Letters to the Editor
-
Bravo
Well said. I just don't get all the hand wringing and the "please end this" moronic behavior. For Pete's sake, let everyone vote. I particularly agree with the McCain shadow boxing contention, that was my first reaction. He has two ways to go, cannot do a bulk rate Dem attack.
Also, change is a struggle. If you want change, it never happens over night. You got to keep working at it.
-
I agree
especially with the thoughts of pageiger. Very nice summary of the issues. The differences betwen Barack and Hillary will come out if they both criticize McCain. Maybe they don't really have to attack each other.
I just wish I had more faith in the voters. Like someone said already, (sorry,I forgot who), the voters have to vote for what they think is the best for the country. I do not know if most people can think outside of their own little box. I mean, the ones who just don't "like" Hillary or those who think Barack is just a "dreamer". Either candidate will produce positive change.
-
The numbers issue
Probably the best number system is on the Slate website. It allows you to input various victory margins in the remaining states and see how this impacts the delegate total.
It is not impossible for Hillary to come out with more delegates than Obama after the remaining primaries -- just very very unlikely that she will, because she has to win big, too big in all remaining states. The last time I ran the numbers the projections at a 50/50 split or remaining delegates was that at the convention Obama has 1,676 to 1,538
If you use the calculator and allow for every race to be a 55/45 win for Hillary, with 58/42 in PA (the last big state) Obama still comes out with 1,638 delegates to her 1,571. Basically, unless she does much better than Ohio and Texas in every remaining state, she loses. However, the next tier of states, Oregon, North Carolina, Kentucky will probably go to Obama. The numbers mean she really cannot win in the remaining primaries, only close the gap -- in other words, she pretty well remains 60-100 delegates behind unless as the saying goes, Obama "gets caught with a dead girl or a live boy in his bed."
That is why she wants to seat the 73 Michigan delegates but not the 55 uncommitted, because it could put her ahead if she got 55/45 and 58% in PA.
Give it a shot .. go the the Slate calculator and vary the numbers for the various states, and you can see that the mountain she has to climb is pretty insurmountable.
That is not to say that she should not continue to run. But at this point her tactics raise the suspicion that this run is more about crippling Obama so that she can run more easily (and competently) in 2012 against a 76 year old McCain, and about restoring her campaign advisors reputations.
-
Let the fireworks begin
As an original supporter of Edwards and a born-again Obama fan, I think that whatever my reservations and trepidations about Hillary, reruns in Florida and Michigan are the best alternative. If Hillary wins, she wins.
We can not simply ignore the states and we can not simply disregard the refusal of the power structures to abide by the Democratic Party rules. If anything defines Hillary’s pragmatic amorality, it is her claim to Michigan where she said she didn’t withdraw because it didn’t make any difference – the votes didn’t count - and now, the only candidate on the ballot, is claiming the delegates.
What has clearly happened is that Hillary in Ohio found a new voice (again) and channeled John Edwards. Obama has yet to do that effectively and for him it may be off message.
My problem with Hillary, and its from personal experience, is that while she is A-One in her mastery of issues, she is C- in her choice of companions - and I don't mean Bill. In short, I am a Reform Democrat, and when push comes to shove, she is a Regular Democrat who has gone for the power, rather than the people. Her normal habitat is salons (or game farms) rather than saloons.
She will do the right thing usually, but you have to hold her feet to the fire. It's all about triangulation.
On Tuesday, David Brooks, the NY Times house columnist and heir apparent to George Will, spoke of Obama's transcendent moment being a speech before an Iowa Democratic Dinner where he spoke about unity of America and Hillary gave the I am a fighter speech. To Brooks it was the defining moment of the campaign. The problem is, that in the Democratic primaries, the fighter may be more preferred to the conciliator.
We face daunting problems that can only be solved by both inspiration and struggle. Conciliation of people is possible because people get it. Conciliation of corporations is another matter. Hillary has been a divisive figure who is toting baggage. But she has learned to struggle. Obama has run a campaign on inspiration but now must struggle. But he has struggled. His life was no walk in the park (or Park Ridge).
In 1996, I represented Pat Buchanan in his attempts to make the Republican primary ballot in NY. It was a professional task for me, not a political one. But for awhile, Buchanan had struck a nerve because he was actually hitting some populist themes that seemed to have legs in his attacks on corporations.
John Edwards was pushed a side by the historical candidacies of Obama and HRC. HRC has gotten the Edwards message. Now it's up to Obama to get it quick.
The fact is that given his background, Obama ought to be able to do it. We still need to find unity and conciliation. But we can not unify and conciliate with greed.
Is Hillary's populism a facade? Can Obama adopt his message to populism?
This is going to be a great fight. Popcorn anyone?
http://johnklotz.blogspot.com
-
I'll add, if Hillary wins every remaining race 60/40
She still comes out 15 delegates behind. How likely is she to:
a. Win EVERY race?
b. Win ANY 60/40?