Letters to the Editor
-
KateTex
While he is basically putting himself very bluntly, his last post does not appear to be abusive.
In fact your last post to KCM is more or less in the same vein.
I do not see where you get this "vile" claim from, unless you expect online to be the proverbial fifth form at Saint Fanny's.
-
Previous post refers
to KateTex calling Tom Payne vile.
-
@KcM
Putting the mathematical loser on the top of the ticket does little to nothing for party unity.
But alienating half the party will.
As for Michigan and Florida, they knew the ramifications of their respective decisions and moved up their primaries anyway, so I have very little sympathy for them.
That may be so, but it is still a potentially divisive problem that will have to be addressed one way or another.
That being said, given their importance in the general election, I'd expect they'll get a do-over of some kind. Fine, so be it. They still don't make Clinton mathematically viable at all. Please, look at the math before you begin suggesting we grant Sen. Clinton 4 years for running a terrible campaign.
I don't see how running a campaign that has remained this close against both an excellent candidate like Obama and a hostile press corps can be described as "terrible."
Look, it's natural that you want your candidate at the top of the ticket. I waited outside in the cold here in Houston until 11:30 pm before I could enter the building to caucus for Obama, so I don't make this suggestion as a Clinton partisan.
It's about finding a reasonable compromise that's best for the party in November from the top to the bottom of the ballot.
-
Jack.
[a] Not having any game plan whatsoever after Super Tuesday, and [b] basically conceding every caucus and every contest in February until Sen. Obama built an insurmountable lead in pledged delegates are the hallmarks of a terribly-run campaign. In fact, as Frank Rich and others have noted, the Clinton campaign is reminiscent of the Iraq War architects in their catastrophic myopia, "greeted as liberator" hubris, and total lack of Plan B.
In any case, putting Clinton at the top of the ticket to conciliate the fringiest of her supporters is, I'm sorry, a lousy idea. When she loses the primary -- and she will; mathematically, she already has -- Clinton voters will unfortunately have to suck it up. It's no fun, I know. I did it in 2000 after Bill Bradley lost, and in 2004 when Edwards lost. But that's how politics works.
-
JackHughes
Here is what needs to happen:
Both candidates need to pledge to take some money out of their war chests and pay towards Florida and Michigan retaking their votes.
It isn't just. Justice would demand that those two states pony up to retake the vote themselves, but it is not about justice.
This is about gestures to make voters in both states feel like they matter to whichever candidate wins the primaries. The idea needs to come from both candidates at a press conference held by both candidates.
It would also set aside a lot of the negativity being brought into this race, by showing that the candidates can put aside their rivalry to do something good. This is about making sure a Democrat wins the general.
If it comes down to Florida and Michigan being included with the vote being taken as it stands - it will hurt the Democrats in every other state in America.
If it comes down to Florida and Michigan not being included, it will hurt whichever candidate wins. Those states can go red.
The compromise I suggest would not be perfect, but it would be better than leaving the situation as it stands.
-
@Jack (not to pile it on, but . . . )
"I don't see how running a campaign that has remained this close against both an excellent candidate like Obama and a hostile press corps can be described as "terrible."
I thought that in December of last year, Hillary had all but crowned herself the nominee. She was ahead by 20 points in nearly every state and she was giving interviews saying, "it will be me." I think she's run a pretty terrible campaign as well. She's managed to completely blow her lead. She's blown through her funding once already. Now, even though she faces a near mathematical impossibility of winning the nomination fairly, she's crowing about how the momentum is behind her now.
It's not the conventional wisdom, but I also categorically disagree that she's faced a hostile press corps. Her campaign has been working both sides of this issue, claiming that the press is unfair to drum up support for her underdog position, while at the same time using the press to make baseless accusations that Obama = Rezko, and that Obama = inexperience. Just today, finally, in Ireland, a newspaper completely disproved her "I helped bring peace to Northern Ireland" claim. However, now no American newspaper has bothered taking her to task, or challenging her, for fear that they will be attacked for bias.
-
Jack
I too take exception to the idea that Hillary has faced an unusually tough press.
If the press was so hostile to Hillary Clinton what was Rupert Murdoch (Yes, that Rupert Murdoch) doing raising money for her?
