Letters to the Editor
-
Just by chance
When the DVD I had just watched ended my channel was on Fox, where I had watched Tuesday's returns -- shows you how much TV I can bear to watch (I watched Fox because the digital cable can't tune in CNN).
What should I see but Bill O'Reilly's "talking points," scaremongering about Obama. United front indeed.
-
Other considerations
It is refreshing to see an article which takes an objective view of Clinton and Obama. Whitewater and all the other so-called questions about the Clintons were addressed by Ken Starr to the tune of many millions of dollars. These investigations were instigated by the Republican-controlled congress to stymie Bill Clinton's administration. Nothing came out of it...nada, except Monica! For Obama to bring up these nefarious inquiries is a transparent and weak effort to deflect criticism of his Rezko connections. This is very divisive...something his campaign supposedly is above.
As for Obama being favored to win the nomination, the Rasmussen poll today showed Hillary leading Obama by 49% to 43% for the nomination.
Another important consideration... Some of the states which Hillary won are very important states to Democrats---New York, New Jersey, California, Ohio, and Massachusetts. It is very significant that Hillary carried them and this cannot be overlooked or played down. Obviously, Democrats are not as sold on Obama as some of his fans think. I went to the caucus in my state and the enthusiasm for Hillary was apparent. Also, she carried our precinct...this is an area with a lot of people having college degrees, some with advanced degrees.
-
@ little lord baltimore: Obama's Missed Votes
I don't smear anybody; I do my homework and research. The NV record below is on several issues of importance to safety, national security, constitutional law, and children's health.
To wit:
-- Expressing support for Gen. Petraeus and U.S. Armed Forces. Clinton voted "No"; OBAMA=NV. (9/20/2007)
-- Implementing the 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act. Clinton voted "Yes"; OBAMA=NV. (7/26/2007)
-- Sense of the Senate on Guantanamo Bay Detainees (e.g., habeus corpus rights). Sen. Clinton voted "Yes"; OBAMA=NV.(7/19/2007)
-- Attorney General Alberto Gonzales "No Confidence" vote. Sen. Clinton voted "Yes"; OBAMA=NV. (6/11/2007)
-- State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) Reauthorization. Sen. Clinton voted "Yes"; OBAMA=NV. (9/20/2007)
Additionally, Sen. Obama is chair of the Subcommittee on NATO and Europe of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, but he has not held one meeting of this subcommittee, which is responsible for our relations with NATO and Europe on everything from military actions and diplomacy to humanitarian concerns in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and elsewhere.
-
Some free advice for Obama
What a pretentious title for a pretentious article by a pretentious reporter who presumes to know what he is talking about.
-
@ Reality-based Liberal: What About John Kerry's Principles?
Clinton can ditch all of her "principles" regarding choice, civil liberties, the environment and government for regular people, by endorsing John McCain over Obama.
I don't see anybody going nuclear on John Kerry (an Obama supporter, by the way) who postulated asking John McCain to be his running mate in 2004. Was John McCain any more liberal then?
-
John Kerry
Well, I be doggone. John Kerry and John McCain. Now that is a piece of news. What's the matter with these pussy footin' callous Democrats runnin' after John McCain? Shame on John Kerry and shame on Hillary Clinton. Wonderin' if they all drinkin' from the same trough of lat's all be Republicans in Dem clothin'.
-
It's over. Please, understand the math.
This thing is OVER. Strange how the meme is that Obama supporters "drink the Kool-aid", and yet it's Clinton-leaning folk who can't seem to grasp the mathematical reality of the situation. Let's spell it out.
Start with Newsweek's Jonathan Alter: "Hillary Clinton won big victories Tuesday night in Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island. But she's now even further behind in the race for the Democratic nomination. How could that be? Math. It's relentless." (http://www.newsweek.com/id/119010)
If you still think Clinton has a shot for some reason after reading Alter's article, move to this dKos diary: "[T]he way this is discussed in the media narrative does not fully educate the audience how daunting the math is for Hillary Clinton. Chuck Todd is clearly the best at articulating all of this, and I am convinced he understands these numbers in detail. However, even Todd has not been terribly aggressive in stressing the difference between needing 62% or 65% of the remaining delegates and the voting margins required to make that happen." (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/4/162042/3056)
If, after that, you're still unconvinced, you're a hard nut to crack. Nevertheless, look at the UAD (unpledged add-on delegate) situation (http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/convention-math-remember-the-u.php): "So add this to the long (and lengthening) list of reasons why the numbers just don't add up for a Clinton nomination. And every time you see a tally of the 794 superdelegates, look closely to see how it treats the 76 UADs."
Then, perhaps, one should note that Obama picked up four delegates from Clinton in California on Tuesday, meaning an 8 delegate swing in Sen. Obama's favor.(http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/6/18441/19312/64/470801)
That, of course, doubles Sen. Clinton's take from her theoretical "comeback" victory on March 4, when she pulled only 4 delegates (thanks to Obama's caucus victory in TX): http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=87961802)
If you're still not convinced after all that, then I refer you to Slate's Delegate Calculator. (http://www.slate.com/features/delegatecounter/) Please spin me any situation that makes any degree of sense involving a Clinton victory.
I'm sorry if I seem abrupt, but all the idiotic coverage, in full defiance of the reality of the situation, has grown really tiresome. The failure of most of the MSM to report the reality of the Democratic race smacks of either intellectual dishonesty, or -- sadly, more likely -- a pitiful comprehension of math. Either way, it's over. Add MI and FL back in, it's still over by a long shot. Add 5 more states to the union if you so desire, IT'S OVER.
Feel free to continue supporting Sen. Clinton -- given the usual tenor of conversation around here, I don't believe for a second this post will change your mind -- but at least recognize the mathematical situation. Otherwise, you're indulging in "false hopes," and Hillary has reminded us several times over how pernicious those can be.
As for Conason, well, it's hard to take him seriously anymore. When I worked for the Clinton machine, during l'affaire Lewinsky, he's a guy who'd run most everything before our outfit first. This article reeks of more of the same, and I'll be phoning him in the next few days to call him on it.