Letters to the Editor
joemartin64
Published Letters: 86
-
winning the general election
[Read the article: The knives come out in South Carolina]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]From Byron York:
"I went to Barack Obama’s rally here, on Sunday night, with a Republican friend who had never seen the Illinois senator in action before. Watching the crowd of more than 3,000 fill up the convention center, watching the people send up waves of energy to Obama, and watching him play off that energy in a speech that was one of the best political performances anyone has seen this year, my Republican friend said, simply, "Oh, shit." He recalled the scene from Jaws, in which the small seaside town’s sheriff realizes how big the shark he’s tracking truly is, and says, "We’re gonna need a bigger boat."
The Democrats have two weeks to decide the general election. I know the Republicans are on their knees every night praying for Hillary instead of Obama.
If it were clear to me that HRC had the potential to generate a true national mandate, drag a lot of Democrats in borderline states into Congress via her coattails, and cause independents to vote our way in a matchup against McCain, I'd have to reconsider my Obama support, and get comfortable with a 2nd choice with her.
The Republicans might benefit from the greatest unforced error in modern political history - the choice of an unpopular, calculating, divisive phony who needs the former president of the United States as her own personal attack dog to squeek through to a nomination.
A demoralized and divided Demcratic Party, no prospect of independent support and an opposition that will walk over broken glass to vote against her. I can't wait!
-
It's rough but I don't think it's dishonest
[Read the article: Obama and Clinton on Reagan and Republicans]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]What do you think? Joan, you're being dishonest. Is there any mention in your first (finally!) mention of the key Democratic discussion in the last three weeks. Why didn't you frame it from Obama's point regarding the Clintons' dishonesty about what he said? Why didn't you quote the misrepresentation of those lines you quoted by the Clintons? Why don't you reference anything about the general election risks.
My answer is you want the Clintons to win and you won't admit it. You still point yourself out (here whenever you bother to show up, and on television) as an undecided objective reporter trying to sort your way through things, and that means you are full of it.
From here, we need to hear from you how you think she's more electable against McCain, in her best and worst case scenario, instead of Obama. You will help lead the Democratic Party off the cliff again if you don't get that question right.
At this point, I'm sure you will sit tight and not take a position until it helps HRC's nomination chances.
You don't know the anger the Clintons are generating within the party, let alone outside of it.
-
Joan Walsh
[Read the article: Obama and Clinton on Reagan and Republicans]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Has introduced herself as the Democratic advocate for TRUTHINESS. Thanks, I've read Salon for years and years, never been an fully active commentator, and Joan has gone over to the dark side - act objective, pretend to be neutral, be quiet when it's not in her selfish interest to speak out, and frame an argument that appears arms-length that achieves a personal objective she will not own up to.
Can't wait for the general election - broad sunlight fields of American optimism.
-
Well we are all on the same page then
[Read the article: Barack Obama agrees with me]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Joan -
If you thought the Clintons' attacks on Obama were necessary to steel him for a general election run, Thanks!
I wish we could have as an intense debate about HRC's and Obama's worst cases and best cases in a general election.
His best case is a big Democratic mandate. He has identified this election as one akin to 1932, 1964 and 1980 as one of the few election years where one side can assemble a sizeable majority. Hillary is incapable of doing so because of how toxic she is to 48% of Americans, and the dislike that independents have for her.
This means her upside is a George W. result against, say John McCain: 270 electoral votes and 50.1 versus 49.9 popular results. She won't help our congressional majorities in border states. And this is her best case outcome.
Obama's upside is a landslide, and his downside is that his vulnerability to the Republican attack machine might make his negatives go as high as Hillary's. She has already guaranteed that, so how can Obama be riskier than her?
-
Race in the primary campaign
[Read the article: My sanest conversation on TV, ever]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]To my mind, the assasination of Archduke Ferdinand moment that started the whole conflict was Gloria Steinem's regrettable piece in the New York Times. It was a case of special pleading that electing a woman president was more important than electing an african-american. (Of course she caveated that argument by saying she did mean to make it). I hate the whole group identification embodied in that. The first time I saw Obama speak in person (before he was nationally famous), I said to myself that this guy should be President. The symbolic achievement of electing an african-american never occurred to me. To often I fear that Hillary supporters have as an end in and of itself, the objective of breaking the glass ceiling.