Letters to the Editor
-
also @AKA Smith
As a woman, I would like Hillary to respond very forthrightly to her attackers.
But she didn't of course. She was circumspect. Not that she had a choice in the matter. Saying directly, "He snubbed me, Chris, and it hurt my feelings," would have been ridiculous. As you mentioned, she decided somewhere along the line to play it strategically (like she'd been snubbed and it hurt her feelings but she was going to, sniff, not make a big deal out of it.) She's certainly shrewd, and as you and others have mentioned before, that is not necessarily a bad thing in the game of politics.
-
lateagain from anonymous
I still think what Hilary is doing is a low blow and I can't believe her supporters are validating her actions.
I meant what I said. I used to be a Hilary Clinton supporter, a crazy Clinton supporter (very "Go Hilary!") who gave my support without question (big mistake). But my mind was changed after realizing, really, her senate voting record and witnessing her actions in this campaign.
I agree with much of what you say much of the time, but I don't agree with your generalizations here. It's time we held ourselves up to the same standards to which we hold our political leaders.
-
@chanayut - RE: Do Over, Redo the Math or Revoke the Delegate
It also seems that, since Billary pledged to the 4 sanctioned early states that she agreed Fla and Mich wouldn't count, they would be well within their rights to take and/or reassign their Clinton delegates now that she has reneged (breached) on that pledge (contract)
No one ever made that pledge. The 4-state pledge was about campaigning, not about delegates. The Democratic candidates pledged they wouldn't campaign in any state that held its primary or caucus prior to February 5th, except for Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada & South Carolina.
-
I agree with much of what you say much of the time
@anonymous:
I'm just going to take that and run, thank you very much. It's as high a compliment as anyone can get from this forum. :)
-
To Alan Bennett
You are quite right regarding starting from a different view point. We all have some ideal of who we want to elect as the next nominee. However, I'm just preparing myself for several different outcomes. And, crossing party lines is not out of the question for me.
PEACE
-
A much better analysis than that of Dana Millbank - WaPo
Actually, I agree that next Tuesday has got to be the focus, and I'm sure it will be in both campaigns.
Millbank's article was really trashed over at WaPo. He seemed to be suggesting that the fact that 865,000 people deciding to go vote for Hillary Clinton in a contested election was "much ado about nothing." She received more votes (with Edwards in the race)than either Obama or McCain.
I'm not surprised the Clinton camp wants to spin it in a big way. The Obama camp would be doing the same thing if they had won.
The media are going to have to be smarter about covering the campaign going forward. There are a lot of votes involved next Tuesday. It's unbecoming of certain members of the media to seem to be attempting to spin the numbers themselves. Let's leave that to the two camps.
Frankly, I think Clinton's numbers showed that more people in Florida want her as President. I know that's hard for some people to hear. I know Obama supporters are saying that if he had been there his "change" message would have made a difference. I don't think so, anymore than I think Montana and Kansas if they go to Obama are going to go to the Democrats in November.
-
Rovian Scumbag
Now that Edwards is out of the race, I will be switching my vote to Obama. Hillary's Rovian tactics have made it a no-brainer. The attempt to steal Florida and Michigan is last straw. Sickening and shameful. I don't expect a saint but I won't vote for a nominee walking around openly with blood on their hands.
-
Why is this not the fault of Florida or Michigan?
Why are we even flirting with the idea of feeling bad for the Michigan and Florida delegations, like they have somehow been disenfranchised? They were aware of the possible consequences of moving the date of their primaries; this shouldn't come as a surprise. If these delegations do believe that their citizens' voices should be heard, then why don't they agree to hold a later primary?
If it is as close as we are expecting it to be, and if the nomination comes down to the Michigan and Florida voters, it would be disasterous for the party to re-consider seating their delegates. Do we believe that the results of these two primaries, which the voters knew (or should have known) did not count, accurately reflect the preferences of Michigan and Florida democrats? Once again, Senator Clinton is trying to game the system to give her an unfair advantage. To seat these delegates would flat out cause a dangerous schism in the Democratic Party.
Play by the rules, Michigan and Florida, and stop crying (no pun intended, Hillary).
-
1,2,3,4...
Did Hillary Clinton really win in Florida? I'm prepared to be kind. You obviously have a problem with adding up. Take off your shoes and count your toes. Maybe then this strange thing known as counting, one sheep, two sheep etc, will become clear to you. Loved the 'outlaw primary' - so subtle.
-
Do I have to get naked, people?
Why will nobody answer my queries about the super delegates? Nobody knows? That makes you and me and apparently the whole mainstream media. Methinks there's a conspiracy brewing. Seriously, remember "chads"? You heard it here first: "Super delegates" will be big and controversial.
I guess I'll have to go google, dammit.
-
sigh...
Alright, we get it.
Hillary won Florida. But as everyone and their brother knew long ago, the votes don't count. Blame the DNC, blame the Florida Democratic Party, blame Kathrine Harris...I don't care.
But they don't count, sorry. To try and then rig the system so they will in fact count is the kind of thing a banana republic would get pilloried for if it tried to do.
Florida and Michigan are disenfranchised (although not really...you still get to vote for your President in November right?). Everybody knew this a YEAR ago...if it's such a big deal now, why wasn't it then? Couldn't be because some candidates assumed they'd be cakewalking by now would it?
If you couldn't get up the indignation last year, then you really have no basis to now...so kindly do us all a favour and get over it.
Now if you want to say that this straw ballot can serve as some kind of limited litmus test on the going theories about support for both camps, then go right ahead...but you should bear in mind that the data is flawed...
cheers