easily to either Democratic candidate.
Stephanopoulos and Gibson were stalking horses for the radical right which has successfully steered the political conversation for the past two decades and now fears that the talking points will shift against them.
ABC has done a disservice to democracy and to the American voters with their indefensible and derelict debate management. ABC richly deserves the vehement reaction that is pouring in from around the world today. Shame on them all.
-
Which pundits are saying it's over?
[Read the article: Attention, pundits. It ain't over]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]According to articles in today's NY Times and Washington Post, Sen. Clinton will in all likelihood "win" in Pennsylvania and the primary race will continue on to North Carolina and Indiana in two weeks. The size of her victory in PA will determine the tenor of the race for the next six weeks: if she wins by more than 10 points she can claim real momentum going forward. If the margin is 7 points or less that will be deemed a setback for her candidacy. She started out with a 25 point margin over Sen. Obama six weeks ago, so any way you figure it, she has been in precipitous free fall in the period leading up to the PA primary.
But the important thing is that no matter whether Sen. Clinton wins by 11 percentage points or by five, she will increase her take of delegates by only a small handful, probably around 10 or less. She will not draw closer to Obama in the overall delegate count and her opportunities for doing so are reduced dramatically after Pennsylvania.
In addition, there is every indication that the daily announcements from super delegates coming out in favor of Obama will continue unabated. He picked up 60 over the last two months, while Clinton got five.
Lastly, the Clinton campaign is running out of money. I think that this issue, rather than the delegate count or the popular vote, will be the one that pushes Sen. Clinton to suspend her campaign in the next few weeks.
The enthusiasm of Democratic voters for the primary process is enlarging the rolls of registered voters for the fall campaign. Obama's incredible fundraising machine will bring in huge amounts of money and legions of energized new voters for the party.
The extended campaign is good for the Dems and bad news for the doddering Republicans. So roll on, Hillary Clinton. Delaying the inevitable for a few more weeks will do no harm and will guarantee the victory of Sen. Obama in November.
-
Expecting
[Read the article: What to expect when you're expecting (primary results)]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I expect to go to bed tonight after another rousing and inspirational speech from Barack Obama and another vow to fight on from Hillary Clinton. I am also planning to skip all the spinning from both camps about the margin of victory. I think that the analysts have it about right: anything less than a 10 point spread for Clinton will not be viewed as much of a victory because she will only net a handful of delegates and continue to lag in that all-important count.
-
Many of Clinton's key messages don't conform to reality
[Read the article: Who can win the big states?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It is the responsibility of the media to keep on pointing out the discrepancies between what Sen. Clinton says and what is in fact true, even if such things are obvious to some.
Clinton will have just as much trouble as Obama in swing states like Pennsylvania and Ohio in the general election. Those Reagan (or Wallace) Democrats are actually blue collar Republicans who are quite prepared to vote for their first choice, John McCain, in November. These are not votes that either Obama or Clinton will have a great chance with in the general election.
The more interesting question is which Democrat will make a better run at the true swing voters, those Independants and suburban moderates who have voted for Republicans in the past. These voters, including many moderate-leaning, pro-choice women are ready and willing to vote for Obama if he is the nominee. Clinton does not have a particularly strong claim on these voters, and her deep dishonesty issues have severely crippled her with this group. In addition, these voters will be less inclined to be moved by any subtle racist attack line that the GOP is sure to run with in the fall.
It is precisely by appealing to these Independants and moderates that Obama can take enough big and little states to clinch a narrow victory in November. Clinton's chances are considerably weaker.