Letters to the Editor
-
He is so busy sipping latte,
eating arugula, and writing Muslim liberation theology sermons for Marxists! How can he be expected to win over white, working-class voters too?
Seriously, though, if the way to win "them" over is to pose for stunt photo-ops at gas stations, I have very little hope for the species. Not that I had a lot to begin with, mind you.
-
tainted well
the thing that absolutely slays me about this is that those "working class" voters are, in large part, why we're IN this terrible political and economic mess to begin with.
They elected Reagan, twice.
They elected Bush Jr., TWICE. On the evidence, they're dumb as fucking posts.
-
@had_enough
And condescending and arrogant elitists like you are why Obama will lose Indiana to Clinton by 10 points and barely win North Carolina by 5.
Keep it up. Clinton and the rest of her supporters will thank you.
-
Obama and his nutty supporters: always always somebody elses fault.
they're "racists". They're "stupid". Ain't that easy to say when you're say, a lawyer in Berkely pulling in 160,000 a year.
No, they're smarter than you. 1) they learn from their mistakes. 2) they aren't going to vote for some wack job with no experience that has never brought "Change" to anyone , least of all his suffering constituents in South Chicago.
These "dumb hilljacks" know smoke and mirrors when they see it.
Hillary delivered for them. Barrack Obama never delivered for anyone. (except himself).
-
A steelworkers spokeman said Clinton has "Testicular attitude"
What the fuck? I guess the bounty goes to the one with the balls? I'd prefer some brains to go with those balls, so I'll be voting Obama.
-
Once again, Shawn...
"These "dumb hilljacks" know smoke and mirrors when they see it."
Indiana voted for Bush twice. You know Bush, right? He of the fake Texas "ranch" given(!) to him for the 2000 election?
That's not even smoke and mirrors obvious, that's cardboard scenery obvious!
-
Look to the demographics ..
New Jersey has just gone Obama. (AP report)
Mike, as an activist more interested in the health of the country and the Democratic party as a whole since Dean came on the scene, I see something entirely different.
The MSM and the blubbering Clintonettes enjoy blasting Obama for his 'elitism's' and 'not relating to the average working man', while overlooking facts staring them right in the face.
Take Indiana for starters. A new poll in CQ shows Obama winning the Independent voters over Clinton by a whopping 15 points, in the midst of the Wright controversy.
Weren't they all just crying in a previous week about how the Independent voters are the most important voters to decide a general election, so Obama needs them to win? Before that, it was another set of goals, and before that another. Now many have had to remove the goal posts all together to keep up with him, because nothing has stopped him so far. Now we have the 'he's an elitist' charge, and the "he can't relate to the average working man" charge.
But here's the sad truth of what they're all missing:
It appears in looking at simple state demographics that this Democratic nomination is not troubled by the country's overall view of Obama, or about racism or elitism, at all. And it isn't the 'average American' that has any trouble with Obama.
Hillary and the MSM ain't going to win that argument.
Nor is this nomination process troubled by the Republicans, whose job it is -we all know- to unseat a Democrat regardless of the cost to the country.
Rather, the current trouble is almost solely due to the shriveled and twisted demographics and bigotry within Obama's own Democratic party. Because in almost every state Obama is winning Independents -and by big margins.
Why do the black v. white and old v. young "troubles" not crop up among Independents? Why do they support Obama in huge numbers and not Hillary? Why in the hell aren't you or the rest of the media asking that question??
Or do we now have a Swift Boat Media too?
The real problem Mike, is that crawling out from the dark corners of the Democratic party are those who are not only willing to use every foul trick out of Rove and Delays' books, but are willing to do something even more onerous. Something no true Conservative Republican would ever do: to throw an election and let their own party lose rather than lose the throne to someone outside their inner zone of 'acceptability'.
Obama will easily win the general with the true Democrats in the party at his back and with a new crop of Republicans and Independents taking a good look at maybe coming back in.
Obama's offers such massive potential, worldwide, I predict we'll have a major landslide of fresh voters and air finally breaking through those stale and musty deadlocked halls of Congress.
And a Halle-freakin-leujah brother to that!
-
The difference...
Obama is hoping voters are smart. Hillary is hoping voters are stupid.
I won't try to guess which of them is right, but whichever way it plays out America will get what it deserves.
-
Madden, What are You Trying to Say?
It's part of the history of this amazing race that Obama did wipe up Wisconsin with Clinton. It's also historic that Clinton won Pennsylvania against him by less than ten percentage points. He couldn't have shown so well in either state if he weren't able to connect with white, working class workers, as you point out in your very brief, seemingly pointless article. You ask the question, you give the obvious (historical) answer, then you stroke your chin and ponder how he'll do it again. What's up with that?
We all accept he will very likely take North Carolina, probably by a margin very similar to what he managed in South Carolina. We all know the contest seems to be very tight in Indiana, and either one could eke out a victory there, and if Obama wins the state it will go toward his impressive number of states won compared with Clintons, plus add to his pledged delegate count. If Clinton wins by less than 20 points she will have gained only a few delegates against Obama's lead.
So what's your point?
You're not asking about Clinton here, you're asking about Obama. Obama leads the race. There may be some out there waiting for the Rev. Wright's Other Shoe to drop, but even if one does hit the floor, it isn't going to matter, because it's irrelevant to anything. So why do I get the feeling you're really asking "Has Jeremiah Wright knocked Obama off his tricycle?" Will he have adequately satisfied white, working-class voters that he's not Wright's sock puppet?
This was not only a pointless exercise in chin-stroking; it was veiled and irresolute speculation. Those who believe in Obama will continue to do so. Those who do not probably won't be converted this week. Those on the fence will fall both ways, so overall nothing has changed. If the candidate with "balls" will win, what about journalists with the balls to ask the questions on their minds? Or if those questions are irrelevant, then why make up some pointless and annoying questions to ask while waiting for the primaries to happen? We'll know those results soon enough, and we already know that when they are over Barack Obama will still lead in every department, regardless of how slim a lead, after having come out of nowhere to unhorse Hilary Ben Hur. That's all the news that fits, so why don't you either write it or, preferably, focus on something that matters, like when will John McCain explode before our eyes? Now there's a possibility worth taking bets on.