Letters to the Editor
-
KateTex Hillary is unelectable
Two reasons that are seldom mentioned why Hillary is unelectable in the general election:
Her 47% ceiling. She has not been able to break through disapproval poll numbers. Since she ran for the Senate, the Republican attack machine launched a crusade against Hillary. Now people either like her or hate her.
Second point, she has a problem with trust and honesty. Only 39% of Americans believe she is honest and trustworthy compared to Obama and McCain in the 60's.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/15/AR2008041502883.html
Even in early March, her numbers were only in the 40's.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/105097/Perceived-Honesty-Gap-Clinton-Versus-Obama-McCain.aspx
These numbers will not win a general election
-
also, squalorholla
you can't trust other people's polls. just ignore them like they were made up.
-
Hillary's approval ratings are low.
But her removal ratings are high.
-
@sugarman
And I say, "As for me, I can't imagine why anyone who's both intelligent and kind could possibly not want Clinton to win." Apparently, the beauty of any candidate is indeed in the eye of the beholder.
-
davesug, I understand
I've been called an Obamabot simply for 1. being a member of one of his core demographics and 2. being excited about his candidacy. Kinda sucks, until I remember that my identity is not really tied up in this election, except to people who have drunk the consumerist Kool-Aid and therefore believe that their consumer decisions (including their choice of a political candidate) say very, very deep things about Who They Are As People, and that people who support another candidate are invalidating their Very Important Decision and are therefore Bad.
I 'preciate the intro, but I've actually been around here for a long time, and I know how Christ-awful dysfunctional and infested with deranged assholes this forum is. I just have a hard time remembering which are the genuine Hillary supporters, which are the genuine Obama supporters, and which are the McCain trolls impersonating either in an attempt to make us sane types hate each other. It's working, too.
In most places on the web, regular posters understand that if you see someone espousing a viewpoint so extreme and hateful that it seems more like a caricature than an actual opinion, that person is almost certainly a troll. Here, though? A couple of days ago I had to explain what a troll is.
It is to weep.
Anyway, I do appreciate the line about the polls; I needed to hear that right now. Cheers.
-
KateTex
we get very passionate about our candidates and we can even hate the folks who seem to be standing in our (our candidate's) way. but when we calm down, we realize, really, this is what democracy is all about. better than fighting till only one is left standing.
-
@squalorholla
ok, maybe i'm a bit stupid too. i assume that one is giving their true beliefs. why else bother? it DOES take time. and who can it influence? ONE?....MAYBE? wouldn't it be more efficient driving people to polls or making phone calls?
ok here's the real question - and i do realize that if you could REALLY tell, the CIA would have hired you at an immense salary. Cythera45 came on like a hillary supporter, then admitted she was for McCain. she also said she was biracial. is she a troll? is that bit about being biracial a lie (it DOES strain credulity). now why do i care. i think she's funny. mean, but funny. crazy hyperbole. just wanted your opinion. though i think i know what it's going to be...YES, of COURSE!!!!! still, it's really a weird way to spend your days. maybe these people have trust funds - and agoraphobia. -
Calling troll is kind of bad netiquette
unless there's a system in place for dealing with trolls effectively, like a moderation staff (AHEM, JOAN) and/or a local culture that is savvy enough to point and laugh at the trolls until they go away. I don't think you're stupid for taking posts here seriously; most Salon posters are pretty bright. You might not have an awful lot of experience on other message boards, though, which is the norm around here, and which can inform a certain goodnatured naivete about how this stuff tends to go down.
Trolls are an inevitable part of this kind of discourse. Some people gain a tremendous emotional charge from stirring shit, and it's easy to do in this format. It's also easy to forget that the people one is toying with are "real" when they're just lines of text and a handle; it's a cinch to say stuff that would get you punched in the nose out in meatspace.
All that said, cythera45 is, by her own admission, the textbook definition of a troll. She fronted like she's a Hillary supporter when she is not, and made extreme statements to that effect when she actually believes nothing of the kind. The biracial thing is a nonissue; the point is that she misrepresented her position to cause trouble. Trolly McTrollerson, and I don't feel bad pointing it out since she admits it herself.
I'm also very close to positive that KateTex is another one, for the reason I mentioned before; when she's on a tear she says things that no sane progressive would ever, ever say. Then again, she might just be nuts.
It's a jungle out there.
-
YOU JUST KEEP MISSING THE POINT
Why are you and the rest of the pundits still asking why Obama cannot carry working-class voter? That question was answered a long time ago. The Obama campaign was never designed to connect with working-class, frequently voting, regular Democrats.
The entire strategy of the Obama campaign was to dilute and overwhelm the vote of that core faction of the Democratic party with new, predominantly young voters, especially in the caucus states, carry the predominantly African-American Southern states, show enough of a math model to declare himself the nominee, and get Clinton out the race before anyone figured out they didn't actually carry the core frequently, voting base of the Party.
Obama's campaign was not designed to go the distance. They knew going in that he would not connect with those voters. Wisconsin was an anomoly. Clinton was not on her game yet and the Obama campaign capitalized on it. And what can you say about a state whose capital city, Madison, has twice elected Socialists as Mayors??
This campaign has not been upfront about much of anything:
1.They dilute the vote of the Party's base, declare themselves the "new face of the Democratic Party" and "we are who we've been waiting for" and seemed not to mind the other 65% of the Party was not included in this exclusive little fraternity.
2.Obama and his campaign was being asked about Jeremiah Wright as far back as the end of last year, maybe earlier. In true Obama fashion, he chose to ignore it. When he gave that flowery speech in Philadelphia and claimed he could no more disavow Wright than he could the black church or his white grandmother, he was lying. He threw Wright under the bus the night before he announced he was running for President. Wright's surfacing is payback - pure and simple.
3. Obama's comments about working-class, small town people to that San Francisco fundraising crowd was probably the most honest thing he's said since he started campaigning. In true elitist form, he still cannot figure out why people were put off by that comment.
4. Obama didn't get his religion at the Jeremiah Church of Wright and Wrong, he got religion at Harvard - and he'll need about another 10 years to get that stick out of his ass. He is no more "like" the majority of Americans, than I am black. Obama suffers from the same condition that made Gore sigh during a debate with Bush, and resulted in Kerry wind surfing.
Obama is toast. He's been found out. And it doesn't matter if he wins Indiana and North Carolina. He will NOT be the nominee. I don't care how many delegates he has the end of June. And Howard Dean needs to stop wringing his hands about ending this, and start figuring out that the best candidate for this Party this year is Hillary Clinton.
They all need to get over themselves.