Letters to the Editor
-
Well, Shawn
Obama will probably lose to McCain. Clinton CERTAINLY would have lost to McCain, but we don't have to worry about that now. That's just plain fact.
-
Huh?
There'll be blood? we're gonna have a street fight to decide who wins the nomination? How novel!
-
Primaries
It's interesting to note that if you take away the delegates from the states who don't back democrats for president you end p with Barack haveing a 50 delagate lead and 1,000 more votes.
Barack has won such republican statas as Utah, Louisiana, Wyoming and Alaska. When did a democrat win those states?
I went back to Kennedy and found tha many of the states Barack won haven'[t voted for a democrat for presideny sisnce Johnson. He ran against Barry Goldwater and we know how well Barry did.
-
Ummm
It is so great to have a guy trying out for a job at the Washington Post writing crap for Salon...
and seeing that the rubes haven't figured out that even with frontloaded primaries and all the money, Hillary couldn't win....
Kerry was supposed to be electable, and was the nominee designate after Iowa.
In the meantime, McCain isn't raising money. Obama is attracting actual swing voters, but the mentality seems to be endemic among Salon letter writers who have never been right about anything.
Shapiro, I really hope you get a job that allows you to hang out with the kewl kids! But for now, you are just another Nedra Pickler wannabe.
Please get another job so I don't have to see your bullshit headlines anymore.
-
Where's Shawn..
..the head full 'o steam bully boy 'o the 'ol boards? What other golden turds to impart? Don't bow out, you're just getting started.
-
Sorry - you don't get off with that b.s.
Obama will probably lose to McCain. Clinton CERTAINLY would have lost to McCain, but we don't have to worry about that now. That's just plain fact
No, here's a FACT. You can pass go and go right to hell.
If you sh*theads hadn't come along with you videos and your amateur half-black dreamy (but unviable) candidate and willfully made the primary a race war, than Mrs. Clinton would be leading John McCain by about 30 points right now.
After wrecking the Dems chances so royally with this self-serving amateur prick and your determintion to either a) have a half-black candidate or b) "punish" Hillary for not being looney-lefty enough you better not even TRY to claim that she would have lost too.
No, she wouldn't have. Not if you clowns had just STFU and let our strongest candidate lead.
And if after this bloodbath, I'm betting not one of these Obama girlies outside of Berkeley or Madison will even admit to having supported him.
-
shawnie gets out of detention or detox
We missed you and your mindless repetitious blather. Tell us how Governor Richardson, who knows the Klintons inside out, endorsed Obama. It was not a tepid endorsement: he refered to Obama as a leader that comes along once a generation. Glad you were able to make bail. Count the delegates, dimbulb, and do the math. Billary's done. Blather on.
-
The caampaigns
Which party has the better way of choosing delegates? Who (Obama or Clinton) has the best organized campaign? Which one of the candidates would be likely to best organize the government?
Obama offers the chance of a negotiated end to the Iraq war.
McCain offers the persistence to see it through.
Hillary just says, "I'll get us out."
The big mistake was made by the first President Bush by not finishing Saddam off. Now, years later, that opportunity is gone. Bush #2 is trying to recreate it. No way, it's gone.
Ancient Rome did not last forever. What about the USA?
-
A Reasonable Analysis
Finally, Shapiro has broken through the fog and raised some serious questions and comments about the Democratic nominating process.
I have wondered for some time why Iowa and New Hampshire continue to hold the Democratic Party captive. The world has changed a lot since the good ole' days when New Hampshire and Iowa were the "true barometers" of the presidency and the country. The population has shifted south and west, even as the industrial base resides heavily in the Northeast.
The caucus system is another dysfunctional way to choose nominees and is based on some romantic notion that Americans still have "town hall-style" politics. This does still exist in parts of New England, but it does not exist in highly populated parts of the country.
I favor a national primary system. It makes the most sense; it's the most democratic (by way of getting out MORE voters than caucuses); and the wear and tear on candidates would, I think, be minimized, so that we would actually have time, energy and money available to ready ourselves for the GE.
-
National Primary
Who exactly would pay for that? Why would small states commit sapuku? Shall we do away with the Electoral College, too? A great idea, which I heartily endorse, but until there is true, pervasive campaign finance reform, in which all media access is free, none of this will ever take place. Great theory, but none of us will live long enough to see it happen. Of course, if McLame gets through the gaping hole we're making for him via fratricide, none of us may live that long anyway. vote democratic in November for every office at every level, period. I will.
-
Yes, the process is broken because Hillary isn't winning
Not the stated argument, but it might as well be.
-
Why the Clintons are courting McCain
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/24/us/politics/24mccain.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
What Mr. McCain almost never mentions are two extraordinary moments in his political past that are at odds with the candidate of the present: His discussions in 2001 with Democrats about leaving the Republican Party, and his conversations in 2004 with Senator John Kerry about becoming Mr. Kerry’s running mate on the Democratic presidential ticket.
There are wildly divergent versions of both episodes, depending on whether Democrats or Mr. McCain and his advisers are telling the story. The Democrats, including Mr. Kerry, say that not only did Mr. McCain express interest but that it was his camp that initially reached out to them. Mr. McCain and his aides counter that in both cases the Democrats were the suitors and Mr. McCain the unwilling bride.
Beware of all Clinton shills who espouse not voting for Obama in the general. Let them. They are blue dog democrats in the first place. More in line with the GOP than the Democrats. They are the 25% who have crossed over to vote for Hillary in the first place. Now clothing themselves as li-li-liberal Democrats they would like nothing but to dog Obama at every twist and turn.
Obama has outsmarted them all. He has run a clean campaign, with no lobbyist or special interest money, and has managed his financial and organizational affairs magnificently.
Hillary has not only botched the $140 million she had to start with, but has also alienated AA, staffers in her own campaign, former staffers and White House aides and colleagues, not to mention members of her own party, i.e. Richardson, Kerry, Daschle, Pelosi, Kennedy, Lewis, et al. Is this the kind of divisive president this country wants? Not. Do not be at all surprised to find her on the ticket with McCain. Remember who said that first when that happens.