Letters to the Editor
-
The will of the people
@ Jdorfma4
Not to quibble, but the pledged delegates and the popular vote are not the same thing. Just a small example, Clinton won the popular vote in Nevada and Obama received 1 more delegate.
By the way, I'm just curious if you and other Obama supporters would respond to the question, if one candidate ends up with more pledged delegates and the other ends up with more popular vote, which would represent "the will of the people" ? I think I know your answer, but would just like to get your view of democracy on the record.
-
One worried Obama supporter doesn't change the math.
Realitycounts, you're really not living up to your moniker. There hasn't been a single superdelegate out there who has said they'll overturn the pledged delegate leader. Not one. In fact, most -- including super supers like Pelosi, Biden, and Richardson -- have said the opposite, that they'll definitely ratify the pledged delegate leader.
Turn down the volume on all the back and forth, and here's what's actually happened in Election 2008, during Clinton's theoretical "Best Week Ever."
Tuesday:
Delegate-wise, Clinton wins OH and RI, Obama wins TX and VT. Clinton: +4 delegates.
California certifies its Super Tuesday vote, giving Obama 4 more, and Clinton 4 less delegates than previously announced. Obama +4 delegates. Clinton -4 delegates.
Saturday:
Obama wins the Wyoming caucus, picking up an additional 3 delegates (It's a 7-5 split, with 1 UAD (unpledged add-on delegate)). Obama +3 delegates.
So, since last weekend, Obama has picked up 7 delegates on Clinton, notwithstanding the supers (where he's also made gains this week.) Clinton remains down between 130 and 150 pledged delegates. There are only 50 states in the Union. So unless Dubya gets real busy annexing places in the next few months, IT'S OVER.
As I told you last time, reality counts.
-
Dirty Laundry
"The Clintons' personal and financial affairs have already been investigated ad nauseam. He should focus on answering any serious questions raised about his own."
Cocaine: Bush bad. Obama youthful indiscretion. Kind of like Bill Clinton's experiment with marijuana, except marijuana doesn't kill off nearly as many brain cells as Cocaine does.
Service to the country: Bush Air National Guard. Obama community activism for 8-10? years. Clinton 35 years of advocacy for women and children. Work for national health care for 15 years, with some success in the state children's health programs. S-CHIP.
Bush was AWOL from the last part of his National Guard service. Obama hasn't worn any kind of military service uniform.
Inexperience: Bush bad. Obama has judgement.
Does it matter that his judgement was to pursue the road the White House instead of doing the job we are paying him to do in the Senate? Clinton has held several hearings while also running for president and missed fewer votes than Obama. Seems women are better at multi-tasking.
Popularity: Have a beer with Bush. Come to the Lord with Obama. Roll up your sleeves and work with Clinton.
Seems odd that the media would ask that question to the electorate since Bush is an alcoholic. Seems odd that the first black candidate is using Christian revivalist rhetoric and posture to win a contest for a job that isn't supposed to be judged on religion.
Historic vote: African Americans given the vote in 1868. Women given the vote in the 1920. Eighteen-year-old citizens given the right to vote in 1971.
While the black vote has been suppressed regularly since its inception, at least the BLACK MEN could legally vote for the past 140 years. Women of any color couldn't legally vote for another 52 years.
Obama has built a huge following amongst blacks, young people and white men. Hillary has a following of doddering old women, so the media tell us. I guess there are a lot more old women than those other categories since Hillary has gotten 67,471 more votes than Obama as of March 4th.
All of you who are saying you won't vote in the general election unless Obama is the candidate sounds a lot like a child throwing a tantrum over a toy. Also like you are cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Personally, I'd rather have a lot more estrogen in the White House to balance the testosterone infusion of the past.
-
jonathanseer.
Writing everything in bold doesn't make your case any stronger. In fact, IT'S LOOKS A LOT LIKE YELLING IN ALL-CAPS.
As for the Ken Starr thing, that's ridiculous. What the Obama campaign was saying is that Hillary Clinton should release her tax returns for the last 7 years, which is standard operating procedure in virtually any election, let alone one for the highest office in the land.
You probably already know this, but in 2000 none other than Clinton flunky Howard Wolfson -- the guy who brought up Ken Starr -- was running around with a fellow in an Uncle Sam outfit demanding GOP Senate candidate (and Hillary's opponent) Rick Lazio -- wait for it, wait for it -- release his tax returns.
So, what the Obama campaign was suggesting has nothing to do with Ken Starr. Bringing him up is an obvious -- and pathetic -- reach.
-
A couple of points
First, if you don't think Clinton has faced a hostile press, you haven't been watching the same news media I've been seeing (and remember, I'm an Obama supporter). The debate performances by Brian Williams and Tim Russert (for one example) have been nothing less than prosecutorial towards her. The reason those SNL skits were funny was (to quote Homer Simpson) because they were true.
Second, I've seen a lot of "If XXXXX gets the nomination I'm either a) staying home on election day; or b) voting for John McCain" comments recently. Both of these options are unbelieveably stupid for any Democrat considering the miniscule policy differences between Obama and Clinton.
To reiterate: a unity ticket, announced soon, is the only solution.
-
Investigation Results
Everyone always argues that Hillary has already been heavily scrutinized, which is absolutely true. So why isn't the conversation about what has already been discovered. The Clintons already have a well documented history of corruption.
Here's just one of many examples from her past:
In 1978, Hillary makes a $100,000 profit on a $1,000 investment in cattle futures in 9 months. When revealed by the NY Times in 1994, Hillary's first explanation of this extraordinary windfall was that she had made the investment after "reading The Wall Street Journal". Several economists will calculate that the chances of earning such returns legally were one in 250 million. Eventually, she had to admit that longtime Clinton friend James Blair had executed 30 of her 32 trades directly with an Arkansas broker. In an April 1994 press conference, Hillary denied knowing of "any favorable treatment" by Blair. But the astronomical odds against any financial novice making a 10,000 percent profit without the game being rigged led many to believe that Blair, the outside counsel to Arkansas-based poultry giant Tyson Foods, must have put only profitable trades in Hillary's account and absorbed her losses. The heavily regulated Tyson needed friends in high places, and Bill Clinton helped it pass a 1983 state law raising weight limits on chicken trucks.