Letters to the Editor
-
The best thing about this article
is that it is so over-the-top that it might as well be a press release from the Clinton campaign. Seriously, Joan, et.al, I hope you guys got paid to run this because basically it is nothing more than a very verbose ad.
Oh and one of the many many bad things about this 'article' is that it doesn't address how Obama might have altered his campaign strategy to account for such a system. Sen. Obama campaigned within the framework of the contest in the best way to win. That's what you do when a contest has rules - you come up with a strategy to win based on those rules. If the rules were different, then the strategy would be different.
Only small children try to change the rules at the end of a contest to enusre that they will win.
-
Journalism or Politically motivated?
Is Salon supposed to be politically slanted toward the Clinton (shameful) campaign or is this supposed to be journalism? Why even write this article since all the if's and's and but's won't change a thing for this election. I won't be reading Salon in the near future if this is what it has to offer.
Give me unbiased journalism not a whining rag.
BTW: I used to be a one of Clinton's most steadfast supporters until she engaged in lie after lie after lie and many dirty tricks.
James Marsh
-
What exactly am I missing here people? "The System" = "The Electoral College"
The electoral college system got Bush into the whitehouse instead of Gore. The Democratic primary/caucus system does not mimic the the general election, and puts the party at a disadvantage. Until we fix the general election system, it strikes me as a perfectly valid argument to say that we're going to be in trouble nominating someone under a different set of electoral math than what takes place in November.
Please, put down the guns of the circular firing squad (I'm looking at you too Keith Olbermann!) and think this through. Personally I'm of the opinion that Clinton should be the nominee and that she has no choice but to pick Obama as a running mate. But the party self-destruction going on now could lead to a bigger upset than 2004.
-
Shouldn't this article be labeled with a warning sticker
indicating that Sean Wilentz is a long time friend of the Clintons who habitually comes to their defense?
-
Let's remake the rules after the game is almost over
because my candidate is losing.
This kind of crap didn't work when I was five, and it doesn't work now either.
-
reaching for straws
I have a lot of respect for some of Sean Wilentz's work (his justly praised book on Jacksonian U.S. for example) but his analysis of the 2008 election has been less than impressive and sometimes a little embarassing.
Both Obama and Clinton knew the rules of this election before they announced, and had the rules been different the game would have been played differently. A winner-take-all system would have resulted in different strategies and tactics from both campaigns so it is specious to surmise that all else would have remained the same.
Doctor Wilentz is more than smart enough to know this, but his one-note Hillary-trumpeting has compromised the rigor and efficacy of his arguments.
-
More Clinton camapaign propaganda
SEan, I have som land in the OrZarks I can sell you.
There is a lot of fuzzy math, what ifs, and half truths in this article.
1. MI & Fl broke the rules set by the DNC. All the candidates including Hillary Clinton agreed to the rules. Now Hillary wants to change the rules. It is the Hillary campaing that has been lobbying these states to change the rules. It is the state legislators in these states that decided NOT to redo the elections, even when showered with promises from Hillary supporters that they would pay for it. It's not Obama's decision. Even if they did have reelections Obama would most likely win in MI, and do better in FL.
2. Each campaign knew going into this primary that this was not a winner take all situation and each state had different way of awarding delegates. It is obvious that the Clinton campaign strategy did not take into account how the pledge delegates are awarded in each state. However the Obama campaign did.
Obama has a very well organized campaign that formulated a strategy for each state on how to win the delgates, and it has proven to work. His campaign has not been plagued with division mistakes, and reorganizations either. Proving he has better leadership skills than Hillary.
3. Truth is even in those states that Hillary won, she did not win by double digit margins and Obama won in the most populated areas, thus getting a bigger proportion of pledged delegates.
4. Giving out pledged delegtes based on the popular vote in each district is very fair and more representative of voters.
5. The next primary states are not ogng to spit evenly. Obama will win the most in popular votes and pledged delegates and thus still be ahead.
Hillary advisers can spin this anyway you want, but the truth is she is LOSING. If she were truly a good leader she will drop out graciously after the primaries.
-
Totally Bizarre!
This article is totally bizarre and dishonest.
Now, you can debate the advantages of different voting systems, but to claim that a voting system in which the guy with the most votes wins is somehow eccentric and nonsensical is, well, eccentric and nonsensical.
What were Salon's editor thinking. I mean, there's always room for differing opinions, but this article is so biased, so ridiculous, and so intellectually dishonest...wow, why on earth publish it?!
-
Wow! It didn't take the opposition long to organize…
…and post missive after missive attacking the messenger.
In order to frame what follows, I will first make this declaration: as a Democrat, I am excited—very excited—that either a woman or a minority male will be the next presidential nominee of my party. It's about damn time! That said, she is the WRONG woman and he is the WRONG minority male.
It is pitiful that the choice has come down to these two clearly less than adequately prepared and qualified individuals, both apparently with a strong sense of destiny and entitlement, and both with throngs of fervent—near religious—supporters. I am sickened by the conduct or partisans on both sides of this Democratic primary divide. The process has sadly come down to idol worship, akin to the American Idol selection process: the same mindset that elected the present Governor of California.
In all likelihood, Senator Obama will take the nomination, defeating Senator Clinton. Then Senator McCain will win the final race, defeating Senator Obama. Many of you, if not most, will be standing around stunned on November 5th, trying to come to terms with the eventual swearing in of President McCain. Wondering just how 'your' candidate lost, and pointing fingers at the other candidate and her supporters.
We had a golden opportunity to take back the White House in this cycle: it was almost a given. Then these two stepped in, when NEITHER should have. It did not have to be this way…