Letters to the Editor
joemartin64
Published Letters: 86
-
Practical considerations about the general elections are all that matters
[Read the article: Obama and race in California]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The stated policy differences between the final two candidates are not as important as their comparative ability to win the general election against Sen. McCain. If you analyze the best and worst case scenarios in the general election for both candidates, then Sen. Clinton's upside is to sneak through by a bare margin of popular, electoral and congressional contest votes. Here downside is she cannot attract independents, young first time voters (Republicans don't like high turnout), energizes the opposition and demoralizes the base.
Obama's upside is the mandate we should naturally secure given 2008's special position alongside 1932, 1964, and 1980 as difference makers - times when the strong hand should get massive, decisive victories. This is not a certainty, or even a probability, but at least a possibility. HRC couldn't run against Dick Cheney and have the same chance.
Obama's downside is potentially he might get slimed to the point that he as as generally disagreeable as the Clintons are already.
I cannot comprehend how Obama's potential to be slimed to the point that he is viewed as negatively as the Clintons are already, makes Obama's downside greater than theirs. Help me please to understand that.
-
I can't stand voting for a member of a group right now.
[Read the article: Multiracial man]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]He is Barack Obama and she is Hillary Clinton. Vote for the individuals - judge their own electability, experience, judgment, vision. Whatever happens, one symbolic group milestone will be passed by this year's Dem nominee.
-
Rebecca should be practical
[Read the article: Undecided '08: Should I vote for Clinton or Obama?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Vote for the one who will do better in the general election with independents and in states on the edge. Symbolism in the form of voting for someone based on group identity can't be more important than ensuring the right outcome in November.
-
This is the difference -
[Read the article: Biracial, but not like me]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Obama has earned it the hard way. Having read his book is a difference maker to me. What is the point of thinking groupwise - gender v. race - after you read it? I'm really pissed at Gloria Steinem and Erica Jong for arguing that a privileged white person from a well to do Chicago suburb who is obviously disadvantaged by her sex, had anywhere near the same disadvantage as this guy (or this guy's mother). Yet he emerged from all that as a stronger, more unique, fearless individual than her.
P.S. Erica Jong's slander of Obama as a "token" today in the Washington Post baffles me.
-
Hey anonymous:
[Read the article: Biracial, but not like me]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Here's what I understand about the Clinton criticism of Obama's vulnerability to Swiftboating in the general election (due to his inexperience in fighting the Republican smear machine):
"Obama is riskier in the general than Hillary, because he is not proven to be a candidate who can respond to Swiftboating - which means he is vulnerable to attacks that will raise his negatives, suppress interest among independents, and energize the opposition."
This means he is the riskier general election candidate because if that comes true, he will be exactly where Hillary is today. How is that a greater risk?
-
Obama's victory margins in different states
[Read the article: Goodbye, Super Tuesday]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]What seems so remarkable to me is how Obama literally blew her doors off in so many disparate states: Colorado, Georgia, Kansas, North Dakota, Utah, Idaho, Minnesota etc. The general election will be fought in many such places, and I think it clearly demonstrates he's better suited as the noominee. If she loses by slaughter rule in these states that are so demographically diverse in the primary, she's toast in a general election in all those same places. That will limit her options and allow McCain to focus all his resources in only those few states that she will have to bat 1.000 with to get 270+ electoral votes. Think about it - ignoring home field advantages on both sides - she's stronger in Massachusetts and California. Why chose someone based on comparative strenghts in the latter areas rather than the former ones?
The long term lesson from last night is we learned which candidate is better positioned in the general.
-
He can win states in the general election
[Read the article: Who won Super Tuesday?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]that she cannot. He won't lose any states she is likely to win. Done deal - Obama is the more electable Dem candidate.
If there is a more compelling case than this, tell me. How the heck does Barack Hussein Obama run Hillary Clinton completely off the field in Minnesota, Kansas, Georgia, Idaho, Delaware, South Carolina and Iowa without those victories signaling that he's the best nominee?
I know she did well in California and Massachusetts. If we need to hold either of these in the general election, then she might be a good nominee too.
-
Isn't it over regarding who's the better general election candidate?
[Read the article: CNN: Obama sweeps Democratic contests]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]He keeps blowing her doors off, and her big victories are a 2% squeeker comeback in New Hampshire, and then NY, Mass and California - but the only decisive margin she has ever earned is her home field advantage. I think Obama might hang on to Mass in the general election.
-
Senator Clinton and Senator Obama are the candidates
[Read the article: Changes at top of Clinton campaign]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If either is failing it is her or his own fault, not spouses, not staff - but their own. He keeps blowing her doors off in so many different places, adding Maine (with predicted 60% women v. 40% men). After a full month, I am getting past the fear of a comeback like New Hampshire. She will certainly do better in March than in February, but she won't beat him by 20 or 30 point margins then like he does now. And how does he do it in so many different places: Colorado, Washington, Georgia, Maine, Minnesota, South Carolina, Kansas, Nebraska etc? These are only the states that he has won by slaughter rule. He's also won Missouri, Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, etc. by margins that she would love to have in some of those states she has won - New Hampshire for instance. With that track record she must kick a lot of ass in the upcoming states to get even.