Letters to the Editor
BadgerBlue
Published Letters: 190 Editor's Choice: 7
-
Renegade, one can never be 100% certain...
[Read the article: Clinton die-hards want floor vote at convention]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...of the actual motivations behind the "die-hards" or "supporters" in regard to a roll-call, but with the same lies constantly being given as excuses in defense of Clinton's candidacy like "she won the popular vote" or "because of Obama's position on abortion" or the pathetic "MI and FL disenfranchisement" nonsense, there's simply no reason to trust them on their word that the motivations are driven out of anything other than another attempt to jump-start what was clearly a lost cause as far back as February. Neither Clinton nor Obama were near my 1st choice for who I'd like to see as the nominee, but I and many others accepted as far back as early 2007 that no matter how much time or money I put in for my first choice that it would probably be one of those two rather than all the others. And that's the real difference separating the Clinton "die-hards" from those that supported Edwards, Kucinich, Dodd, etc. I attended meet and greets and heard each candidate speak at least once, and each of them with the exception of one told supporters point-blank that there were zero guarantees and that the odds were extremely long that all the hard work supporters were willing to sacrifice to the cause would result in taking the nomination. The exception of course was Clinton. Whether she really believed that she had the deal locked up before the process started or not, she went on TV and predicted that she'd have it wrapped up no later than Super Tuesday and in doing so set herself and a considerable amount of her most fervent backers up for a letdown that she initially couldn't accept and plenty of her supporters still can't. What Clinton backers proclaimed was her expressing confidence was viewed by the skeptical and objective voters as taking way too much for granted much too early on.
Out of all the mistakes Clinton made, and there were too many to list here, that was the most damaging of all. She gave the impression too many times to way too many of her believers that her victory was "inevitable" and seeing the dream fade away as February came and went was just too bitter of a pill to swallow for them. I watched Obama's volunteers trudge through the worst winter that Wisconsin has seen in 100 years in the weeks leading up to the state primary here while getting laughed and told to go home by Clinton backers claiming that the state's traditional Dems and track record of more women voting than men, combined with Mark Penn's polling, would render their efforts on behalf of Obama as worthless. Weeks later on voting day, it wasn't even close and all the Clinton "supporters" who laughed at the idea of sacrificing a night out at the trendy wine bar in exchange for walking outside in sub-zero temperatures to help get out the vote could only complain about how "unfair" it all was. Instead of taking a look in the mirror, they largely took the easy way out and blamed others for how they felt and some still do and will continue to do so. They were so convinced that Clinton was just such a great "fighter", that they wouldn't have to do any of the fighting themselves. Obama and his supporters didn't take anything from them. They were just so sure he never had any legitimate chance at it from the start that they couldn't face the reality when it set in.
Demands for a roll-call? How about fully paying off Clinton's campaign debt instead of recycling the same old lies and distortions about Obama, the guy who's actively trying to bail her out from the mess she created? That's probably to much of a realistic thing for objective Democrats to request from the Clinton dead-enders who still insist on being subsidized while living in Fantasyland.
-
Hey pathfinder, I think you might have left something out of that pile of rubbish
[Read the article: Conservatives claim bias in coverage of Obama trip]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Why didn't you just go all the way over the edge of poor taste and state that Obama is actually one of the those illegitimate children that McCain had fathered. I'm sure you remember that story very well from the 2000 SC primary. It must be true since the Bush campaign felt compelled to repeatedly call voters in that state and alert them of McCain's obviously hidden and disgraceful past. What other low grade hash have you dreamed up or heisted from the J. Edgar Hoover BS Institute? Go for it pathfinder. Reach for the stars and tell us the breaking news from the Republican suspended reality chamber of how Obama's real name must be "Macaca".
What a troll.
As for Republican bloggers spinning the myth of the totally unfair bond between the media and Obama? Republican pundits have had numerous chances over the past five years to travel to Iraq and report on all the magnificent progress they have always claimed that the neo-con led strategy has yielded yet when it was time to display all or even any evidence to back up the claim, they never stepped forward. The reason probably being that much like pathfinder's weak attempt at offering anything of substance, the likes of Limbaugh and O'Lie-lly and Hannity knew their claims were all lies to begin with.