Letters to the Editor
-
debaser on interesting strategies
It looks like once again [Clinton]'s ignoring the upcoming smaller states (Wyoming and Mississipi) and putting all her energy into Penn.
I'm just curious, what's so interesting or surprising about this? The Clintons have always been strongly inclined to make a distinction between "people who count" and "people who don't" when it comes to politics.
That kind of discipline was what allowed Bill Clinton to win in 1992 — he figured out whom he really needed to woo, and went after them to the exclusion of all else. It gave him a reputation for "triangulation" and for not playing the game he was supposed to play, but it worked.
Obama is a "50 Stater," along with Clinton bete noir Howard Dean (whom James Carville attacked viciously after the 2006 elections for not having won enough), and his differing philosophy is reflected in his methodical approach to the primary.
Clinton has never cared for that approach. She thinks it's naive and foolhardy, that blanket campaigns don't work, and that mass movements can't be trusted for fundraising or votes.
It's a view that reflects the experience of her and her generation of Democrats. But perhaps her greatest weakness as a political strategist is that she's been unable to completely shake her reflexive mistrust of "movement" politics even in the face of the most effective example to come along in her lifetime.
What would be a real eye opened would be if Hillary Clinton showed a serious inclination to embrace a more populist form of political power. She showed signs of bending in that direction after New Hampshire, but her pragmatism is matched by her stubbornness.
So, surprising strategy? Not really. It's a Clinton strategy. And whether it will work remains to be seen.
-
Rosenkavalier
Your case -- that Clinton cannot be too right-leaning for progressives and also hated by Republicans -- is not logical. Do you like John McCain because he's hated by hard-core wingers? Did the Right like Bill Clinton because he destroyed welfare, pushed through Bush's NAFTA, imprisoned record numbers of African Americans, and put sanctions on Iraq?
Rosenkavalier, you make the mistake of thinking that elections in this country are based on policy. The vast majority of swing voters (which are the only ones Democrats seem to care about) are completely ignorant of history and policy ramifications.
Elections here are more like sports events or American Idol. Your question is as silly as asking: "why do Packers fans hate the Bears? They both rely on defense and live in the Midwest."
-
Clinton, last whimper of the Boomers
I was born in '64 and therefore come from the last year of the boomer train. Many people like me identify more closely with the history this nation has known and experienced collectively with the generation Xers and the generation nexters. Clinton II is the last gasp of the boomer boom. I'm an Obama supporter all the way, and I believe the tiredness and out of touchness of Clinton's cabal only becomes magnified with each and every passing day. Hillary's "Texas firewall" has brought nothing to a halt. Obama and Obamaites are not bowed to her recycling of her husband's presidential pedigree in order to put her in office. We're not impressed, and will push her to Pennsyvania. The old days, and the old ways, the golden days. Some of our golden years citizens seem to think so. Perhaps they are spiraling into premature senility.
-
... dramatic return from oblivion...
I still remember when Senator Clinton was "inevitable," and had 20 point leads in Texas and Ohio. Some perspective, please.
-
The Persistent Eleven
After TWELVE losses, one having come earlier than the Ohio victory last night.
-
Let's Elevate the Discourse
To Manos99, About "Clinton, last whimper of the Boomers"
Sheesh! Such sour grapes, Manos99. You no like boomers ["Clinton's cabal... out of touch ...prematurely senile"]. You’ve got no love for HRC --- obviously. You heart Obama and all things young and in "touch”. Good for you. For your sake, I hope your anti-boomer diatribe camouflages only disappointment, and not chauvinism,or bigotry. Negative attracts negative.
Relax, get some perspective, it's only MARCH...
In America, boomers -- the whole diverse, multifaceted, fascinating lot of them -- may vote as they wish -- no monolith there, no cabal.
This is an ELECTION ... and Senators Clinton and Obama, both good Democrats, are playing hardball, and each has admirers. Thank God for that right.
Let's elevate the discourse. Go Democrats!
-
Can't we do better than the Clintons?
I am honestly curious what it is about the first Clinton administration that people are so eager to return to?
