Letters to the Editor
-
popular vote should count
that's it. We are arguing over an archaic silly system. But the pledged delegate count is a far better approximatation of the popular vote than the superdelegate system that Hillary is vainly hoping will give her the win. If the superdelegates go one way and the pledged delgates another (representing the popular vote)... I'm out of here. Seriously. I won't be able to listen to Democrats talk about freedom and democracy and civil liberties if a junta of Clintonite superdelegates pick the candidate over the will of the voters. I won't vote Republican, I'll stay home and watch Lost reruns that Tuesday in November.
Let's say all you Hillary supporters are right and Hillary is the better nominee because she can win the big states. I'll go so far as to grant you the following: Obama can't win the national and Hillary is CERTAIN to win it. A lock. Can't lose.
Obama wins the pledged delegates and popular vote through the primaries. Hillary states at the convention that the supers should vote for her because he can't win (which I've granted as a known fact for the sake of argument). Who should the supers vote for?
If you say Hillary you care far more about winning that democracy. Go join the Republicans. They love to win at the cost of individual freedoms and rights and the will of the people also. After all, they know whats best for us, right?
-
Joe's right
The only one who cares about Barrack Obama's pathetic, disingenuous attacks are the same enthusiatic sort voting for him in Wyoming: aka Republicans.
As I said six months ago, Mrs. Clinton's been investigated ad nauseum, there was nothing more Rove could do to her and he knew it, which is why he worked so hard to get this empty suit crook from Chicago the nomination.
It was obvious to anyone wiht half a brain that the man was way too inexperienced, had never stood up to the right, wasn't capable of negotiating hard, and was an overly-ambitious, underqualified, race-baiting scumbag.
But nooooooooo the left just HAD to have him in the same way they had to prop up the notoriously incompetent, loose-cannon named Howard Dean to his highest peter principle. (were it not for Charlie Schumer and Rahm Emmanuel, the Dems would NEVER have taken the slim margins in the House in 2006 and Dean's refusal to fund as needed probably cost us an additional 25 seats we could have won.
The competent wing of the party then tried to replace Dean with someone competent: aka Harold Ford, and where were the Black Power Blowhards that impermeat this board under 200 alias then? Where was hefty Oprah then hmmm? In the end the radical "moveon" left, deluding themselves despite all evidence that they were adequate, insisted on Dean remaning and shipwrecking the DNC. Today it's broke and plagued with problems not the least of which was Dean's assinine decision to strip Florida and Michigan of all their delegates. Way to go Howie!!!
Meanwhile the black prejudiced blowhards HAD to have their half-black Messiah, the same Messiah had left them to rot in slums in Chicago while he bought a 2.5 million dollar home from a slumloard, and to hell with whether he had a rats chance or an ounce of qualifications.
As usual the nut wing of the party has wrecked our chances during this famously rare opportune time and they along with the vulgar black slimebags who think everything begins and ends with their are ON YOUR F____G OWN.
-
Why tom payne is vile
What mr. tom has done is to conflate my screen name with a product called Kotex, a major brand name back in the 50s and 60s when he was a budding misogynist. Kotex may still be produced (I have no idea since, contrary to recent popular opinon, I'm not a grad student but rather the same age as Hillary Clinton). What is it? A sanitary napkin for girls and women to use during their menstrual periods. In its used state, Kotex was considered an object of disgust - unsanitary, dirty, repulsive, to be shunned.
Is it clear now why I find mr. tom a nasty SOB?
This message may constitute a new low for salon.com, but you can thank mr. tom for its appearance. And now back to work.
-
Archaic?
Yes, the nomination process is a polyglot puzzle, but it's a lot more democratic (small d) than it was when I started in politics 40 years ago. You want archaic, try on the Electoral College. Now that's antidemocratic in the extreme, but it's in the Constitution. to change it, you'd have to get two thirds of the states to agree, meaning you'd have to convince all the small states to relinquish power. Beyond unlikely, that. The question at hand is how to deal with the selection process already long begun, and all but over except for the wild card super duper delegates. It is a hide bound cinch Obama will go to the convention with more pledged delegates than Clinton- probably at least a hundred, maybe a hundred twenty or better. So what do the supers do? Bow to Queen Hillary because she was the presumptive nominee before the people had the nerve to vote otherwise? Hello, President McLame, and war after war after war.
-
Dead Woman walking in virtual reality
There's reality, and there's Clintonite parallel virtual reality. In real reality, she has lost the fight to become the nominee. There's no scenario in which she can overtake Obama. She would have to win the remaining contests by almost 75% to have a chance, which is impossible. Obama is the Democratic party's nominee in all but name. The question is:why is she still in the race? She could suspend her campaign and resume it if something extraordinary happens, like an assassination, stroke, criminal indicment, etc. But she isn't suspending it. There's only one explanation:the Clintons never give up and the only strategy they ever employed is to wear out their opponents to the point of giving up out of exuaustion and frustration. There are thinly veiled threats of court battles from the Clinton camp, believing possibly that enough super-delegates would be so terrified of Florida-like disastrous legal battles, that they would somehow hand her the nomination.