Letters to the Editor
-
The Purpose of Superdelegates
I'm a Hillary fan so perhaps I'm biased, but a lot of you are forgetting why we (you rather, I'm a Republican) have superdelegates in the first place. After the infamously disastrous convention of 1968, a commission, led by George McGovern, changed the rules so that every delegate was controlled by how his state voted in the primary. Under that system, maybe not so coincidentally, McGovern got nominated and went on to lose in a landslide. And in 1980, Carter lost in a landslide. So in 1982, the party introduced superdelegates as a way of ensuring that the party would have an electable nominee. The idea was never that superdelegates had to vote for whoever won the most primaries. They were supposed to vote for whoever would have the best shot in the general election. Now, I'm not saying that that person is necessarily Hillary; Obama definitely appeals to more independents than she does, but with the Wright business, which I submit is far from settled, there is reason to doubt how electable he is, and I think it would be a mistake for the superdelegates to vote for him just because he has more pledged delegates - delegates which, as Shapiro wisely points out, were accumulated quite a while back. Hillary's won the last two big contests and is about to win a third by a pretty big margin. I think it's very possible that Hillary is now the more popular candidate. Now, if the superdelegates conclude that he's actually more electable or that nominating Hillary, after Obama "won" the primaries, would be so offensive to his supporters that they might stay at home on election night, they should vote for him, but they shouldn't just rubberstamp whatever the outcome of the primaries is.
-
@ Xrandadu Hutman: Polls
Here are the links. Sorry, I don't want to hassle with writing out a bunch of extraneous commentary. The actual polls are just easier to read and review:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_clinton-224.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/pa/pennsylvania_mccain_vs_obama-244.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/pa/pennsylvania_mccain_vs_clinton-243.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/oh/ohio_mccain_vs_clinton-399.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/oh/ohio_mccain_vs_obama-400.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/fl/florida_mccain_vs_clinton-417.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/fl/florida_mccain_vs_obama-418.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html
-
The REAL Bosnia Story
Tishijo toy are 100% inaccurate about Hillary and Bosnia when you say, "Clinton's claims to foreign policy experience have been widely disputed by those actually involved in Bosnia and Ireland for example."
Over at HuffPo they have issued an UPDATE (notice, not CORRECTION, which it really is) to their post on this matter.
"Lissa Muscatine, who served as Hilary Clinton’s chief speechwriter in 1996 and accompanied her on the Bosnia trip, feels that I have failed to provide a full picture of what took place. She gave me her “vivid recollections” of the arrival in Tuzla, which I quote below:
I was on the plane with then First Lady Hillary Clinton for the trip from Germany into Bosnia in 1996. We were put on a C17– a plane capable of steep ascents and descents — precisely because we were flying into what was considered a combat zone. We were issued flak jackets for the final leg because of possible sniper fire near Tuzla. As an additional precaution, the First Lady and Chelsea were moved to the armored cockpit for the descent into Tuzla. We were told that a welcoming ceremony on the tarmac might be canceled because of sniper fire in the hills surrounding the air strip. From Tuzla, Hillary flew to two outposts in Bosnia with gunships escorting her helicopter."
There are so many other inaccuracies in your post it is amazing. But this is the one I really wanted Salon readers to know about.
-
Footage from '96 Proves Hillary Lied About Bosnia Trip
http://alternet.org/blogs/video/#80459
Had Obama been caught in a lie of this magnitude, his campaign might well be over
-
The Other REAL Bosnia Story?
Now there are at least three stories about Tuzla:
We were put on a C17– a plane capable of steep ascents and descents — precisely because we were flying into what was considered a combat zone. We were issued flak jackets for the final leg because of possible sniper fire near Tuzla. As an additional precaution, the First Lady and Chelsea were moved to the armored cockpit for the descent into Tuzla. We were told that a welcoming ceremony on the tarmac might be canceled because of sniper fire in the hills surrounding the air strip.
Contains Hillary's speech about landing at Tuzla and apparently contains real viedo showing Hillary walking out from the back of her plane to meet and greet. (Somewhat snarky)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=It6JN7ALF7Y
For what it's worth, Lissa Muscatine, sounds the most plausable.
-
Hillary and Bosnia
So the Obamateurs want to insist that questions about Clinton's memory of an event that happened fourteen years ago is an indictment of her truthfulness or competence?
Well, if that is the DIS qualifier for becoming President then Barack is really in trouble.
He doesn't remember facts about Rezko until the Chicago paper forced him to fess up.
He doesn't know why he hit the wrong button on so many votes in the IL Senate.
He cannot remember anything that he did for the last 20 years if it involves his “uncle,” Jeremiah Wright. He still cannot remember Wright ever saying something racist or ill-considered.
At least we know Hillary was on a plane and it landed in Bosnia.
-
ixnay on the rubber stamp
I agree that the superdelegates should excercise their judgement, to the extent available.
Hillary's won the last two big contests and is about to win a third by a pretty big margin.
I guess MS is not big enough. If you reckon by delegates, Hillary lost Texas. If you are interested in the popular vote, then a surge of Republican voters put her over the top:
For a party that loves to hate the Clintons, Republican voters have cast an awful lot of ballots lately for Senator Hillary Clinton: About 100,000 GOP loyalists voted for her in Ohio, 119,000 in Texas, and about 38,000 in Mississippi, exit polls show.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/03/17/many_voting_for_clinton_to_boost_gop/
A lot of people here think that only democratic votes should count in the democratic primary. I'm not one of them, but her margin of victory shrinks considerably if you remove the Republicans. SD's may mull this fact over.
As of now, she's likely to win PA. The question is by how much. After PA, she really has to win either IN or SC. If she doesn't, the lead she gained in PA is mostly likely canceled out by Obama wins in IN and SC as the two have more delegates combined than PA. OR is also a possibility, but less meaningful if IN and SC go Obama. It's pretty close to being down 3-1 in a best of 7 at this point. Not impossible, but she really has to start hitting some balls.