Letters to the Editor
-
Not exactly curious
Noting the curious absence of Clinton organizers in caucus states like Alaska, Idaho and North Dakota, Obama staffers would ask themselves every morning, "Are they here yet?"
Let's be fair here — Clinton's absence in Republican strongholds wasn't particularly curious. It was an intentional part of her strategy of focusing on "important" states and not spending resources — which she would have perceived as having been wasted — in places where Democratic party-building would be of no presumed account in November.
Clinton has all along gambled on that strategy. Obama has meanwhile been gambling on a "50 state" strategy. Perhaps ironically, his position is to Clinton's thinking what Clinton's husband's position was to the thinking of the Democratic mainstream in 1992 — and in 1992 the mainstream was wrong, and Bill Clinton's audacity paid off.
Both candidates of course want it to be themselves who wins the nomination, for purely selfish reasons. But in addition, they do also have a genuine difference of opinion as to what it will take to win in November. So one interesting consequence of their common stubbornness is that neither one is likely to get the nomination without persuasively embracing aspects of the other's approach. That sounds like a good bet for the party as a whole.
-
And don't call me a fool...
debaser -- I think it's fair to say that in order to be "winning", you actually need to have a reasonable likelihood of becoming the winner. My point is that NEITHER of them has a reasonable likelihood of becoming the winner based on delegate votes. You can't be "winning" a game that is virtually certain to end in a stalemate.
-
Thanks, dwmulenex
That was the most well-put and succinct description our relationship with the Clintons I've red here in a long time. Red Star, peeps!!!
I loved the Clintons, but starting with their 2000 heir apparent (I was a Bradley man) to their behind the scenes torpedoing of Dean in 2004 (I was a Clark man - Hillary could have run and won in 2004, but her triangulating mind would let her believe she had a chance) to the ego-driven mess of this year, I can no longer support this family. They've been more opprobrious than an abusive spouse, still not realizing what everyone else has come to see: that they need to get help - go away and re-think their priorities and what they are doing to their party, all under the banner of "love" and "compassion".
Maybe Chelsea will break the cycle, if she learns from her parents' mistakes and gets there on her own merits instead of her husband's coattails (her snooty performance when a Clinton supporter had the unmitigated gall to bring up Lewinsky leaves me with some doubts).
-
Winning
It's true that neither candidate will rack up 2024 pledged delegates to clinch the nomination. But super delegates have mattered since the beginning of this contest and even more so once it became clear that neither Hillary nor Obama would reach 2024.
Depending on how we slice up the remaining contests (such as Hillary gets PA, Obama gets NC, tie in IN), there will be a 60/40ish split in favor of Obama. Meaning that Obama will need to get only 40% of the oustanding super delegates to get to 2024. Hillary needs to really kick ass in all three upcoming contests (PA, NC, IN) to reserve that. A lot could happen between now and June, but I think there's a good case for saying, at the moment, Obama is winning.
-
Some people are really feeling themselves
"Maybe Chelsea will break the cycle, if she learns from her parents' mistakes and gets there on her own merits instead of her husband's coattails (her snooty performance when a Clinton supporter had the unmitigated gall to bring up Lewinsky leaves me with some doubts)."
Wow. Internet culture is a trip sometimes. Filled with instant shrinks and egomaniacs who have an ludicrously high opinion of their own opinion no matter how foolish that opinion is.
-
Why this article turns me off
I just watched Hillary speak at a North Carolina rally.
She energizes me and excites me. I am still enthusiastic about her and I think she is the best candidate out there...the best speaker, too.
Walter, do you really think any candidate would step down who is polling only a few points behind Obama? I don't think any would...certainly not Obama.
When and if she loses Pennsylvania, I might give up. To suggest that she step out now is insulting!!! Her supporters want her to stay in.
-
better yet
let's throw the democrats overboard and keep the horses.
-
sesanders
Yeah, let her stay in there...*yawn*...the suspense is unbearable. *zzzzzzzzzzzz*
-
@Wonhyo
I know this is a bit of a delayed response but I just wanted to correct a meme that has been out there a long time that ofen gets perpetuated by democrats but wasn't really correct.
This demonstrates that Clinton has the tenacity and strength (call it stubbornness if you want) that Gore and Kerry lacked in '00 and '04. Had Gore pushed for a complete Florida recount in '00 instead of graciously conceding to Bush in '00, Gore could have won that election.
Actually he did push for a complete recount and the Florida SCOTUS agreed with him and the statewide count began until the SCOTUS stopped it very soon thereafter. I know people say "Gore cherry picked those 4 counties to get more votes," but it was not so simple. FL state law required a campaign to petition a county commissioner for a hand recount within 24 hours. At the time it was thought that asking a hand recount immediately in all 30 counties might be a bit of an overreaction. Three of those counties reported immediate irregularities so the went with those, plus Broward County. Broward County was the only one that didn't really belong on that list. I would have swappped Broward with Duval myself but hindsight is 2020. After the county dramas played out Gore said let's have a statewide recount and the Bush team said absolutely not. The FSCOTUS eventually agreed and you know the rest of the story.
I just rankle a bit when I hear Gore recount 2000 revisionism.
In regards to your other comments:
Another Salon article, "Why Hillary Clinton should be winning" makes a compelling case that Clinton would be winning if the Democratic nominating process were set up like that of the general election. It further points out that Clinton is strong in large state primaries, which are important for winning the general election against McCain. Thus, there is logical, practical, and rational reasons for Clinton to persist in her campaign.
The is a difference between what you are able to do and what you should do.
The fact that Clinton is willing to go against popular (and media-fueled) opinion to fight for the best possibility of a Democratic win in November tells me she has the tenacity required to take on the Republicans. The question is, does Obama have the presence of mind to recognize Clinton's advantage in a general election? If so, does Obama have the humility (which Clinton is faulted for lacking) to concede to Clinton to ensure a Democratic victory in November?
Why would he concede? He's well ahead of HRC in delegates, states, popular votes; any way you slice it.