Letters to the Editor
-
@luckycat
good post on the numbers. i think this is the most important part for obama - if he holds the lead in the popular vote under any metric, there doesn't seem to be any way the sd's will overrule both the delegates and the popular vote. if clinton can get the lead in the popular cote under some metric (and no, no one in their right mind is gonna let her count MI as 300,000+ to 0 in her favor, something has to be done for Obama there) then the argument changes from sd's overruling to sd's breaking a deadlock, and she has a chance.
i think, however, your assumption that she'll win by ten points in the outstanding popular is unrealistic. most predictions i have seen put Obama with a larger popular vote tally from these last primaries. i wonder what the threshold percentage is? Clinton must get some margins in order to justify a sd exodus to her, and i'm not convinced she can do it with what's left (though her cutting into the Obama lead in NC is impressive). do you have any numbers to support your 10 point assumption?
-
All this blathering about Wisconsin
is misleading. Wisconsin is the home of Progressivism, and a place where black people are not numerous enough to attract negative attention. Let Obama and Clinton re-fight it out in Michigan, which has crumbling school systems headed by highly-paid black superintendents, a disgraced black mayor of the "most miserable city in the country" and a legion of white working class voters reeling in the most economically devastated state in America. Then you might see the role race, class and perceived elitism will play in November.
-
John Edwards is back
Sneaky John Edwards is back without saying a single word leading up to the NC primary. He has a lousy 27 pledged delegates under his control but they could become "huge" if the race comes down to Obama with 2,000 delegates and needs 25 to win.
Think about it.
Why hasn't Edwards come out for either candidate?
-
Hatchin, and the rules of the campaign
I've recently become a Hillary supporter, but from the beginning I have been annoyed at those who claim a Hillary win by the added votes of superdelegates would somehow not be "playing by the rules." The rules call for superdelegates. It may be that they should not - that we should have all primaries, or all caucuses, or some system with no superdelegates. But the Democratic Party rules permit the delegates who got that status by being elected officials to vote however they want. If that pushes the election one way or another, it might be bad or good politics, but it's absolutely within the rules...
Nancy Brockway
-
Hogwash
First, what three wins out of four? She lost Texas and Vermont.
Also, polls show that these voters will support Obama over McCain. Why would a slim Clinton win in Indiana change the dynamics? It does mean he's got to work that vote in the months of general campaigning to come, but it doesn't mean that Clinton, by default, is better. Funny how Clinton's value is only determined by Obama's not being perfect.
-
Madden: wrong headline, wrong photo
A more interesting article would be, "Why is Clinton still running when she can't win?"
There is no "deadlock." It's a long race with two strong candidates (that is, both are getting lots of votes in the primaries).
But there is no deadlock. Obama is around 160 delegates ahead. He has been getting the vast majority of superdelegates since Super Tuesday, and the pace is picking up now. He will probably come out of next week's primaries with another 5 to 10 pledged delegates added to his lead. Even if he breaks even or loses a couple, the basic math doesn't change. Clinton will have to win an even greater, even more unrealistic percentage of the remaining delegates to catch him. Obama will win the nomination unless the leaders of the Democratic Party want to kill the party. And they don't.
H. Clinton's campaign has continued long after it has had any practical hope of winning the nomination. This has been unfair for the true believers in her following. They have had to wander farther and farther from reality in order to keep clapping to keep Hillary's candidacy alive.
And this impractical death march on Clinton's part has been destructive for the party. It is not unwarranted to suggest that Clinton is doing this for reasons other than the good of the party or of the country. Nevertheless, the core problem, that it's taking too long to settle the nomination, isn't the problem. We already know who won.
The problem, and the question, is why Hillary is weakening the party. My belief is that she's always been more aligned to the people on the board of directors of Walmart than the people who shop or work there. She's always been more of a Republican than a Democrat. She's just running the ball for her real team. That's why it's taking so long. That's why the racist Republicans who comment here are looking more and more like Hillary supporters and vice versa. After awhile, they become the same.
-
Obama HAS ALREADY LOST
Read my postings for months. He is a racist hypocritical liar and he attends Trinity Church. Those of you in la la land need to wake the hell up. If he attended a non-racist church, due to the rampant sexism in this country he probably would have already won, but there is NO WAY IN HELL American is going to vote for Rev. Wright and to vote for Obama is to vote Wright--and we are not going to do that.
I have to admit I am laughing my ass off. Who would have dreamed of a better end to this evil pair...Smackdown Trinity Church style in one corner Rev. Wright and in the other corner Barack Hussein Obama. Obama's got minutes, not hours left, because Rev. Wright is gonna whoop his ass old fashioned style. GOD BLESS AMERICA....
Hillary Clinton 2008!!
-
Obama and the working class vote - which is mine
I am a Hillary supporter, but I will vote for the Democratic nominee in the Fall, whether or not it is Hillary. She has said more than once that it would make no sense for anyone to vote for McCain or not vote because their candidate did not get the nomination.
That being said, I would LOVE for Obama to strongly address the concerns of the working class. Fairly or not, this is not the part of his message that is being emphasized by the media - or on the blogs. All I hear about is the idea of change, and how he appeals to the more highly educated, "high information" voter as well as African Americans. His appeal is supposed to be broad and inclusive, transcending the usual categories.
I also hear a lot about how racist the lunch bucket crowd is. I read blogs everyday and I can see that if blogs were a Democratic primary, Obama would sure be the winner. Unfortunately many of those bloggers seem to have no respect for the "working class".
I just hate to see Hillary supporters characterized as racist, ill-informed, white trash. I don't care if Obama can bowl. I had no problem supporting Kerry and Gore. Hillary isn't exactly a prole.
I don't ascribe the prejudices of his supporters on the blogs to Obama. I think it's a good idea that he would do more town hall type appearances. There are plenty of working class people who are represented in their districts by politicians who are not from the working class.
He doesn't have to be anyone other than himself or change any of his proposals. He just needs to strongly reaffirm how his plans for American include all Americans.
Thanks to the hard work of my parents (who wished for their children better education and opportunies) and to Pell grants and low-interest student loans I was able to go to college.
I think Hillary often says, "I will fight for you." Working class Americans understand having to fight to get ahead. Michelle and Obama certainly do - so I say emphasize that!