Letters to the Editor
-
SALON ENDORSES CLINTON, NO MATTER WHAT
Internet news outlet Salon today delivered a strong endorsement for the presidential compaign of Hillary Rodham Clinton, saying that under a scheme of voting that does not exist, she would be ahead, and that's all they need to declare a winner. Scenarios based on mere "reality" are unimportant, according to Salon, as any rational system, ie, the one that produces the result they endorse, results in a Clinton win.
Sentator Clinton's erstwhile opponent, Senator Barack Obama on hearing the news immediately entered a state of suspended animation.
Internet political news junkies everywhere immediately thanked Salon for their fairness and objectivity in making the endoresement,
-
@ Jacksmith
Oh, and...I think you mistakenly typed "smith" in place of something else.
You certainly have a right to your opinion, but it is completely unnecessary to hold our heads down in the mud of your hysteria until we die from lack of air. Say what you have to say, and stop screaching! No one wants to hear it for 2 frikkin pages (or even 1).
-
If the system were different...
...then, given what we now know about Obama's skill as a strategist in the campaign season (1 million + donors, esp. small donors, strong), we could probably assume that Obama would have strategized differently with a different game plan and still be leading in the popular vote. For example, he would probably have spent more time in the "big states" very early on to achieve more name-recognition; he might have developed a larger "top-down" strategy to counterbalance his tendency to work from a grassroots "bottom-up" strategy, etc. etc.
What we also know about Clinton would probably still hold true: she would still have crappy people advising and running her campaign (Penn, btw, was simply demoted this weekend - he didn't fully resign from the campaign); she would still be dependent on a rapidly depleting supply of "large" donors; she would still be using her campaign money in an overly profligate way; Bill would probably still be unmanageable; she would have still voted "yay" for the Iraq war and the Kyl-Lieberman bill calling Iran's national army a terrorist operation, etc. etc.
Oh how I love hypotheticals in the form of a supposedly factually-based argument.
-
@AlecsMom
You wrote: "@Anahad wolves: ...you obviously have some educational background and you read. Come on now. You imply by your post that it's Obama's FAULT that he has worked the system so well. If you know about or read about politics, you should know how hard that is for an outsider and, compared to Clinton, Obama IS an outsider. -- AlecsMom"
Yeah, a modicum of education, thanks: Harvard, B.A., Emerson, M.A., Kennedy School of Government, M.P.A., graduating in the 97th percentile, or better, in all three. Reading? In five languages: English, French, Russian, German and Mandarin Chinese. Thanks, again.
Now, to your other question: I didn't simply "imply" that the Obamatons were "working the system", I believe that they are actively "playing and gaming the system" while duplicitously decrying same. That spells hypocrisy in any language and is the genesis of my dislike and distrust of them.
If you only knew how hard Obama is working the "inside" with his former classmates (that includes me), you'll find that Obama is about as "inside" as it gets; he only plays an "outsider" on TV.
Thanks for writing...
-
If...
In a winner-take-all primary, Obama would have run a much different campaign. And still come out ahead in the popular vote, and still come out in front in delegates. Crawl back to your hole Mr. Wilentz.
-
Winner take all
That is what we have now. The winners have already taken it all - The power, the decision making, the money. It is exactly the "winner take all" that has brought us to where we find ourselves - Destitute, without healthcare, homeless, eating poisoned food, breathing poisoned air supporting a criminal government and a hapless Congress.
Now we should have Hillary to have more of the same? Why not flog ourselves with knotted ropes while we are at it?
There are other values than winning and taking. There are sharing and caring, those forgotten human traits fallen by the wayside of our I-I-I Me-Me-Me first, last and center slaughter house.
-
Counterfactual speculations waste everyone's time
Obama's strategy, like Clinton's, has been to win the nomination. His execution, which according to most observers' estimations, has been superior to hers (it's been more successful anyway), has studied the rules as they are and observed them.
In a parallel universe which we don't live in, the rules would have been different, and Obama's strategy would have been different too. Perhaps in that parallel universe Hillary Clinton would have have some modicum of respect for the truth and for the integrity of her opponents, and she wouldn't have hired a sleazeball like Mark Penn to run her campaign. In that case maybe she would have won, and deserved to win, the nomination.
We'll never know. Meanwhile, in the world we do live in, she's running out of options to keep her campaign alive. Hence articles like this one.
-
If the system made sense...
After reading several of the posted letters one issue is quite clear: ardent Obama supporters attack the messenger rather than the message; much as Republicans have done for the past 15 years--how typical. Obama dogs are out of their cribs attacking the author and Salon for publishing an article on fact rather than the adulation of Obama and the denigration of Hillary.
Furthermore, these messages smack of male power, again so typical of this race. I merely hope women prevented from voting in the primaries will make their will know before July.
-
@Ana
How precisely is Obama "gaming the system?" There is strong evidence that he is a candidate winning by the rules as set out by others:
1) Establishing pledged delegate advantage, critical to swaying the supers.
2) strong ground game to get out the vote and minimize name-advantage by Clinton and powerful political machine connections.
3) Developing and MAINTAINING a message that resonates with new voters and will appeal in the general election as well
4) Playing by DNC rules established long before the first votes were cast in regards to MI and FL.
5) Raising huge amounts of money (over and over) without the support of many DNC deep pockets.
If you have other evidence that supports a "gaming the system" theory please write it out. I didn't see it in your post before. Frankly, the only thing I've read from you is anger that the same, tired, threadbare politcal games aren't working...for Hillary Clinton.