She hasn't faced a really negative press. She has faced a relatively normal press complete with its shallow crap and stupidity. Remember, these are the guys who when Bill slapped them down over 9/11, decided to focus on his socks.
And, right at the start of this campaign season, well, "Barack the Magic Negro" anyone?
-
It's your call, Hillary
It's 3 a.m., the phone is ringing and the crisis is you. So what's your answer?
Rosa Brooks
March 6, 2008
Hillary? Hillary?
What? It's 3 a.m.? Yes, I know that. Look, I'm sorry if I woke you up. But you said you were fine with 3 a.m. calls.
I'm calling because we have a serious crisis on our hands. And I thought of you immediately, because you're right, you're the only person who might be able to defuse the situation.
We've got a problem with John McCain, Hillary. Remember him? I know, you've been so busy lately trying to destroy Barack Obama that McCain probably slipped your mind. That's why I had to call.
Hillary, listen: This country could be in serious danger if McCain becomes president. His national security policies are a recipe for endless conflagration, especially in the Middle East. Saying McCain's a "hawk" is an understatement. McCain makes Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld look like cute little parakeets. No kidding. Remember "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran?" Ha ha.
No, no, you're right, it wasn't funny. And by the way, McCain says your Iraq strategy would constitute "surrender ... waving the white flag."
What's that? You don't want to see McCain become president either?
Then withdraw from the Democratic race right now, Hillary.
Whoa! Don't get so irritated. It's just that the longer you stay in, the more help you give McCain and the right.
Stop being so mean? I'm not trying to be mean, Hillary. Please, get yourself another pillow if you want one. You're smart and you're tough, and you've blazed an important trail. But at 3 a.m. -- dark-night-of-the-soul time -- we need to be realistic.
Let's do the math together. Do you want to go find a calculator? No? Sorry, of course you're good at math.
OK -- so before this week's primaries, Obama had 1,192 pledged delegates, and you had 1,036. On Tuesday, you won in Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island, and MSNBC estimates that after the results have been fully tabulated, you'll have eroded Obama's original 156-delegate lead by ... somewhere between seven and 13 pledged delegates.
Whoop-de-do.
What? Oh sure, you did manage to regain some momentum. And yes, I probably wouldn't even have called if it hadn't been for those infamous "red phone" ads you've been running. They're definitely effective ads, Hillary. By suggesting that Obama isn't fit to be commander in chief, you do seem to have shifted the dynamic; exit polls suggest that Ohio and Texas voters who made up their minds at the last minute mostly opted for you.
So is that your campaign's take-away here? That if you go all out to destroy Obama -- suggesting he's weak on national security -- you'll be able to eke out a few more victories in the primaries that lie ahead?
That's what I was afraid you were thinking. Only a few months ago, you were accusing Obama of attacks on you that came "right out of the Republican playbook." I should have figured you'd be studying that playbook yourself.
For the sake of your country, don't do this. You've got 12 contests remaining before the Democratic convention, and given the complex proportional system for awarding delegates, you'll have to win all 12 by 20-point margins just to break even with Obama in the pledged delegate counts. It's not going to happen. (And don't even think about Florida and Michigan. Trying to change the rules in the middle of the game will tear the Democratic Party in two.)
And as you chase after near-impossibilities, you'll be running a campaign aimed at systematically destroying the reputation of your party's front-runner -- the candidate who leads in the overall popular vote as well as the delegate count, the candidate who has shown an impressive ability to win the hearts of independents and even Republicans, the candidate who is attracting new voters in droves, the candidate who voters think stands the best chance of preventing Mr. "Bomb Bomb Iran" from becoming our next president and leading us into a future of endless war.
This week, right-wing radio host Rush Limbaugh urged Republicans to vote for you instead of McCain in Texas and Ohio -- because "Obama needs to be bloodied up. Look, half the country already hates Hillary. But nobody hates Obama yet. Hillary is going to be the one to have to bloody him up politically."
You were right all along, Hillary: There is a vast right-wing conspiracy. The thing is, you've just become their not-so-secret weapon.
Here it is at last, Hillary, a genuine test of your ability to lead in a dangerous world. It's too late for you to win the Democratic nomination -- but if you stay in the race, you can sure help Obama lose the White House.
What are you going to do?
Hillary?
Hillary?
rbrooks@latimescolumnists.com