Letters to the Editor
-
Oh, God, not Hillary as VP candidate
If Obama's entire campaign is based upon the premise that we need fundamental change in a corrupt political system, how does one achieve that goal by having Hillary Clinton, a true old school politician, only one heartbeat away from the presidency? The same goes for Wesley Clark, whose name has been batted about for VP. Clark is solid Clintonista and too much of a militarist for my comfort.
If Obama chooses a compromise candidate for VP, I, and millions more of his supporters, will be deeply disappointed. It is not necessary to have any member of the Team Clinton on the ballot in order to win the votes and support of Hillary's backers. Once they recover from their disappointment, and they contemplate the prospect of John McCain as president, most will climb aboard the Obama train.
We need real change both at the top and the bottom of the ticket.
-
@robgo2 re VP
rob, what do you think of Jim Webb of Va. as VP? I heard his name tossed around once, and it seemed like a good fit. But I suppose I was thinking in terms of political advantage. (former vet, catholic, swing state).
Who else do you have in mind?
-
New rules for Dems in 2012
No caucuses! You hold a caucus we won't seat your delegates. You want to participate in the election process, then hold an election.
Also, no open primaries.
-
Eureka! !
It hit me suddenly. What if she's still in the race because she thinks it's good for the party? After all, we're all (including the media) talking about her or Obama. And therefore Obama's and Hillary's message is getting out. McCain is nowhere to be seen, and familiarity breeds good things (witness the vote for Obama in North West Indiana). In a sense, as an Obama supporter, I actually feel that maybe it might be good for us Democrats for Hillary to stay in there and keep the discussion going about issues.
There is one definitive way to tell if she's in it for this motive;
She doesn't attack Barack from here on but stays strictly on the issues.
I know this is not typical Hillary from what we've seen, but it would be a very honorable thing to do. And it'd be damn clever.
If she resorts to attacks on Barack, this idea falls apart. But I have my fingers crossed.
-
@ncawley -- more BS arguments from ncawley, a declared Republican
ncawley: "4.) Obama only won North Carolina, because the people in that state only voted by the color of one part of his skin, which is black."
A significant number of whites voted for Obama. But sure, Obama did win a large percentage of the black vote. These votes are legitimate votes no matter what skin-color the voters might have been. He won by over 200,000 votes.
ncawley: "5.) Hillary Clinton's win in New Hampshire was touted as racist, because white people voted for her in that state. The media spewed racist’s comments about this win and compared New Hampshire to Massachusetts."
You're really going back in time here, huh? Who said New Hampshire was racist? Not many people. I think Jesse Jackson Jr. was bitter about that one, and said some stupid stuff, and guess what happened? He was completely muzzled after that. Has anybody even heard a peep out of the guy since then? For the most part, few people were making racism charges.
ncawley: "6.) The media is too afraid to mention the racism going on in this campaign by the Obama campaign."
Please provide evidence for a single racist activity or behavior by the Obama campaign in the last few weeks. Just one example, on instance. You can't. You have nothing.
ncawley: "7.) Obama is a black & white person, but only touts his race as black to get the black vote."
Obama has not described himself in any way that is inaccurate. He routinely makes reference to his white mother and grandmother. Nobody has any illusions about his racial background being mixed. That said, he is still a darker-skinner person who is married to a black woman and who visually reads as black. Obama is many things. Nobody pretends otherwise.
ncawley: "8.) Hillary Clinton has more votes in total than Obama."
Patently untrue. This was untrue before yesterday's votes. It's especially untrue now, with Obama adding over 200,000 votes to his total popular-vote count.
ncawley: "9.) Florida and Michigan voters voted for Hillary Clinton and she won both states."
Weak. Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan. Obama was a virtual unknown to most voters in Florida and he didn't have any way to become known by them because he didn't campaign there. Clinton herself stated that Michigan and Florida shouldn't be counted, then reversed herself when it would benefit her.
ncawley: "10.) Obama does not want the votes in Florida and Michigan counted, because he then won't be in the lead."
You need to take a remedial math course. Even with those votes added in, Obama still leads in the popular vote.
ncawley: "11.) Obama is the only candidate who advertised in Florida, which was against the rules, but nobody brings this up and he still lost."
Obama did not advertise in Florida. Obama had ads running on some cable-TV networks in the South that broadcast in other states where Obama was running, and also happened to broadcast in Florida. The DNC has already ruled that he did not violate campaign guidelines, and this was just as likely to be an oversight as an intentional cheat.
ncawley: "12.) Obama could have left his name on the ballot in Michigan, but he knew he would lose and took his name off the ballot and told voters to vote undecided."
All of the candidates took their names off the ballot except for Clinton and one other (Dodd?). This wasn't a rule, but it was agreed upon among candidates because the votes weren't supposed to count anyway. Clinton left her name on the ballot to create an impression of a win, and that's all that it was -- an impression. Not a legitimate or meaningful win by any measure.
ncawley: "13.) Obama was projected to win Indiana and North Carolina, but again he could not come through with a victory and the only reason he won North Carolina is because the black population was high and they are voting by color and not by policies. If that is not racism, then I do not know what else it could be."
Is it sexism if women voters come out in favor of Hillary? By your own argument, that is all it could possibly be. Apparently you cannot conceive of people preferring a candidate for any reason outside of identity politics.
You are wrong about Obama being projected to win Indiana and N.C. At one point early in the campaign he might have been projected to win Indiana based on polling. The polls changed and the campaign rolled with it. By last week the Obama campaign and the media were predicting a Clinton win. As it turns out Clinton won by a much smaller margin than anticipated. The Clinton campaign was also hoping for an upset in North Carolina, and they didn't even come close.
Ncawley: "14.) Obama stated that if he wins North Carolina and Hillary Clinton wins Indiana, then it is a TIE."
Wrong. Obama referred to it as a possible tie-breaker. Read the context; he wasn't making a huge declaration here. You and Hillary Clinton are now both guilty of taking the words out of context. But whatever the case, it doesn't matter because Obama won the delegate count and he came out well ahead in popular votes. You're just scraping for some way to avoid calling his win a win.