Letters to the Editor
-
@HP
Ok, I'll bite.
How does she win the nomination? Exactly how she says she hopes she will -- that the superdelegates get "buyer's remorse" and vote her in.
You argue that this will alienate Obama's constituency and ensure a loss in November. That may happen. I argue, however, that those who get "alienated" and choose not to vote for her will be a portion of the electorate that didn't vote in the last elections anyway -- mostly young voters and independents. The african-americans will vote democrat because they know that when this party is in power they benefit. With them and the traditional Democratic Party base she can defeat McCain.
But that would be undemocratic!!! you argue. I refer you to a rant (and remember -- it was a rant) I posted in a different thread a long time ago:
http://letters.salon.com/news/feature/2008/03/04/texas/permalink/0143a4ff2987447387e7ebf3ae985dbb.html
It's the Hard Left's fault this whole thing happened. The Democratic Party should ignore them. They bring only trouble to the table. So what if it's "undemocratic"? It's winning the White House that counts -- second place doesn't.
-
HP
She wins the nomination one way. If the superdelegates want to win the general. That's her only path.
-
No Negros Need Apply
I am a strong supporter of Senator Obama, but Senator Clinton's giant victory among this blue collar base of the Democrats does give me pause.
The issue of racism has been very below the surface in this campaign, but I think this event brings up the very real possibility that these white blue collar voters simply won't vote for a black man.
That's really the choice made, not about experience (though that might be offered as an explaination) since Senator Clinton has less actual political experience than Senator Obama. Senator Clinton has had roughly the same duties as Ms. America, smiling and huging poor children, but very little meat and potatos. But she is white, and that is likely very reassuring to people who feel their world is being turned upside down by the economy.
Meanwhile, John McCain is busy visiting African American locals around the country to remind them that, when the superdelegates pick the nice white lady and not the scary black man, the party of Lincoln will feel their pain.
So with Pennsylvania, Senator Clinton has made her point, the Democratic Party is the party of hidden racism and entrenched tribal values.
Now what do we do?
-
Since there is no reality-based way for Clinton to win
Let's just huddle back after she squeeks out a win in IN and gets buried in NC.
And then we can see where the goalposts have been moved to.
I gave you guys weeks to come up with a workable scenario for hiow she can win, all I got back was "because she can beat McCain". When nothing supports that other than the personal opinion of the person posting it.
I am left with the opinion that you people have nothing.
When you have the facts, you use the facts. When you don't have the fact, you pound the table.
So, go pound it.
And just keep in mind...even if you are all 100% right, it doesn't matter. It is too late. She cannot win.
Now go make out with Richard Mellon-Scaife.
-
Like I Said
Hillary even whipped him in the speech game last night. Obamas rhetoric is getting old and tired and hollow. In the end he will have his groupies and almost nothing else. He has peaked.
-
Fox's Queen
Anyway watching Fox News last night knows that Hillary's win in Pennsylvania was a victory for the right.
-
Why I can't back Obama
Why haven't I moved over to Obama's side? It's simple. I have no idea what he represents aside from "Change". It's a default position when you have a lot to whine about with no proposal on what you intend to do about it. I don't bother to complain about what's going on at my job or in my personal life unless I have a specific strategy to solve the problem because that will just make me a whiner. I see Obama as a whiner.
I'm much less supportive of Clinton than I was at the beginning of her campaign. She's made far too many mistakes. That does nothing to improve Obama's position, in my mind. He remains where he was before. Wanting a "change" from a Bush-Clinton-Bush may make sense but at least I know that I preferred the Clinton phase of that sequence and I know what Clinton's positions are on many of the issues that concern me and how she plans to address them. I see the platform of "change" as a faith based campaign, without the god. I'm supposed to assume that whatever changes are made will be good without knowing what, specifically, those changes are and how Obama thinks he'll manage to get those changes through the political process. Sorry, but that's too much of a risk for me. Without knowing what those changes are and being able to consider the likelihood that those changes will actually make it through, I'm not willing to rely on a hopes and dreams based plan. Unless and until Obama starts focusing on concrete policies and detailed plans, my attitude wont "change".
-
8.3% ≠ 10% regardless of Billary Spin
Mr Shapiro,
I realize the rest of the media is tossing around this 10% margin, which just happens to be the magic number the media has declared the mark for Hillary's ticket out of PA. Unfortunately, Hillary didn't make the mark.
Yes, Senator Obama outspent Hillary. This is because he's beaten her senseless in fundraising, by running a tighter, better campaign, and seeking support from ordinary people rather than corpratists who'd donated the max before the first vote was cast. A real shame, for Hillary. But given her advantage in name recognition, and 18 point lead, the only shock would have been a Clinton loss (which no one predicted any way).
On the evening news, all 3 networks bandied the 10% number about. It keeps the ratings going, validating the dumbed down debate the media has brought us. But when the votes were counted, Hillary failed to make that magical mark.
Nevermind.
CNN will declare it 9.3, and everyone else will round that up to the 10% the MSM requires to keep chattering on about flag pins and snipers (and shutting down conversation on judgment about Iraq, bankruptcy, and the mortgage crisis).
One problem: Hillary didn't hit 9.3%, much less 10. According to the state of PA (who actually certifies the result, not CNN) the reality is a problem for Team Billary and the MSM. Hillary barely broke 8%! The real number:
8.3%
8.3% won't net enough delegates to have an impact. 8.3% doesn't cut her popular vote deficit to under a half million votes, and PA doesn't bring her close to Obama's lead in states won. In other words, nothing happened.
Mr. Shapiro, your columns (including this one) have been insightful and well considered. You have a clear grasp of the landscape. Could you do us a favor and update your story to include the correct numbers, and stop repeating The Company Line. I realize your bosses at Salon might take offense when reality intrudes on the Hillary fantasy, but your reputation as an excellent commentator is more important than scoring Clinton points with Joan. Please check the facts and correct the record:
http://www.electionreturns.state.pa.us/