We had the dot.com bubble, which buoyed the economy, but what else was so great?
Was it the thousands of local democratic elections that Democrats lost over the course of the administration?
Was it the divisive politics?
Was it the launch of the Republican Revolution and the Dems losing congress for the first time in decades?
Was it the files that went missing?
Was it the failure to do anything at all about health care?
Was it the impeachment?
Seriously, what was so great about 1992-1999 that we need the Clintons back now?
-
Silver Lining
" If Hillary thought she was villified by the media before, you wait until she has cost the Democrats the general election.
"
After a few years of Bill C. I began to long for the comparitively liberal regimes of Dick Nixon and Ronald Reagan. Again, I don't expect anything good to come of this next election (no matter who wins) but a permanent demonization of the Clintons is something to look foreward to.
-
Some Sanity & Suggestions
The more of these letters I read, the more concerned I grow about the "sour grapes" tone of MOST Obama followers.
FIRST: You are upset that there is some "inside" conspiracy by superdelegates to "give" the nomination to Hillary Clinton; this is patently false.
Superdelegates are leaders in your own states and communities: they are your governors, your congressional representatives, your senators, and other local party officials. They ARE NOT a bunch of "suits" waiting behind closed doors to take the nomination away from anybody.
SECOND: Can we please get some sanity about "the will of the people"?
Obama followers accuse Clinton supporters of being undemocratic because she wants to seat Florida and Michigan delegates at the convention. Fair enough; it's a legitimate complaint (at the moment).
They also claim that Obama's support comes from a majority of voters. BUT, there is also the matter of "caucuses" and the fact that they DO NOT represent the will of a majority; they represent a fraction of eligible voters in a state: those who have the time, energy, wherewithal, and health to show up at a certain time on a certain day.
Many, many voters work at full-time jobs, sometimes on weekends; they have kids to care for, possibly elder parents they are caring for; they have household responsibilities; some are too ill and others are too elderly to attend caucuses. So, what about these voters? Are we to say it's "the will of the people" when only a small fraction of voters are able to show up at caucuses?
Primaries are much more representative of the "will of the people" than caucuses. So, rightly, both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama can claim victories here. We also need to consider that caucuses represent at most between 6-10 percent of voters, which reduces some of Obama's popular support.
THIRD: It is time to end the "Hillary as Evil Villain Who Eats Kids For Lunch" right-wing Republican smears and talking points about her and using sexist language in your posts. I have seen the word "bitch" here twice in one day. It's two times too many.
It is also time for Clinton supporters to stop calling Obama followers "delusional", accusing them of "drinking the kool-aid", and painting them as idiots, morons, babies, or [fill in the blank].
FOURTH: The media -- especially MSM -- IS biased. They are also spinmeisters. They need viewers for their shows and they need readers for their newspapers and net blogs.
The media does need to be tough on BOTH OF THESE CANDIDATES (on all of them, actually, if John McCain is included). We can and should call the media on their bias every time it happens, regardless of who they are bashing that day. And we need to tell them it is their job to BE TOUGH, BUT FAIR!
FIFTH: Obama's followers call "foul" or "dirty tricks" on Clinton. But, if you define "dirty tricks" as underhanded tactics, then it is also fact that Obama's campaign has and does engage in such underhanded tactics. We need to get over this "purity" notion about politics. It doesn't exist.
FINALLY: I don't find it amusing anymore to see "juvenile" monikers applied to ANY of the candidates or their supporters/followers: "Billary", "Obamagod", "McLame", "McCanine", "HillBill", "Obambi", "Hillbots", "Obamabots", "Rethugs", "Repugs", "Clintonites", "Clintonistas".
Who ARE you trying to impress? It isn't humorous; it shows your lack of maturity and a complete lack of basic communications skills. It is ALMOST as insulting as using racial and sexist slurs -- at least to a lot of us who post here.
You're excited, or angry, or disappointed. We get that. But you don't need to denigrate candidates or their followers/ supporters by resorting to such inane and inappropriate tags.