Letters to the Editor
-
How many times has the momentum shifted?
Gotta love ol' Axelrod, spinmeister extraordinaire. Looking at the exit polls, he really ought to be trying to figure out a way to convince older voters, blue-collar voters, white women, and Latinos to vote for his candidate. Just yelling "momentum!" at them hasn't done it so far.
-
What to think?
Clintonites poke their tongues, but Obama's run has always been an insurgency against an establishment candidate -- Obama's wins show that he's been able to win in places the DLC has long since given up on. Clinton's wins are in Democratic strongholds -- the "besieged blue island strategy" -- that is, blue islands lost amid a red sea, with a few purple shoals here and there.
Clinton isn't the underdog in this race, even though her followers keep treating her that way. She's better-connected, better-known, and really needed a knockout blow of Obama, not a split decision, even a split that leaned her way. Did she bring anybody new into the Democratic Party? Anybody who wasn't already there? Has she broadened the Democratic based to bring in Independents, the vital majority needed to beat somebody like Mad John McCain? Nope. That she managed to win the blue-collar vote, given that her husband's NAFTA deal decimated blue-collar jobs in this country, is nothing short of a masterstroke of spin.
Seems like the Clintonians are banking on a mass defection of older Republican women as their strategy for victory in the general election, which is a perilous strategy (and I still doubt it could win), compared to Obama's drive for the Independent majority and for the young voters, which is more ambitious and honest and hopeful, speaking to the future of America, not its past.
-
Keep on dreamin', Slackie Onassis
With all your 0h-so-unprejudiced analysis and prognostications, you seem unaware of the mote in your eye. You failed to mention that 8 out 10 "black" voters went for Obama. This might be a coincidence but do you, in your wisdom, expect this trend to continue?
-
H.I.L.L.A.R.Y.!!!!
What happened is working class whites, wise middle-aged and older people, and Asians and Latins went big and I do mean BIG for Hillary.
Obama got poor, racist blacks in the deep south and some university students in Idaho and of course the latte drinking white male liberals who love to lose and wanted a losing candidaete so they could pontificate and roll in defeat like pigs in sht. for the next 8 years.
Thank GOD enough people are sick enough of them AND Bush to say No.
Today my heroes are the elderly, the Asians, and the Latina/os, and of course as always New Yorkers and Irish and Italian Catholics and any combination of the above!!!!!!!!!
Go Hillary girl. McCain has a clear win so it's going to be tough but you CAN Do it.
-
The biggest losers of all are the Kennedys. Second is Oprah.What a RIOT!!!
He tried to foist Obama the Loser on the Dems in California and not only did they reject him, but his own homestate did!!! A scream!!!!!!!!!!!!
Teddy can just go back to the bar and be a drunk and Oprah can just go back to the diner and be fat.
-
The only heartland victory Obama got was Kansas
Because of the blacks in St. Louis AND DON'T forget their morno of a Governor endorsed Obama. (it is hysterical that the nut left forever whining about the DLC didn't mind Seblius endorsing Obama .
We won't win Kansas, SC, Georgia or Idaho in the general election so Obama brings NOTHING to the table on those states and we'll win Illinois with or without him.
LOL.
It's great that the rabid Obambites are going to have such a rotten day.
-
"Anonymous"
I'm wondering a little bit about your sanity.
-
Hillary will lose to McCain
You can take it to the bank: Hillary Clinton will lose to John McCain if she's the nominee. Period.
-
Slackie - being SO disingenuous - Obama's made NO heartland inroads.
Obama's wins show that he's been able to win in places the DLC has long since given up on
Er, it's the DLC that hasn't given up on "these places".
Short of a univeristy village in Idaho - the same village that even Kerry carried, exactly what did Obama get us that is new? So even that isn't new. Obambi carried the black vote in Kansas City, Mo and in Georgia and SC - all states we're least likely to win in November because we ALWAYS had the black vote there and always lost with only that.
No, we're way better off with Mrs. Clinton who is giving us big wins with Asians, Latinos, the elderly and working class whites. THOSE are the constituents we need and Mrs. Clinton looks pegged to win.
-
Mrs. Clinton
carried AZ, NM, CA and will carry CO. Each of these states has way more electoral votes than Idaho where the only Democrats are a few university students. McCain will carry Idaho in a landslide. I just can't see what the point of Obama and his idiotic supporters claiming last night proves anything except his popularity with some young people who don't understand washington isn't run on "hope and dreams"and of course blacks voting for him because he's black.
-
The issue of trust
If Clinton is the nominee, I will (somewhat) happily vote for her knowing that the Supreme Court & the Federal judgeships will not turn further right. I'll expect smart cabinet appointments, an AG who will admit that waterboarding is torture, withdrawal from Iraq, support of the Kyoto Accords, rollback of Bush's environmental plundering, and at least some pulling back from the authoritarianism in our national security apparatus. I'd love to see a woman president, but I don't trust her and have not trusted her ever since her vote on Iraq. I have never believed her murky and obfuscating explanations for the vote because too many politicians, analysts, military men, journalists, pundits, bloggers predicted Bush would invade Iraq no matter what. I believe she voted for the simple reason that she feared being tarred as weak on defense, and I resent her unwillingness to own up to her mistake as Edwards did. That suggests a rigidity that could be troubling in office.
-
Heartlandish?
The Clintonite Anonymice are surrounding me, baring their incisors! Yipe! Last I heard, NM is still a toss-up, leaning Obama. Looking at the NYT tallies...
Obama (13 states): Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, North Dakota, and Utah
Clinton (8 states): Arizona, Arkansas, California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, and Tennessee
Obama won more states, including in regions the DLC bluebloods have historically written off. I know, you're counting delegates, but Obama took 13 states to Clinton's 8, and it's looking like it'll be 14 to 8 if New Mexico goes his way. That's quite an accomplishment.
What is the Heartland, anyway? Is it wherever Clinton wins? I see Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Tennessee for Clinton's "Heartland," contrasted with Obama's Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, and North Dakota -- 5 "Heartland" states to Clinton's 3. If the Heartland = the Midwest, then it's even more lopsided in Obama's favor.
Clinton's bicoastal wins reflect not an expansion of the Democratic base, but a retrenchment, while ceding most of the "flyover states." Pay attention to that, because those states will snakebite Clinton in the general election.
But by all means, gnash those buck teeth. The race isn't over yet, and Obamaniacal hope isn't yet extinguished by Clintonian despair.