Letters to the Editor
-
@ Anonymous 12:53 AM
You should have a chat with Anonymous 10:45, who assures us that it is perfectly understandable why Hispanics went for Clinton rather than Obama. Maybe the two of you are from different parts of the country. Maybe you have different income levels and know different Hispanic/Latinos.
I always try to say Hispanic/Latino because I got in no end of trouble using the work Latino in New Mexico. I was informed that there was no such thing. There in no one Hispanic vote. Instead there are lots of different people of different backgrounds, who arrived at different times, from different countries.
I would have been more accurate perhaps to say that I believe Bill Richardson would help Clinton -- were she to be the nominee -- get a better lock on the Hipanic vote, my reference point being Southwestern U.S. Hispanics. I am not contending all Hispanics would want to vote for Richardson. I didn't say that, did I?
You really think that Clinton hasn't considered this?
Surely it is as legimate for a Hispanic voter to want to vote for a Hispanic as it is for an African-American voter to want to vote for an African-American as it is for a Native American to want to vote for a Native American as it is for an Asian American to want to vote for an Asian American as it is for a woman to want to vote for a woman as it is a man to want to vote for a man as it is a gay person to want to vote for a gay person as it is for a young person to want to vote for a young person as it is for an old person to want to vote for an old person as it is for tooth fairies to want to vote for other tooth fairies -- I do hope you are getting my drift. Gee, did I leave anyone out?
I WOULDN'T WANT TO THINK THAT ANYONE MIGHT ACTUALLY VOTE BASED UPON THINGS CALLED ISSUES.
-
Obama
Mergent:
The best way for Obama to come back is to discuss the issues more specifically. We know he's the candidate of change, OK, but now he needs to define what that change is.
And he needs to clarify what he meant in that interview about Ronald Reagan. He says that Americans were tired of the excesses of the 60s and the 70s and Reagan was able to tap into that. That comment struck me as a clumsy attempt at triangulation. Either that, or Obama really believes it. That's scarier.
http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3263
-
Clinton's electability . . .
AKA Smith, I have a similar family situation, where my mom is considering voting for Clinton -- even though she voted for Bush in 2004 and Goldwater in 1964. So I would agree that Clinton has the ability to make some inroads with GOP voters.
Having said that, I think the Clintons high negatives aren't going anywhere. I would be willing to wager that the 42 to 46% of Americans who have a negative attitude regarding Team Clinton do not include either your mother or mine.
As a Democratic-leaning swing voter who tallied a vote for Clinton in 1996, threw away a vote in a non-competitive general election race in 2000 (at least in my state), voted Kerry in 2004, and voted a straight Democratic ticked in 2006 -- and in the past two years has given a nice chunk of change to the DNC and various Democratic candidates as well as many volunteer hours -- I will say that I am not on the Clinton "restoration" bandwagon. I think some of their electioneer tactics have been, at best, ill-advised in the context of a party primary. The idea of a party leader/husband/former president running negative attacks during a party primary is in and of itself new territory for pretty much everyone. On balance, I think Bill helps Hillary in a primary, but I think his actions will make it harder for her to rally the base come November (I also think it will diminish Bill's impact in a general election). The Clinton campaign might try to pass the whole thing off as just Bill being Bill in an attempt to bridge the gap within the party, but I think most of us see the strategy for exactly what it is, and appreciate that Bill would not be running loose were it not with the full approval of the Clinton Team and Hillary. I don't think Hillary can have this one both ways. And in any event, that bridge has already been crossed.
On a different note, I think Clinton can win the general election, but I think a lot will depend on who her GOP opponent is and what kind of independent spoilers enter the race. I also think Clinton is being more than a little presumptuous when she said today "we will all be united in November to defeat the Republicans". To be quite honest, at this stage it really depends on what the options are. I don't think that Clinton should automatically assume that the voters who broke in a big way for the party in 2006 are necessarily going to rally around her candidacy (most of her votes so far have seemed to come primarily from very reliable Democratic voters).
Nor do I believe that independent voters will necessarily see the next GOP candidate as simply a continuation of the Bush presidency. For those of us who view both parties with a degree of skepticism, the prospect of a Clinton restoration vis a vis a divided government split between an increased Democratic majority in Congress and GOP contender or viable independent, might not be the worst of all worlds.
-
RE: Two candidates bringing out the worst in people.
That this primary season has been media driven is one thing. But for two candidates to promote it is entirely another. How else could you have tension after tension before any state considered anywhere near large makes one vote?
Already I'm discouraged to the point of being turned away from the polls. The Republican tactics of divide and ruin are why. There is one interesting difference between those who promote division as a matter of habit, though, and their Dem counters.
With the Republicans you at least expect it. You know, that is, that the leading Republicans are simply weak, and, therefore, hateful as a last resort. Dragging us down to their level always makes them happiest!
I don't know which of these two "leaders" to be more appalled at actually. Obama really outdid himself with his Reagan comments over the weekend. While Hillary has taken "a take no prisoners" approach far too seriously...perhaps even to heart.
Wow!
Too bad there's a war going on getting in the way of these egomaniacs' drive for attention.
Some would say, too, that self-hate has permeated the Democratic Party. Feeling oppressed by Republicans they don't stand up to, these so called leaders are more than willing to throw supporters into the fray in revealing ways. As their supporters flock to tell them how ardent they're willing to be, though, at least someone needs to ask how such supposedly accomplished individuals came to hate so quickly?
Perhaps we need a new Party?
Since this one is enroute to being burnt the fuck down!