Letters to the Editor
-
White myopia.
"if this is so, why is she getting the votes of those who most appreciate and stand to gain from those values - women, blue collar workers, those with lower incomes...the core Democratic base?"
By women, you mean white women, presumably? By blue collar workers and lower income voters, you are also speaking of Caucasians?
I would presume so. And I'm not sure how you're going to square the argument that African-American voters aren't [a] progressive or [b] the core Democratic base.
-
Obama Is Thinskined and Can't Take A Punch
Showme: Thank you I started to write a post but after reading your's--you say about everything I was going to write. These Obama supporter's are thinskined just like he is they call Hillary every vile name in the book(which she doesn't deserve) but let someone start telling the truth or asking questions about little Obama and they go out of their mind's. Obama is a liteweight amateur who could get nothing done just like he did when he was an Illinois state Rep. who voted PRESENT 118 times which is voting for nothing. Obama is another disaster just waiting to happen like George Bush.He has the smirk already.Obama will never get my vote he is not qualified to be president and if nominated McCain will make hash of him in the election. Like Joe wrote Ken Starr and his hood's investigated everything about the Clintion's from the time they were born so the republican's can't pull any suprize's about Hillary who the people who think for themselves will vote for
-
@ KateTex
I don't think it's all that useful to debate whose attacks are more grounded in issues that matter to the public. I think I could win, but so do you, and there's no judge.
As for Clinton's support from certain demographics, how much of that has to do with the media's framing of the issues -- that Clinton benefits from the economy and Obama from youth? How much of it has to do with race? I can't say. I only know that Clinton has done more to work for and give lip service to issues that affect women and children than she's actually done. We can debate that too, but it would probably be fruitless (I'd say that NAFTA and the Iraq war has done more to undermine poor folks -- including women and children -- than the minor things that she's led on have helped).
I'd also add that I'm disappointed in Obama for many of the same reasons I don't think Clinton gives a rat's ass about the poor: both support open borders for labor and capital; both taken record amounts of money from insurance companies and banks; both support preemptive war; etc. I am not pollyannaish about Obamam.
But what put me over the edge against Clinton was her chucking all of the progressive advantages Obama has over McCain by claiming that "national security" is an overriding concern and McCain is more ready to be president when it comes to what matters. I would find it helpful if you could answer my questions.
-
@KCM
With all due respect, your solution sucks. Particularly given that Hillary has already mathematically lost the nomination.
Neither can achieve the number of delegates required. That's the problem. And there's also the issue of Florida and Michigan.
And of course, there's that little matter of party unity.
-
@KCM
You say: "By women, you mean white women, presumably? By blue collar workers and lower income voters, you are also speaking of Caucasians?
I would presume so. And I'm not sure how you're going to square the argument that African-American voters aren't [a] progressive or [b] the core Democratic base."
Okay, KCM, who put the toad in your coffee this morning? Your last post was willfully myopic and had that unpleasant aroma of implied racism which has had its ugly day in the sun. Would you please retire this indecent strategy once and for all?
Also, are you possibly the last person in the country to learn that Obama is getting nearly the entirety of the black this time around? Why is he taking the black vote away from the spouse of the First Black President? I refer readers to the South Carolina stratagem, so neatly illustrated by your message.
-
KateTex
there's something about your posts that makes me think that you've never looked at Obama's record. You say that his record doesn't support his claims and that he's all talk...but do you know that he helped to bring health insurance to children in Illinois, and that he helped co-sponsor S-Chip or health insurance for children, as did Clinton, in the U.S. Senate?
If you don't want to look at his record. Just say so. But maybe you should back up some of your claims with evidence as well. And as for blue collar workers--he did win over blue collar workers in Wisconsin--it looks like he will win many in Wyoming today, also in Washington state, in Georgia....It seems like some are arguing that the only "blue collar workers" who count are those in so-called big states, where some, not all, have supported Clinton.
The demographic map has varied state to state. Even what counts as a "big state" has been interesting to me. Pennsylvania with 157 delegates is "big" while North Carolina with 115 is small potatoes?
And KcM makes a very good point that not all working class Democrats in the base are white.
-
Here is the thing
25% of Hillary's supporters would vote McCain over Obama.
Mainly because they despise your kids. Your kids who went to college. Your kids who are moderately successful and who you are proud of. This election for that 25% is not about who would make the better president. It is about a bunch of bitter old idiots wanting to get one over the younger generation.
Think about it: On policy Obama is the obvious second choice to Hillary. They are very similar on policy, foreign and domestic.
On experience, frankly Hillary is the second choice to McCain.
Which leaves personalities. The 25%er Hillary Clinton supporter is voting based on a cult of personality and at the very same time declaring anybody against Hillary and in favour of Obama, to be cultists.
They do not bring up issues of substance. They bring up non-scandals which only gain the strength they have got, because ultimately there is nothing to them. All smoke and no fire.
They do this because they are desperate to find one point on which to hang Obama, while Obama could easily point out that Hillary was more bothered about who did what to the flag than whether America should go to war or not. Hillary didn't even read the NIE. She should be sacked for not reading the NIE before voting to authorise the use of force.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/25/204032.aspx
Do you want a president who will sign things without having read them?