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
-
Hmmm . . .
The plain fact is that Mrs. Clinton would need at least 85% of the votes in the remaining primaries, in addition to other highly unlikely circumstances, in order to barely win. The chances of that happening are less than 1%. Clinton's own political analysts admit it.
Clearly, Mrs. Clinton is no longer running to win.
The question you have to ask is: Why is she still running?
Would anybody care to venture an analysis? How about a guess?
-
Harold Stassen
Hillary ain't channeling Wallace; it's Harold Stassen, perennial loser.
-
@squalorholla...not evil
Well put! But what you ask for is a more "educated" view of the power relations of class and race....which only elite educated folk like weepingforbroomhilde etc bother with and which is marginalized on Salon.
-
@jess2001
"I don't know how I will be able to get through four years of his supporters cries of racism at every criticism of him or his policies."
wow..are you really that shallow, ignorant and racist? you aren't a Democrat. Tell me how again that Obama has used race? shit..I forgot there is no reasoning with you people.
-
Every Vote Equal
Every vote in every state should be politically relevant in a presidential election. And, every vote should be equal.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). The bill would take effect only when enacted by states possessing enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The National Popular Vote bill has been approved by 17 legislative chambers, and enacted into law in Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland - totaling 50 (19%) of the 270 electoral votes needed to bring the law into effect.
See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
-
kstone and ignorance of race...
Given that Obama got within 2% of Hilary in Indiana is astounding. There is no state with more blue collar people who have racist tendencies or have never met a black person north of the Mason-Dixon line. Add to that the number of ditto-heads who were part of the operation chaos and the 250K new voter registrations it means even Indiana is in play for the GE.
I am astounded by the old farmers and country folk who do support Obama...for whatever reason-they are not a bunch of completely ignorant folk and are able to recognize something that has surprised me. Part of it might be an anti-Hilary sentiment that can't be ignored, but 250k new voters means that 90% are democrats who have decided to be involved in the system...which I thank Hilary for.
Indiana at the local level has been turning Republicans out of office and become rather purple...which is an opportunity that NO Democratic presidential candidate has enjoyed in 50 years.
-
Fire in the Belly, But Dirt in the Mouth
The most productive analysis of HRC's racist comments would be produced by doing the following:
1. Eliminate the direct reference to Barack Obama and substitute "an African-American candidate." Read her words, eliminate "Obama," substitute "an African-American candidate" and contemplate the implications.
2. Change the time-frame of the HRC remarks to, say, November, December or January of the contest. Read them--even retaining Obama's name--and contemplate what this progressive, liberal Democrat, Hillary Rodham Clinton, is insinuating. It's the campaign rhetoric of the 1950's, Mississippi-style.
I agree with the author's assertion that had Nixon, or would McCain use such blatantly racist language, they would have been and would be crucified by not only the liberal, but by most non-David Duke press organizations.
HRC has the so-called "fire in the belly" supposedly required of a president. But that's all she's got.
I think the Oakland Raiders football team has as its motto: Grace Under Fire. A helluva slogan, for sure...even if it's not exactly true.
Under fire, Hillary's slogan could be: Base Under Fire.