Letters to the Editor
-
"You do not want the readership you have. Nothing has been more evident over the past two months...."
Hey there,
I just read that in a previous letter (by someone else, let me assure you) and, thinking it a saying worthy of all men to be heard, thought I'd just re-post it.
It seemed very simple and very true.
So, thanks for the articulation.
Quite Sincerely,
David Terry
-
Obama as VP? What ever for???
Why on earth would we even consider such as thing? Give HRC the nomination and draft, as Rebecca writes: "...the wildly popular Philadelphia mayor, Michael Nutter..." There's popularity, African American success story and a face anyone could love!!
NUTTER! NUTTER! NUTTER!
Come on you brutish bully boyz - I know you will need to 'set me straight'...I can hear you screeching from here!
-
Thank you, Rebecca
THIS is the Democratic party many of us have long loved and believed must somehow still exist somewhere - the somewhat raucous and unstylish, warts and all, big tent party described in your wonderful recounting of Hill's big night in Philly. How refreshing to read something so, so, well, old fashioned and good spirited.
BTW, this just in: According to Terry McAuliffe, speaking on MSNBC, Hillary's campaign has raised not only $10 million since last night's win, but also 50,000 new donors!
-
Bionic? Moronic would be more fitting description of Clinton's quest
Unless upon reading the word, one conjures up images from the old '70's TV shows with Lee Majors and Lindsay Wagner. As I recall, to actually sit and watch either of those old programs would require that one would have to suspend his or her belief in reality. So there could be a correlation there with so many of these Hillary cheerleaders that keep coming back for the kool-aid that Traister has shown again and again she is more than willing to provide. Yeah, it never seems to enter any of Salon's political commentary that Clinton's campaign distorted Obama's record on abortion to such a despicable level that NARAL and Planned Parenthood had to come out publicly and point out the fabrication, or that Clinton declared that McCain was more fit to be President than Obama, or that Clinton repeatedly went back on her word in regards to respecting the DNC ruling on the invalid results of the MI and FL primaries, or the pathetic lies about being under sniper fire in Bosnia or brokering peace in Ireland.
Clinton and her campaign are "bionic" much like those old programs from 30+years ago. She certainly appears to be less and less of a human being and much more of a programmed fake as time goes by, much like the characters of Steve Austin and Jamie Sommers did. Her campaign talking points, much like the some of the vintage "bionic" TV episodes, rely exclusively on a complete suspension of actual reality as shown by her latest insult to the facts where by eliminating 4 caucus states counting for Obama, adding the invalid FL and MI votes for her while subtracting the "uncommited" votes, she shamefully parades the nonsense out as "proof" that she has surpassed Obama's popular vote total. A bionic quest? Much like the networks finally did far to late all those years ago, Democrats need to cancell this latest "bionic" fantasy series seeing how Clinton has even lower approval ratings than either of the old shows ever did. I'm sure FOX would be glad to play the "Sniper Fire" and "Lobbyists Are People Too" episodes day and night for viewers in syndication.
Does anybody at Salon ever read stories from anywhere else out there in the real world where there's actually critical reporting done on the almost daily documented blunders made by Clinton and her pathetic excuse for a campaign? I'm starting to believe that Clinton could launch an ad accusing Obama of being the sniper that was firing at her in Bosnia or that he was the 20th hijacker from the 9/11 attacks and Salon would refuse to even acknowledge it. Why doesn't Salon just save some money and just post a link to the Clinton Talking Points Memo instead of paying writers to write the same thing?
-
Gen X'ers Gals are supporting Hillary!
Hillary Clinton Rap: Taking Back The White House
http://forum.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=messageboard.viewThread&entryID=61877033&groupID=107116567&adTopic
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDU9xKNo-zo
-
HILLARY SUPPORTERS SHOULD COME OUT OF THE CLOSET!
HILLARY SUPPORTERS SHOULD COME OUT OF THE CLOSET!
I was at a benefit last night and although it was a very worthy non-profit run by a dear friend, I couldn’t concentrate at all. I tried to focus on the inspiring achievements and Chilean sea bass but the loop in my head was: “What’s going on? Have they called it yet? Would it be déclassé to “check the scores” on my phone like the rabid Phillies fans in my life?”
The answer to that question was “yes” and so I sat and patiently listened through 6 speeches and 3 awards until finally: dessert and open bar!! Usually cause enough for celebration in itself, but finally I could check the returns.
