Letters to the Editor
-
Nice objectivity
More of the fair and balanced journalism I've come to expect from Salon lately. Why don't you just hire J. Jonah Jameson as editor-in-chief and get it over with? "Barack Obama: Threat or Menace?"
-
Good Lord
This might be the most pointless and pessimistic articles I've read in a very long time. The fact is, the Democratic candidate, whomever it happens to be, is going to be on the right side of American popular opinion on almost every issue out there, and all the important ones. They'll be clearly more competent that McCain; not the hardest thing in the world, but still, an advantage. What's the point of an article talking about this gloom and doom from the past?
Is the author trying to argue that there's no way for the Dems to win? Or that the party can't learn from previous mistakes?
-
Possible gloom and doom
What's the point of an article talking about this gloom and doom from the past?
Though depressing, I thought the piece was fair.
We progressives HAVE to take into account the way things can change (and be spun) and snatch defeat from victory.
Both Hillary and Obama will be facing a daunting task running against the media darling McCain, that's not to say that we should curl up and withdraw, but that we need to see where there might be problems.
-
With the exception of Carter in 1976 . . .
and arguably with Clinton in 1992 what were the other times over the past 40 years when the Democrats have opted for an outsider over the establishment candidate?
Kerry -- good guy, great Senator, a long-time Washington insider.
Gore -- won the popular vote, but struggled to get the electoral blow-out in part because he was an insider (and because of Bill's sexual indiscretions).
Dukakis -- the establishment pick.
Mondale -- Carter's former VP? Establishment choice.
Carter (1980) -- tough call -- I'd consider the incumbent though to be the establishment pick. How did that turn out?
McGovern -- a three term Senator and two time presidential candidate? I'd chalk McGovern up to the establishment candidate.
1968 -- Humphrey? No contest -- the party's establishment choice.
Past is not always prologue, but in a change election where the incumbent party is viewed negatively, it's not a bad idea to run a candidate who can make a plausible case as an outsider. Of course the GOP and its buds on cable news are trying to push Obama as bomb-throwing, militant, terrorist, radical -- someone who wants to change things TOO much when things are going so well(!).
But if Obama's campaign continues to hammer McCain for what he is, there's a good win opportunity in 2008 for the Dems.
-
only Clintonites compare Obama to Dukakis
Obama has proven himself far more adept at repelling attacks than Dukakis was. Unlike Dukakis, he hasn't run a technocratic campaign with competence and experience as the main sell; that would be Hillary Clinton's campaign. Unlike Dukakis, the man is capable of giving an exciting speech and inspiring passion.
There's no question that Obama will have a tough fight on his hands, between the media's worship of John McCain and closet racism. But there really isn't a dilemma here: only Clintonites don't see that, barring a meteorite or other bolt from the blue, the only issue for the Democrats is when they will get together behind the nominee, who isn't going to be Hillary Clinton.
-
What is different now...
McGovern faced a number of things, one which was forced school bussing. Where I grew up (Detroit) forced bussing was the #1 issue and the Republicans were against it as was much of the population.
Mondale and Dukakis were both boring and had nothing inspirational to say.
Now, our 2 Democratic candidates are for the most part, in line with the voting population. Moreover, Obama is not boring he is downright inspirational, and even Hillary, who started out pretty dull, has evolved as a speaker.
What I am concerned about is burnout. Have candidates EVER needed to stump this relentlessly before?
-
not this time
Not this time.This time we can. Yes we can. As Scarlett Johansson goes so goes the nation.
It's time for America to give cynicism a rest and stop parsing and being afraid of a paradigm shift. It is being built from the bottom up with Tsunami of funds from the bottom up.
The critique is the same old top down crap.
-
This is what we mean when we say stop living in fear
Salon does have a strange notion of fair and balanced.
Here's another article: The last 2 times the Democratic Party went with the "safe" nominee. Both times they lost. So maybe it's time to stop doing that.
Why are we so afraid to just stand up for what we believe in and run the candidate who most closely aligns with those views? Now we can debate over who that is. But why the fear to just stand where we are? I don't get it. All that's ever done is lose.
Whoever said they should title this "Obama: Threat or Menace" is right. We get it. He's a risk. I like risks.
No risk, no reward. We've proven that enough.
-
I stopped reading after 1 page
The McGovern analogy is strained. My fear of history repeating is the GOP's ability and the press' cooperation in painting the Democrat as an odd ball,unAmerican, weak, etc. You all know the routine. This is what we must fight.
-
Ah, the Parody Continues!!!
You know, there's a theory out there that Hillary knows she can't win. But she doesn't want Obama to win, so she stays in the race, hammers away to try to destroy his credibility and candidacy, hopes for a McCain win. That way, she can come back in 2012 and try again.
So at least we can understand the motivation -- even if that motivation is megalomaniacal self-aggrandizement and power-grabbing -- behind why Hillary seems hell-bent on destructing the Democratic party, and ensuring a Republican victory.
So what's Salon's excuse?
I bet I know... tee hee...
-
Both parties are insecure about their nominee this time.
Sure there has been talk about the Dems blowing the general election in November - but this timid apprehension is warranted - given what happened to Gore in what should have been a rout in '04. Much of the talk is coming from the Republicans as well and this is the hope that Democratic supporters will leave themselves to be divided and conquered. When talk of one camp not voting for the other in November then, YES, failure becomes an option.
The ideas were well laid out in this article but winning the presidency occurs when the nominee appeals to the whole country - not just democrats. That this hasn't always happened can be blamed for more than delegates choosing poorly. Republicans wanted it more and got it by better organization and convincing voters by bashing Dems.
The real story is how Democratic voters rarely show solidarity like the Repubs do. This election cycle feels different in this respect and we see that McCain may not get the same priviliged circumstances as past GOP nominees.