Letters to the Editor
-
KKK?????
"the black version of the KKK for a religious mentor" This is absurd. I'm still waiting for someone to show me what Wright said that was an attack on whites AS A RACE. In referring to what he considers to be this nation's crimes, he always uses the pronoun "we". The only thing he ever said specifically about whites is that rich whites control the country. Maybe you thought it was poor Pakistanis. I've now watched a few extended clips of his sermons, not just the mendacious sound bites Fox offers. He is brilliant, provocative, frequently way off base, and just as frequently astonishingly insightful. But he is clearly NOT racist.
-
What if the democratic primary system is not all that bad??
Slow down, its supposed to be a long process. There is time to ask questions. Lots of pundits saying the Dem system is bad, broken and should be dumped. Is it really? How did it evolve? Is there nothing worthy here? Did Howard Dean actualy invent this system and therefor is responsible if you don't like the outcome? There is always room for improvement, but the system we have has had a long evolution that reflects many of the parties best thoughts and intentions. It has much to comend it.
The winner take all system of the Repubs has given them a nominee who has only one third of their popular vote. He was harshly treated by the party powerful and parts of the media. A month ago the pundits were telling us the Repubs were busy eating their own and destroying themselves. They now smile and hug and say they picked the best candidate. For the moment that gives them a modest temporary edge. So what? Its still March.
The Democratic party system is designed to help lesser known candidates run long enough to see if they have popular support. It prevents a big name candidate with early money and endorsments from being the only horse in the race. It works. It is much more small d democratic and representitive. It gives time for candidates to develop.
You say, "But it should not be so close by now!!" Would it be if Fl. and Mi had played by the rules? Quite possibly not! If they are allowed to change the rules now, the DNC will have no control of the thing in 2012.
You suggest, "Those who voted early may have changed their mind by now if they had the current information." Is this not the very nature of long primaries with successive votes over time? The stage gets set....the early states vote, the later states vote with the knowledge that came from the early states? The early states get to winnow the field, the later states get to dig in and develop the candidates? Why would you want to let early states re vote later?
"All 50 states at once!!" Stop that. Its impossible for a broad field to campaign in all states effectively without enormous funding. (Which they can't raise without a few early wins!) The 'All 50 states method' would never let anyone but the biggest funded name even be considered! Thats not Democratic.
"But now we have a virtual tie and we are no longer sure who is best for the General election". Hmmm, how could we design a system that could solve such potentials in the future? How about a group of experienced democrats? Ones who would vote their highest mind, based only on whats best for the short term AND long term of the Democratic party? Such delegates would not be needed in most years, but what an intelegent buffer to have available in extraordinary years!
The system we have is not perfect, (I favor a shorter time frame and primaries only open to Democrats and Idependants) But it is working. Calm your belly! It will produce a candidate with more popular appeal than the Republicans have. It will produce a candidate that is ready for the General Election. It will produce the candidate that helps the Party the most, now and tommorrow.
Enjoy!
-
Call it a campaign Clinton
Because it isn't just all about you, it's about democrats too.
-
@pdx-Kirk
I like the cut of your jib my friend...nice post
(obviously I agree with you :)
-
Is it just me
or are we all suffering from Primary fatigue?
I hope we have some energy left (no pun intended) for the Republicans.
-
RJ
Come on, really.
Obviously Clinton said that before the TX primary to maybe try to geta few undecided voters to feel as if they would get a two-fer if they voted for him.
Surely you can't be that blind to not understand that politcial move (a very wise one i think, frankly)
And for him it would have been political suicide to to say "hey, yeah. that woudl work". He is still running for the Presidential spot, after all. Even if he wanted to accept it it would have been really crazy for him to do it at that time and in that manner, especially considering the contest up until that point.
Now maybe you don't feel as though he should be running for the presidency - and that's ok. Its your opinion. I'm not knocking you on it.
But come on, we both (presumably) have brains in our heads. We know what that whole exchange was about. Come on. Be real.
-
if they voted for HER
correction sorry
-
pdx
Absolutely correct. The financing aspect needs to be dealt with, but the whole notion of "open" primaries begs for monkey wrenching. Finally, I hate to make blanket statements, but here's one: anyone who claims to be a Democrat and votes for McLame in November is a fascist enabler. Quisling. Or, as James Car-vile so telling said about Richardson, a Judas. Don't tell me you have a progressive bone in your empty head if you'd even think about voting for a fooking republikan. Just go the fug away. Stay home. Move to New Zealot Land. Piss off.
-
Stupidity is the true problem
Barack H. Obama is a racist, his wife, who wrote her senior thesis in college on why blacks and whites should NEVER (as in not ever) live together, is also a racist, their church is a front and/or mimics the Nation of Islam in regards to policy and practice (anti-White, anti-American, anti-Jew and anti-Israel), he laundered money for Rezko and failed to report in excess of $100,000.00 in political funds from this criminal, he has NO experience, his voting record is poor to horrid, his constinuents in Illinois are unhappy with him, and he has not carried ONE BIG STATE. He is a also, it appears considering his platform (all we have heard is "hope, change, and unity" thus far), a hypocrite and a liar. THESE ARE SOME OF THE REASONS WHY HE HAS LOST, SHOULD LOSE, AND MOST DEFINITELY WILL TANK SHOULD HE GET THE DEMOCRATIC NOD.
Also, FYI Obama supporters, HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON is leading among Democratic voters (i.e. taking out independent and Republican votes) by 700,000 votes AND this does not include FL or MI. She is also leading with confirmed superdelegates. Thus, considering the many millions who now wish they had NOT voted for Obama, the obvious and only choice if you want a Democratic president is Hillary Clinton.
For those who spew forth untrue numbers or ridiculous claims, mark my words. If you think Mrs. Clinton has been unduly harsh on Mr. Obama, you ain't seen nothing yet. When the Republicans get up to speed he will become public enemy number one--and rightly so.
Finally, in polls taken the in the last week there are approximately 60% of Clinton supporters who will never--and I count myself and at least 100 of my friends in this group--vote for Mr. Obama. Before you start telling me how many people are going to rush to the polls for this man, in Texas, in black polling areas, voting was down over 20% from the last election. Hispanic voting was up over 40%, and they went HILLARY all the way.
I was worried about the whole debacle, but then I realized that Mr. Obama is a loser, he lost before he even put his hat in the race because of his bad acts, bad friends, and bad attitude. Pretty words only sway the weak, and America is not going to elect anyone sitting in Rev. Wright's church for the last 20 years--AMEN and GOD BLESS AMERICA!!