Letters to the Editor
-
Message - YOU are not a Democrat
If you are an Obama supporter you have to deal with some unpleasant realties...
1) The Democratic party machine is your enemy, working to undermine your choice. They "owe" Hillary.
2) Media, like Salon, is enamored with the "Comeback Kid" storyline - and they love access to the party establishment, so they treat the Clinton camapign with more credibility than it deserves - as it IS NOT viable since she cannot win mathematically.
Yet, I - like many Obama supporters who skew more affluent and educated - are bombarded by the party to give money. Because we are in a better position to do so when compared to Clinton supporters. Amazing!
Obama supporters should tell the DNC to eff off until Howard Dean starts acting like a leader and ends the madness. Why do we want to fund my own candidate's demise?!?!?!
And yet we stll are winning and have $40MM is in the bank while they are scratching for any GOP voter they can find in the woods of PA. And they are broke.
When Dean comes back later and kisses our asses atfer Obama clinches, let's make him earn it - OK? And then dump his ass for someone with the chops to manage this party.
Heckuva job Browny!
-
..
And when he wins the primary, he'll be that much stronger..
-
How does it feel...
... to be such a partisan hackjob?
I mean, really. No mention of Clinton's large leads before the event, and the narrowing of the gap that Obama managed?
Hasn't won a primary since Feb 22? And exactly HOW MANY primaries have occurred since then?
"Obama might survive a near-wipeout"... any indication this will happen? I'm pretty sure that there's a few states Obama still might take.
And worst of all... she has to "search under the sofa"? You mention the 109M in the same sentence, so I don't even get the point of that sentence. In essence, you're saying, "She'll have to rely on small donors even though she has 109 Mil."
Obama can't mathematically come close to reaching a majority.... which means that neither can Clinton. And Clinton is behind... and won't catch up. So, again, what is your point?
Is it too much to ask for an article that show some sense of balance? Or must everything from you be Hillary-spin? I'm sure there are strong arguments for voting for Hillary over Obama, but one thing is for sure... you're not making them.
-
What is more troubling...
What is more troubling is Salon continuing its pro-Hillary shine-it-on editorial choice of headlines. "Can't close the deal?" I don't think that Salon will be closing a deal with me when it's time for me to renew my membership.
-
yep
"Of course, this isn't that world. This is Clinton spin land, where Obama's gain of more than 12 points in the past few months is not reported as the huge momentum that it is, but instead as "he hasn't expanded his support.""
except that your polling data does nothing to negate what the article says, that he has not in fact expanded his support beyond his usual demographics, nor has Hillary. The two have consistently pulled from the same pool of voters pretty much since this thing began. And polling "data" from months out is notoriously unreliable (see President Dukakis) And your own personal "spin land" makes no mention of the huge disparity in advertising and money spent, or that "momentum" of previous victories and/or inevitability should have propelled increased support for Obama; after all, why would people vote for someone who "can't win"?
"True... as long as fear, ignorance and racism continue to propel the American electorate."
right on time--an Obama supporter laying yet another defeat at the feet of racist Hillary supporters within the first five letters. Predictable as clockwork.
"She has had more money"
except of course she didn't for long. It always amazes me how many Obama people pull that one out. Do you all really not remember that he outspent her in the very first contest--Iowa? Really? None of you remember that? She hasn't had a real money "advantage" since this thing began.
"more name recognition"
Son of Sam has pretty good name recognition. Does he automatically get booted to the front of the "should win a national election" too? The whole "name recognition" argument is just shallow and thoughtless. All it does is help in polling (and early polling only at that), not actual voting. Yes, more people knew Hillary. And more people also knew they wouldn't vote for her. Hardly an "advantage". What her name recognition meant was she wasn't going to change many people's minds, not that she had a built-in majority. Her winning or losing was never going to be about her convincing doubtful people she'd be the best President; it was always going to be more about who she was running against and could she be seen as "better". Her inability to sway large numbers is a big reason many people (including myself) hoped she wouldn't run.
"every conceivable advantage"
Well, except money. And name recognition. And a lock on 85-90 percent of a significant voting block within the party. And being able to run a change campaign in a change campaign year. And a distaste among many voters for a dynastic sense of govt. But so long as one ignores all that, yep, every conceivable advantage.
"more racist"
and again, right on time.
"The article seems to say: Some people actually voted for the OTHER candidate!"
Actually, no. What it says is that nearly half the people voted for the other candidate (that's vastly different from "some") and that the same people keep voting for both. If the conclusion drawn from this makes no sense to you, it's only because you're misreading what is being said. It's hard to argue that either of these candidates is "strong" when neither has moved the dial from nearly the beginning of this campaign, despite record levels of expenditures by both and in the face of the momentum that usually pushes one group, even grudgingly, into the other's camp or at least into simply not voting. It's also hard to argue either is "strong" when both are in a statistical tie with McCain despite the perfect hurricane blowing in the Dem's favor. While polls at this point aren't all that reliable, we're not talking a "should be up by 5 or 6 points" difference here. Any Dem candidate should be up by 20 points in a year with an unpopular war, record gas prices, a recession, and a President and Vice-President with record disapproval ratings.
It's easy to know why Obama is getting nearly 90 percent of the black vote. And it's easy to know why he's getting the majority of the youth vote. You don't write articles about what's easy to figure out (well, in an ideal world, let's not give too much credit to modern "journalism"). You write articles about what isn't so easy to figure out.
Obama people can rant and rave about Hillary staying in all they want, can scream racism and ignorance and Rovian dirty tricks etc. But if Obama were half as good, half as transcendent as they all say he is, he would have actually won the nomination already a long time ago. At some point, you have to actually start wondering why he hasn't moved that dial. Why when it became clear he was guaranteed more delegates and thus the probable nomination, people still kept coming out and voting for Hillary, the one who "couldn't win". If it doesn't trouble you, you're just in self-denial. Those same sort of questions should also trouble Hillary supporters. Not about why she's losing blacks or college kids; again, that's obvious. But why is she losing college-educated? Why is she losing independents? Why, even as she wins, do her negatives keep going up? Again, if those don't trouble you as a Hillary supporter you're in denial.