Letters to the Editor
joemartin64
Published Letters: 86
-
How is Senator Clinton going to win the nomination?
[Read the article: Attention, pundits. It ain't over]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]And what is Salon willing to do to its own reputation in the futile pursuit of it? Absent a 20% victory margin, it is over after tomorrow, we can wait for North Carolina, Indiana and Oregon to come in at something slightly less than a 20% Clinton victory margin and then it will be over. What is with the absolute lack of hard, cold statistical orientation toward reality from those fewer passionate HRC supporters? How are they more grounded in reality than the "Kool-aid" drinkers on Obama's side?
I just wish Joan Walsh, after four months of fakery, will own up to how bad she wanted HRC to win. There's nothing dishonorable about that except trying to hide it. Makes her look terrible. I'm sure she'll be triumphant tomorrow if HRC wins. Congrats to her, but Obama is the nominee.
-
@ LT bohica
[Read the article: Attention, pundits. It ain't over]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Just asking - can you tell me what bohica stands for? When I was in high school it was superfunny to be the only ones to understand it to mean Bend Over Here It Comes Again. Maybe you have use it differently. Please tell everyone.
-
To HRC supporters
[Read the article: Networks say Clinton will win Pennsylvania]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]In the immortal words of Chris Farley - Whoopdee Freakin' Doo. If it's not a huge margin (like it was predicted on her behalf a month ago)it's over on pledged delegates and popular vote. She then needs superdelegates to chose her with her 54% negative ratings and 8% support of African Americans over the otherwise winner. Senator Clinton lost this race three months ago, and the death of her campaign is a lingering one. How does she win first)the nomination and second) the general election?
-
Senator Clinton's victory -
[Read the article: Obama rules the Pennsylvania airwaves]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]A Pyrrhic victory (IPA: /ˈpɪrɪk/) is a victory with devastating cost to the victor. The phrase is an allusion to King Pyrrhus of Epirus, whose army suffered irreplaceable casualties in defeating the Romans at Heraclea in 280 BC and Asculum in 279 BC during the Pyrrhic War.
She is, again, toast just like she was at the end of February. No more of her almost $200 million she had raised. No more favorables - in fact 54% unfavorable rating nationally (and less than 50% favorable in New York). She can't win the nomination without serious craziness outside the remaining contests. If that happens, she will lose the general election.
Somehow Joan Walsh and Rush Limbaugh have managed to sustain Operation Chaos toward a potentially successful conclusion.
Thanks Salon!
-
For Clinton supporters
[Read the article: Hillary Clinton's bionic quest continues]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]At what point is continuing nothing but self-indulgence? Her new strategist just said something to the effect that she won't rely on any sort of "numeric metric" to determine who should be the nominee. Essentially, she is at the point where she is continuing with the hope that the votes won't be counted.
-
How does it get to Denver Mike?
[Read the article: Will the Democrats flop in Denver?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Beyond a media impulse to take it that far? Won't Obama win on delegates? Won't we have dozens of backs-and-forth here on salonforhillary.com about framing Clinton's various vote scenarios that remind everyone with young children of playing Monopoly with a seven year old?
Which adjective fits Salon's fevered Hillary positioning - mindless, vainglorious, self-indulgent or nihilistic?
And somewhere between 3 to 7 days from now Joan Walsh will weigh in with another post that will set in concrete her phony still-trying-to-work-through-the-issues bullshit for which she has earned what? And Joan's response won't tell if she thinks Hillary's positioning is - mindless, vainglorious, self-indulgent or nihilistic.
I think it is all those and a bag of chips.
The Pennsylvania results today changed one thing - Clinton supporters are dreaming and have their head in clouds.
-
The guy just paid off his own student loans
[Read the article: Looking past Pennsylvania]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]and he's out of touch with you compared to Hillary who could send your daughter and 1,000 others like her to college with her own money?
Detailed policy knowledge is maybe third on the list of what helps a President achieve legislative success. Remember Oliver Wendell Holmes compliment of FDR as a President - a second rate mind, but he has a first rate temperament. That coupled with long coattails in Congressional elections made FDR the gold standard for such success.
Neither Clinton nor Obama have second rate minds. Obama has the temperament and coattail potential that Clinton doesn't.
Oh, and by the way, it's impossible for her to win the nomination.
-
I think Hillary supporters should be all for this
[Read the article: Top Dems consider intervening in race]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It's the only way to reverse the irreversible determination that it's otherwise over.
Just lay out all the logic:
It's not about the delegates (ignoring Howard Wolfson's and Terry McCaullife's minor change of position on this matter).
Don't count the caucuses (which are recognized under the national rules) but
Do count the Hillary v. Obama popular vote differential in Michigan which isn't regognized under the national rules (ignoring Hillary's minor change of position on this matter).
Make those arguments stick and, abra ca dabra, she wins!!!!
I've got three children under the age of 10, and I've played enough Candyland, Uno, Monopoly etc. with them to know this line of thought when I see it.
-
Joan wants to work the refs.
[Read the article: Keith Olbermann apologizes for his Clinton remark]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]But Joan -
I'm not a ref, nobody else who posts on Salon is a ref. YOU ARE A REF. And a jackass for refusing to acknowledge that for the last four months, from Gloria Steinem in the NY Times to your post today, powerful women have used their position to plead on Hillary's behalf that she is a victim. People in positions of comparative power claiming victim status creates an environment in which, perhaps, they generate legitimate criticism that is not connected to their gender or race.
To Obama's everlasting credit, he has never depended on victimology, even in the dire peril he faced with Rev. Wright.
On the other hand, I have read your posts, and responded at times to them, without you ever owning up to what you really want out of this.
You're not working the refs; you are a ref working the game. No wonder so many posters get pissed off.