Letters to the Editor
-
Democracy is VOTING.
"According to the Obama campaign, democracy is defined as whatever helps Barack Obama win the Democratic nomination."
Exactly. When it looked like Clinton was going to get most superdelegates, superdelegates were evil. Now that Obama will get most probably, superdelegates are good. I keep hearing "the will of the people" being used to insist that the almost-half of all Dems who have voted don't count nearly as much as the few in Iowa. Also that "the will of the people" means that Clinton should drop out BEFORE those of us in late primary states have voted, because we could, you know, vote for her. Eeek! That's not right!
I have nothing against Obama and I think we would be fortunate if he were the candidate. But his supporters are often more annoying than he is, especially when they prophesy "civil war" and "riots" if Clinton actually arrives in Denver and makes a fight of it, which, unlike civil war and rioting, really is legal and democratic. They do him no favors by acting like nearly half the Democratic voters are to be ignored or worse. Don't forget-- Clinton voters are going to be really necessary in the general election. But then, we're reliable Democratic voters, and won't threaten to secede from the party if Obama gets nominated.
-
Question...
Does this Sean Wilentz work for Hillary Clinton or something? Is this one of those Bush-like propaganda items masquerading as news? Just asking...
-
If and only if
Dear Sean,
Does Hillary Clinton have any responsibility for her current standing in the delegate count?
Has Hillary Clinton's campaign had any impact on her failure to be far ahead according to the rules of this year's nominating process?
Do you want Hillary Clinton to win the presidency?
-
Yeah but...
Clinton has only managed to win in states that Obama would certainly win in the general election. This sounds like whiny, sour grapes from the Clinton camp. Stop it! You are embarrassing yourselves.
-
HOLY OBAMA!!! I'm Laughing My Ass Off!
It's so funny. Whenever there is any article that has the whiff of positivity toward Clinton, or even just a minimal objectivity towards her, Obama or the campaign, that isn't over-the-top admiring of Obama and isn't insisting that he's GOD incarnate and Jesus the Second-Coming or isn't over-the-top critical and insisting that Clinton is the Anti-Christ and She-Bitch-Racist-From-Hell...
Then we get to see the Born-Again-Acolytes of Obama-The-Divine come out in full force tripping over themselves, falling over each other and screaming over the heresy that Salon has committed by daring to print something that doesn't fit into their Holy Obama-Is-Perfect Bible and that Salon has sold out, Hillary's to Blame, It's Bill's Fault, and and what absolute scum writing this is.
And then to read an article such as this with such absolute blasphemy against the Perfect Order and Word of Obama is winning fair and square such as this?! That their Adored One might just be....shall we dare say it?...an ordinary manipulative politician, winning in an ordinary manipulative politician kind-of-way? And that all might not be so very PERFECT in Obama-Land? Yikes! Wow...the acute Obama Obsessive Personality Disorder madness then just heaves into manic over-drive!
Someone get out the Xanax! Get the Valium! Get the strait jackets and rubber rooms ready! Obamamaniacs are frantically imploding left and right in their zeal to write the perfect missive that damns all this back to hell...again.
What an absolute bizarre sight! Extremely entertaining.
Thanks, Salon!
-
Wilentz, and...revoting
not Wilenz-- excuse me.
but an additional thought regarding Michigan and Florida-- I hardly ever hear anybody talking about Michigan and Florida and the possibility of a revote expressing a concern about how those states' voters feel about the question.
Maybe the really high-profile TV pundits(who are mostly NOT from MI or FL) who think a revote's needed should offer to pay the states to do. I mean, if it bugs them so much.
-
"Wilentz", latin for "bafoon"
Mr Lentz, you are an embarassment to whatever college or university which bestowed upon you the title of "graduate". I only read your article to see just how silly you would get before mercifully bringing to an end. If you want to be a Clinton apologist, go ahead and be one, in fact, apply for a job in their spin room as I hear there's an opening. But dont embarass yourself by trying to make a logical case for why she should be the winner with a litany of one sided half truths, distortions, and outright fantasy.
ALL parties agreed that Florida and Michigan whould not count. It wasnt until the Clinton forces realized that they would need those delegates to even have a chance at winning that they began seeking to change the rules in the middle of the game. Certainly Obama and co. have dragged thier feet in getting revotes, but expecting Obama to do otherwise is just as naive as expecting that Clinton and co would not push for revotes. Its all politics, and to suggest that one side or the other has a moral high ground of some sort is just plain silly.
Caucases are a staple of primary elections and have been for generations. Again, ALL parties knew the rules before hand. And AGAIN, it wasnt until Clinton started losing them big that she began to complain about them being "undemocratic". Even my 6 year old can spot a sore loser when she sees one.
Winner take all. Again youre in fantasy land. Perhaps Mitt Romney should petition the RNC because its unfair that, unlike the Dems, the Republicans allocate thier delegates on a winner take all basis. Had he done so, he'dve been laughed off of whatever podium he was standing on, and only a die hard Clinton apologist would do any different should she make this incredible claim.
Big States. Unless youre claiming that Obama would lose New Jersey, New York, California etc then I dont see your point. As for Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida, please explain how Clinton plans to win those states in the fall once the young voters, students, and African Americans in Cleveland, Columbus, Philidelphia, Pittsburgh, Miami, Fort Lauderdale etc decide not to vote in protest of the super delegates being percieved to have robbed Obama of the nomination? If the Dems dont get the black vote, they are toast, thats politics 101 my naive friend.
General Election. McCain stands a far better chance against Hillary than he does against Obama for several reasons. First, is the African American vote in GA, SC, NC, LA, and VA. There will be record turnout in these states among AA voters and 90-95% of that vote will be for Obama. Couple that with McCains lack of popularity in the "Huckabee" belt, and you'll find that McCain will have to spend precious time and resources making sure to protect his back yard. More importantly, he'll have to cater to the social conservatives to do it, meaning he'll talk up abortion rights, tax cuts, sanctity of marriage, etc. This will take away ability to court voters in the battleground states of OH, PA, VA, CO, FL, NV, and NM. Also, by appealing to social conservatives, McCain will lose traction among moderates and independents who he will need if he wants to win. If McCain forgoes that strategy and runs to the center, he will be abandoned by his donors who wont bankroll his campaign and his base Republicans who will refuse to go to the polls to support him. Its a giant catch 22 for him. However, just the name Hillary Clinton will galvanize the base in the south and the social conservatives nationwide. McCain will have to spend no time in the south, as the demoralized African Americans will no longer pose a threat and his base will salivate at the chance of defeating the Clinton's even if they dont care much for McCain. McCain will be able to spend all of his time in the battleground states while Clinton travels the country begging the AA voters not to abandon her, and leaving McCain the advantage of being able to focus on the swing voters while Clinton seeks to solidify her base, the exact opposite of the scenario which would play out if Obama was the nominee.