Letters to the Editor
-
Person, on your post
Regarding your claim there was nothing unfair about Obama achieving his present premier status in the campaign. That is not exactly true.
The media has backed Obama to an unprecedented degree, not only in attacks on Hillary Clinton, unflattering photos, and the usual media techniques used to trash candidates, but also by its refusal to research and reveal the true Obama to the public. The pro Obama posters are part of the campaign, mobilized to answer charges and attack Hillary Clinton in venues such as this, and their attacks have been merciless, dishonest, and unfair. Not the least example of the Obama posters is the charge the Clintons are racists. The Clintons are not racists, and not one statement--including Ferrarro's truthful comment that Obama is where he is today because he is black--justifies any "racial" criticism. The Obama campaign, through its supporters, has tried to create the impression the Clintons are racists--which is fales.
As for the caucuses, they are undemocratic. People have to pay to attend some of them, do not have to be party members, the process involves a fairly small number of people, and the process is dominated by activists and the organized--which may not reflect the community nor the state as a whole in candidate preferences. Unlike primaries where people vote, caucuses usually have several ballots which allow for horsetrading and buyouts in the process, unlike Primaries. Caucses are organized dealmaking by a small coterie of people, the the marxist community organizer like Obama has an edge. Caucuses should play much smaller roles in picking Presidential candidates.
Finally, super delegates are free to vote as they please because a major reason for them is to prevent the party from making a mistake in choosing a presidnetial nominaee. Most of them actually are office holders and reponsible to their cistrists or states. So when you claim super delegates should merely follow the most votes, which "most votes" are you talking about? The candidate who carried individual super delegates district in the primary, or the candidate who got the most votes nationally? I can tell you that if my canidate for president carried my congressional district and my super delegate chose to vote for the other candidate because he or she got the most votes nationally, I would od everything possible to defeat my congressman who voted against the wishes of his district. The National vote be damned, because Presidential elections are held state by state through the electoral college. The National popular vote doe snot matter when choosing Presidents, and shouldn't be the deciding factor when choosing nominees