Letters to the Editor
-
Texas caucus results
Does anyone know if this has been completed?
-
@ RealityCounts
You are the one who is spinning. She said that she and McCain have the experience to be president and Obama made a speech.
If you don't call that an endorsement (in effect if not explicit -- as if anything but in effect matters in politics) then you are delusional.
Yes, the terror is real, but the threat is not. If you think it is worth derailing all of our other priorities to stop foreign terrorist attacks, when only 3,000 people have died in 1 attack in our entire modern history, then how in the hell do you ever let your kids/loved ones get in an automobile? They are about 100,000,000 times more likely to die each time you do than they are from a terrorist attack.
-
Jack.
Sen. Clinton hasn't faced a hostile press. She's faced a lazy, easily cowed, herd mentality press, same as everyone else. And consider the following.
* When you're the "inevitable" frontrunner for over a year, and your campaign stumbles terribly when the actual voting starts, it's a story. See also: Rudy Giuliani.
* When you lose eleven contests in a row, you're going to get bad press.
* When your campaign sends out conference calls and e-mails every day that attempt to spin events in full defiance of reality, you're going to get bad press.
And, in many ways, Sen. Clinton has gotten a total pass from the media hordes. Consider for example:
* Her dubious claim to 35 years of experience, which has never been unpacked by the press.
* Her dubious claim to foreign policy/crisis experience. See TPM's Josh Marshall today: "[L]et's get real and admit that Hillary Clinton is getting the free ride of all free rides on her repeated invocations of foreign policy experience."
* The fact that all of the sordid scandals of the 90's have been basically avoided by the press. (Yes, I know there's nothing to Whitewater. There's nothing to Tony Rezko either, but we sure seem to hear his name quite a bit.)
* The fact that, if any other candidate faced the mathematical reality Clinton does, s/he would no longer be taken seriously by the press. (See also: Huckabee.)
-
Wyoming
Wyoming Caucuses Returns Coming In, Obama Way Ahead (Staggered Through the Day, As Different Sites Have Different Voting Hours) With 78% of the Caucus Site Reporting, Obama Leads Clinton by 59% to 40%. "Party officials were struggling with how to handle the overflow crowds."
Hillary Clintons winning streak of 3 in a row vs Barack Obama's 13 in a row.
-
Madamfauntleroy.
Regarding your question about the Texas caucuses, see the following:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=87961802
"The state Democratic Party estimates that Obama will come out ahead: 37 pledged delegated to Clinton's 30 delegates."
So, given that Clinton picked up 4 delegates in the primary half of the Texas contest (65-61), Obama picked up a net total of 3 delegates from Texas.
In other words, Obama won Texas. So Clinton's winning streak is in fact 2: RI and OH.
And before anyone thinks this is the wrong way to look at it, remember: as both campaigns have admitted, this is a delegate race.
-
@TheSnake
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.
Completely misses the point. If I remember correctly, with Bush the whole issue was him denying that he did it when he did. Obama owned up to his mistake. It's the difference between hiding what you've done wrong to make yourself look better, and recognizing that people can make mistakes and learn from them.
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.
Someone more knowledgeable than me should poke a hole in this one, but the "35 years of advocacy" strikes me as a misleading comment.
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.
Obama's campaign slogan is "Yes we can"- something along the lines of together we can make a difference. I don't see what this has to do with "Christian revivalist rhetoric and posture". Of course, this argument pretty much hinges on people assuming religion is a bad thing? It can be used for both good and ill.
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.
Completely ignoring the Jim Crow laws that kept blacks from voting past 1868, this is relevant to the discussion how?
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.
Only if you include the state where Obama wasn't even on the ballot. Lies, damn lies, and statistics, eh?
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.
Overgeneralization of opposing side, attempting to cast them all into one group that you can easily dismiss.
I personally prefer Obama, but would still vote for Hillary over McCain, just because of how much worse McCain would be.
As an aside, names like "reality counts" and "reality based" really bother me. It's an attempt to get people to view your opinions more favorably by associating yourself with something people view as good. Not on your own merits. On the other hand, Mr. Snake has chosen an oddly appropriate name for him/herself.