Letters to the Editor
-
tell us more
I understand--and it is not being reported, that an important property owner issue--insurance--tax??? was also on the Florida ballot yestereday so, contrary to the reported implication, dems were not coming out to vote just for the heck of it (enthusiasm is what it was called). The PROPERTY OWNERS had incentive. So, does Hillary REALLY have support of 50% of the dems? Those young folks and poor folks who are NOT property and who are less likely as a demographic to be property owners, would have no incentive to vote especially knowing that their primary vote would not count--no delegates. If the only issue in my primary was a choice between the candidates but I knew it was a meaningless exercise because the delegates would not be seated at the convention, I would not vote. What an irony if Hillary gets those Fla delegates seated--honesty in an election in Florida derailed again, 8 years later, and by a democrat!
-
AKA Smith's Post
So you say you're an English major "two times over"--as if that gives you some expertise. Yet you have the following errors in your posting:
"In fact I said the opposite: That people may not support Obama and even not like Obama and still not be racist...."
That should be "might" and not "may." What you wrote means that people don't have permission to support Obama and not be racist.
Then you used the phrase "media has" a couple of times. "Media" is the plural of "medium." Thus it should be "media have."
You used the phrase "misogyny against women." Is there another kind?
And the plural of "Clinton" is "Clintons"--no apostrophe.
Next time you pop of with sanctimonious degree-dropping, at least edit your post first. I normally don't pick on the grammatically challenged, but given the arrogance, I couldn't resist.
Signed,
A former English major who had the good sense to switch to journalism
-
AKA Smith's Post
So you say you're an English major "two times over"--as if that gives you some expertise. Yet you have the following errors in your posting:
"In fact I said the opposite: That people may not support Obama and even not like Obama and still not be racist...."
That should be "might" and not "may." What you wrote means that people don't have permission to support Obama and not be racist.
Then you used the phrase "media has" a couple of times. "Media" is the plural of "medium." Thus it should be "media have."
You used the phrase "misogyny against women." Is there another kind?
And the plural of "Clinton" is "Clintons"--no apostrophe.
Next time you pop off with sanctimonous degree-dropping, at least edit your post first. I normally don't pick on the grammatically challenged, but given the arrogance, I couldn't resist.
Signed,
A former English major who had the good sense to switch to journalism
-
@AKA Smith
fair enough...I should read a bit more thoroughly. Although to be fair I was pretty clear that I only used your statement as a jumping off point:
"look, I'm actually not picking on you...just using that statement to highlight a broader point - both side's supporters are so busy flinging mud..."
We'll just have to agree to disagree on the negative/positive aspects that Bill "Mediagenic" Clinton is having on his wife's campaign. I think it's a huge advantage...if only because every time some right wing blowhard comes down hard on them she can play the innocent victim of the right wing smear campaign (which prolly has some validity...although I suspect alot more in the General Election than it does now) and garner the votes fueled more by anger at the last 8 years than by looking at the respective policies (although I grant there's precious little difference between the two
cheers
p.s. congrats on the double English! Speaking as someone who also got a "stupid" degree (history) I salute you ;)
-
Enough already...
I am sick of every mention of Hillary in the press being accompanied by some snide, back biting remark about her motives or, as with this article's headline, some effort to slight or discredit her victories (which have been substantial). This article has nothing to do with whether Hillary won or didn't win in Florida -- how could it? The obvious answer is that she won whatever race was held there (one in which, I gather, Mr. Obama violated the spirit of a commitment not to campaign by running national TV ads in the state). Why try to minimize that fact with this type of headline?
-
to be fair to stackey-dackey @AKA Smith (and debaser)
I don't really think he was calling you a racist. I think he was suggesting that, in the exact same way that you can't discern Obama's mind when he looked the other way from Clinton--that is, whether he was snubbing her or simply distracted or whatever--he (stackey-dackey) can't discern your reasons for "not trusting" Obama; so to call Obama rude (when you don't know his heart, esp. as regards to that snub scene) is like to call you racist (when we can't know your heart on the race/trust connection). Does that make sense? That's how I took it.
~A fellow English major
-
She won by 17%
Both candidates saw Florida as an important contest. Hilary gave a high profile speech (within agreement rules) and Obama for the first time ran National adds rather than state targeted, which accidentally played in Florida (couldn't be helped). These adds stopped the day of the beauty pageant Florida primary. The news media have shown exact vote counts in All kinds of polls, including straw. They have shown exact %s and counts for Wyoming (Republican) as well as Nevada where only Ron Paul and Rommney ran. This makes me wonder why a large turnout vote in Florida, which has the most diverse makeup so far in the race, would not be an interesting indicator of voter trends, at least as much as SC and Nevada. The key question for the Obama campaign is whether he can perform as well with Asians and Hispanics as he has with the Black voting block. He still had the same low penetration into the Hispanic vote that showed up in Nevada. The curious thought that crossed my mind is how the headline would have played if Obama had unexpectedly trounced Hilary. Would the press still have said , "Oh Gosh, no dleegates doesn't matter" or would they have had banner headlines about major upset of Hilary machine. This vote breakdown is no more important than the SC one, but it is also no less. Hilary not only beat Obama and Edwards in Florida, She also beat McCain. The democrats had a much higher turnout and her total was at least 150K higher than his. So is it important, not to the media types that already have an Obama narrative. I hope the Obama camp is looking closely at this breakdown, because they need to solve the Latino wall before they can hope to compete in a general election, if they get that far.