As I rummaged frantically for my Treo, a friend strolled up to our table and casually announced that CNN had called it for Hillary. There was the briefest of pregnant pauses among our group except for one friend who reflexively whooped in delight before catching herself and clapping her hand to her mouth. A blush rose in her cheeks as she gauged the response of the others, her eyes darting to the black woman who accompanied her and her husband (who she clearly knew was an Obama supporter). To break the awkward moment I blurted out, “It’s OK Rebecca. I’m happy Hillary won too.”
“ You are? Oh thank God! We should start a support group!” And she threw her arms around me in relief.
Her friend started to laugh and said “Wow. Since when do Hillary supporters have to be in the closet?”
Well, since always.
I will not attempt to answer the question as to why that is because many more qualified than myself have already done so with great eloquence. I will say that I respect and admire Senator Obama and I understand why many of my friends and family are supporting him. However, I do not share in their conviction that because he has won so many more contests than Hillary, has inspired people in typically red states, will reach across the aisle, is the antithesis of George Bush and doesn’t have “Clintonian” baggage that there is no doubt that he will beat John McCain.
I have doubts -- a lot of them. And I am troubled as I pore over the numbers this morning, some of which tell a very different story than the accepted narrative of this campaign.
Contrary to popular belief, this country has never been big on “one man, one vote”, but at this point I think it’s fair to say that the Democratic primary design is both confounding and, at times, ludicrous. How are we to get an accurate idea of who really has the best shot at those coveted 270 electoral votes when in a swing state like Pennsylvania (21 electoral votes) where approximately 2.3 million Democrats voted, Hillary needed to win the popular vote by 216, 000 votes for a net of 14 delegates. In effect, each of those delegates “costing” her 15,429 votes. By contrast, in Obama’s home state of Hawaii where 37, 000 caucus votes were counted, Obama netted 8 delegates at a “cost” of 3,500 votes per delegate.
The numbers get more interesting looking at the Virgin Islands (0 electoral votes) where Obama netted all 3 delegates at a cost of 590 votes each, 2 delegates in Wyoming (3 electoral votes) for 1,000 votes each, 2 delegates from Democrats Abroad (0 electoral votes) for 3850 each, 15 delegates in Colorado (9 electoral votes) at a cost of 2750 each, 3 delegates in Delaware (3 electoral votes) at a cost of 3500 each, etc.
Take a look at the big states where Hillary netted delegates: New Jersey (15 electoral votes) cost her 11,000 votes per delegate; Ohio (20 electoral votes) was very expensive at a cost of 32,850 per delegate; Texas of course, whose whopping 34 electoral votes won’t likely go to either Democrat, but nonetheless Hillary won the popular vote by over 100,000 and somehow Obama netted 5 delegates for the bargain basement, blue light special cost of negative 20,000 votes per delegate.
As of today, the really eye-opening number is that if every vote cast was counted toward the popular vote, including the caucuses which give Obama an approximate net gain of 100,000 votes, Hillary still comes out ahead yet is behind by 151 pledged delegates. Can anyone say: “Al Gore?”
Some might say it’s not fair to compare caucus numbers to primary numbers which is exactly why many of us believe caucuses require some rethinking. They just don’t provide the same opportunity to exercise our right to vote as primaries do and yet they are not counted proportionately as the numbers above show. Even when you look beyond the caucuses at significant swing states for the general election, how are Americans’ voices being accurately represented when Obama nets 15 delegates in Colorado for beating Hillary by 40,000 votes and Hillary nets 7 delegates in Ohio for beating Obama by 230,000 votes?
Clearly this is a nonscientific observation, but, I believe, an interesting one. I think Democrats took their eye off the prize a long time ago when both sides decided to make the race about schadenfreude instead of winning the presidency. Frankly, as many are saying this morning and I have felt for a long time, it may be too late.
As impressive as Senator Obama may be he has lost the Jewish vote (Florida), he is struggling with the Joe Six-Pack vote (Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, etc.), for all of the anti-Clinton sentiment Obama’s lead in delegates is relatively small, he suppressed a revote in Michigan in Florida which they’re kind of mad about and, let’s face it, he’s suffered a dethroning of sorts in the last 3 months - even among some of his own supporters.
With 30 percent of Hillary’s base saying they will vote for McCain or stay home if Obama gets the nomination, in my humble opinion, I think it’s high time for Hillary’s supporters to be out, loud and proud.