Letters to the Editor
-
I'm betting on something else
And I'm betting that the same people who think a Dem who lost by a full 17 percentage points in California and New Jersey [...]
CA Clinton +8.3%
NJ Clinton +9.9%
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.htmlConsidering[...]we lost Iowa and almost Minnesota and Wisconsin with an experienced statesmen, decorated war hero and comparative centrist of John Kerry, I'm guessing that an inexperienced black liberal with a LOT of social baggage ain't gonna win them over there.
I supported Kerry and still like him. You forgot to mention his failings:
- Didn't attack the swiftboaters
- Lacked charimsa and speaking abilities
- Let his opponents define him
We're not in 2004 anymore, Toto.
-
The 17 per cent Solution
You know, Fester, I was just sitting here on the porch and using the laptop to keep me warm and I realized if you consider the source, then dismiss the decimal places because they only complicate things, 9% and 8% do add up to 17%, which is the exact same math Michael Lind used to come up with his Elitism for Dummies piece yesterday.
Yes, the Sherry is young but excellent. :)
-
Obama Surges on Electability,
http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/DemocraticDebate/story?id=4658063&page=1
Barack Obama has knocked down one of the three tent poles of Hillary Clinton's campaign for president, surging ahead of her as the candidate Democrats see as most likely to win in November. He's challenging her on leadership as well, leaving only experience as a clear Clinton advantage in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll.
-
Cognitive Dissonance
There is so much apprehensive babble going on in Dem circles, "liberal" blogs, and columnists these days, aided and abetted by Republicans (especially those in hiding in the media) who enjoy seeing the struggle the customarily dysfunctional Dem Party is undergoing during an overlong primary season, Hillary who is engaging in desperation tactics to the disadvantage of her own political party, and the rest of the media who are mindlessly whooping it up in the absence of a juicy sex scandal, that perhaps the judgment of voters is being ignored with such a loud racket going on.
And, of course, should Obama do resonably well in PA anyway regardless of his "bitter" comment, the media will totally and entirely forget this presumed terribly destructive faux pas, and go on as if nothing of the sort ever left his lips. We cannot attribute media perfidy in this instance to cognitive dissonance, but just the same dirty business as usual.
Perhaps some Republican voters will indeed support McCain despite anything he says, or proposes, or flips, or flops, or has forgotten, or reveals his shocking ignorance, or embraces ol'
G W who they claim is destroying their Party - - only because McCain was "a great war hero" - - - but it strikes one as a case of profound cognitive dissonance.
Howl in pain because you've lost your livelihood, or your home, or a loved one in Iraq, or any of a thousand reasons this neocon Republican administration has caused, and you will still vote for the man who clearly and repeatedly claims he will continue the same process, taking up where Cheney/Bush has left off ? Cognitive Dissonance.
Excuse me if I do not believe all the crap and worry I hear from the media regarding how the Dems are going to blow the presidential election, when the same babblers are predicting that the Dems will gain at least 10 seats on the House and at least 3 or more seats in the Senate.
If that's true, then policy, Iraq, and pain are not the issues at all, but the fact that Obamna is an African American and will lose the entire South, maybe PA, Ohio, and a some of the other MidWestern states, and God knows how many "red" states in the West. But that, of course, is not case of cognitive dissonance. Ya'll know what that is.
-
Poll Shows Erosion Of Trust in Clinton
This should really make the "honest" Hillarobots drink some more of those talking points on electability and experience and trustworthiness. Read on
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/15/AR2008041502883.html?hpid=topnews
PHILADELPHIA, April 15 -- Lost in the Hillary Rodham Clinton campaign's aggressive attacks on Barack Obama in recent days is a deep and enduring problem that threatens to undercut any inroads Clinton has made in her struggle to overtake him in the Democratic presidential race: She has lost trust among voters, a majority of whom now view her as dishonest.
-
re: 17% solution
Hmmmmn. Holmes got by on only 7%. Do you prefer your Sherry sweet or dry?
-
Mon Oncle
____I supported Kerry and still like him. You forgot to mention his failings:
1.Didn't attack the swiftboaters
2.Lacked charimsa and speaking abilities
3.Let his opponents define him_____
I agree with you on 1 and 3. But I must protest vehemently on number 2. Bush was far more number 2, and I mean a dufus and a bumbler, than Kerry. Kerry spoke in perfect sentences and made sense. Bush just fumbled through. What Kerry lost to was an extremely well oiled and well financed right wing and should he have responded to the swiftboat fast and furious, he would have been elected.
Obama is now surging because he is not taking HIllary's dirty tricks lying down. He is responding fast and furious.
-
Holmes Was a Crackhead
or at least that's what I think I heard somebody say once, so it must be true.
Sweet, by the way. Yes indeed...
-
Oh madamf.
He is responsiding fast and furious...and with a big grin, too. God how it heartens me to see him almost laughing this off. He just keeps getting stronger.
As for Kerry, I think a lot of people would probably agree that compared with Obama, Kerry, while very well-spoken and clear-headed, came off as a kind of intelligent Herman Munster. At least that was my problem. I was all the while yearning for what we now have, only I didn't know who who it could be. Well hot damn! I know now!
Oh, and thanks for all the really fast up-to-date links to news of fresh disaster (for certain parties). I don't know how you do it, but please keep it up.
-
We're getting a little fluffy
Every pro-Obama article gets a whole bunch of "Gee, guess you snuck this one by Joan" or "Guess you didn't missed the Salon supports Clinton meeting" comments, which shows that the perception of bias has reached unchangeable, delusional levels, where all evidence to the contrary must be discarded. The attacks on both candidates are getting deeply angry and irrelevant. All partisanship aside, though, what is with these anecdotal articles?
This article and Traister's article on "Obama Boys" are both such odd, small strokes of journalism - anecdotal tales about feelings that add nothing to the politics at hand. Lind's "New England theory" that charged that Obama is supported by elitists was easily the least logical piece I have read in a while - the author was constantly arriving at conclusions (Now that I have proven this...) as though they're self-evident, without making the journey to get there or allow us to come with him. It tried to show that the half-baked racial ratio theory was, well, half-baked, by offering another silly theory with equally weak, arbitrary data.
These types of pieces are interesting in small doses, to liven up the primaries, but they should not be the bread and butter of any publication, least of all one as reputable and admirable as Salon. Where is our real political analysis? The coverage of Obama's speech on race, for example, was balanced and fascinating - but that was ages ago, in political terms.