Letters to the Editor
-
No, sorry, it's over.
And it's been over since Wisconsin. Might as well go back to complaining about those mean Obama men, Traister.
-
Just like magic
One day Hillary was up by 20 and then Barack showed up waved his magic wand and poof! it was down to 6. What 3 or 4 to 1 spending spree? What record spent on PA tv ads? What 150 campaign apperances? What six day tour? Why you see none of that matters because that's just "politics as usual" and well all know that Obama is above the sort of stuff.
-
If it's over, KsM
How come your candidate is going to lose a state where only Dems can vote and he had a month to campaign and outspent his opponent 2-1? Must be something amiss with your candidate. Since it's supposedly "over" and all.
-
A step up and A step down again.
Nice to see this article is at the top now, but why is it the pessimistic article about the Democrats has the image of Obama being compared to other losers, and this positive one has an image of Clinton smiling? Even when the journalism isn't trash, Salon's presentation is still shamefully biased. Someone on the editorial side needs to back off.
The article shows it's possible to favor Clinton without demonizing Obama or sacrificing all rhetorical integrity. Traister has made up a bit for her last bogus essay. As AJCalhoun points out:
I actually found a Traister article to be pretty straightforward. It's already abundantly clear who she favors in the race, and she's got a right to that for god's sake. But for once it wasn't a bunch of thinly-veiled Obama-bashing. The quotes from the volk she heard speaking at rallies there were not something Ms. Rebecca would normally include in her writings...I think it was a really nice piece of work, and I rarely say anything kind about Traiseter's work, but this one made me feel good -- while still laboring under the delusion that the candidate who is ahead is likely to win.
Meanwhile, the comments continue to wallow in the pit dug by Karl Rove and Newt Gingrich.
AnaHadWolves says; "Give us a break, please; we Hillary supporters aren't the enemy." In a general sense no, but it doesn't help when your rhetoric involves demonizing Obama and his supporters. That's not treating your opponent like an ally Ana, that's just as vengeful and mean-spirited as Obama extremists.
This scolding applies to extremes on both sides. It is possible to criticize a candidate on your side without dismissing everything about them and calling their supporters fools. If you really want to be seen as allies, then you should should be able to uplift your candidate without completely trashing the other. And if they trash talk, you rise above it.
The only opponents who require complete contempt and denunciation are Republicans. They are the ones who elected the unitary torture president, not the Democrats.
Also, as cubster points out:
I have read and heard comments that as long as the candidates are attacking each other they cannot attack McCain. Why not. There is nothing that stops either campaign from pointing out the weaknesses of the Republican candidate while they are closing the primary season. I actually think it would make that candidate seem like they feel they are the democratic candidate.
-
Sorry, No...
Yes, it is over. Well, I'll revise: It's over if Clinton does not win PA by about 25 points, which, as we all know (even Salon.com), won't happen.
On Wednesday, when she posts a victory of somewhere between 4-8 points, which is not enough, the superdelgates will start moving in droves to Obama. The party establishment sees the writing on the wall: Clinton's nasty tactics over the last few months have turned off African American and young voters so completely that those two constituencies will not come out for Clinton in November. Without them, she cannot win. Also, particularly in the case of young voters, these are the Democrats of tomorrow, and the party pubas know that if Obama wins on delegates and popular vote, which he will, and then has the nomination taken away by party insiders on impetus of back room Clinton nastiness, then the Democratic Party will effectively be through.
I appreciate that Salon.com doesn't moon over Obama like many other news outlets. I do, however, wonder about the cost of this position, as Salon.com often floats the idea that this race to the nomination is still truly competitive. In this way, Salon.com is no better than any other news outlet, Fox included, for asserting what basically everyone knows is false: That Clinton still has a legitimate, realistic shot at winning the nomination.
She does not. On some level, the editorial staff at Salon.com must know this. And probably does.
Glen Greenwald probably knows this.
-
I love the whole "He's outspent me 3 to 1"
What is he supposed to do? Buy everyone a pony? His spending is directly related to his success. Clinton wants to constantly bring that up like she's "winning" against his money machine but she has a political machine that is just as formidable not to mention name recognition.
And Salon, WTF do you keep posting these one-sided bullshit articles without any objectivity? I'm really getting tired of this junk.
-
AchillesisCrying, you're ducking my point
WHY can't the front-runner, with the race supposedly over, win a Dem-only primary in a major swing state when he had all the financial advantages? Why?
-
@cythera45
It's over because Hillary can't overcome the elected delegate gap. It's over because Hillary can't overcome the popular vote gap. It's over because she has no money. I don't think anyone is saying it is a unanimous decision. But the reality is Hillary can not win the nomination without convincing super delegates to overrule the will of the people. Yes this is possible. No it won't happen because the Democratic party would seize to exist for years if the super delegates chose the candidate with less elected delegates and fewer popular votes. Hillary can win Pa by 12 points and it still won't matter. Do the math.
-
Brian in Seattle: "His spending is directly related to his success."
Um, it's not working out that way for him since Ohio... He's spending desperately in the hope of success--and falling short. A bad sign, frankly. He will have a huge money advantage over McCain, but if he can't seal the deal with voters in key swing states, he's going to lose, no matter how much he raises and spends. And Clinton is proving, in Ohio and today in Pennsylvania, that he can't seal that deal.