Letters to the Editor
-
It was a good thing that Ike beat Stevenson
That was an utterly different time. Since then, we have been through a couple eras. McGovern got labeled a wimp, but he did not deserve the label. Gore and Kerry have nobody to blame but themselves. They were dopey candidates. They engineered their own defeats.
I hope to hell we are in a new era now. If McCain wins, and if he does what he now says he will do, we will be in deep trouble, and I will look into moving to San Pedro, Belize.
-
Haunting?
I think the darkness overtakes you, Mr. O'Hehir...
In my darker moments, I suspect that one side would rather lose a battle fought on the narrow ground they see as pragmatism and realism, rather than risk discovering that their starry-eyed opponents have a fairer and more generous vision of the country than they do.
I think you're wrong on both characterizations of Clintonites and Obama supporters -- what exactly is realistic and pragmatic about the HR Clinton campaign's Republican Lite approach (given how off-the-rails and destructive the GOP's policies have been -- SEE ALSO United States, 2000-2008 for examples). A policy aping the GOP is out-of-touch, cynical, desperately opportunistic, and unworthy of support.
What's more, only Clintonite dead-enders see the Obama supporters as being starry-eyed idealists, routinely deride the Obama supporters as cultists, etc. Give me a break -- to me, it's pragmatic and realistic to back the candidate who doesn't have overwhelming negatives behind them, the one that would demoralize the GOP, versus energizing them -- even the Clintonites' most fevered dreamers would have to fess up that HR Clinton is seen negatively by a HUGE number of voters, far more than any candidate out there.
What's more, Obama has superior organization and has brought in independents in this fight and built enthusiastic support, while Clinton clings to older voters and ones who simply refuse to support Obama for various reasons -- which is clearly a shaky coalition of voters, or else she'd have swept to her win by now.
The Democrats can't con their way to a win in 2008, can't narrowcast themselves into a "gerrymandate" -- rather, they need to break the mold that has kept the Democratic Party on a losing streak for so long. Obama's campaign (more than Obama the candidate himself) offers that way -- maybe the Democratic Party is too entrenched with party insiders to really even want that. If they want to play fake populist, pander to the majority of voters, they're welcome to keep losing.
This election is theirs for the taking, if they're only smart enough to grab for it. If HR Clinton manages a win, then it'll be the death knell for the Democratic Party.
-
@ softdog: "Holy cow. Can you guys please stop?"
Holy cow. Can you guys please stop?
It's not helping Clinton, it's not helping Obama and it may just alienate a few votes.
Y'all crossed over into shameful a self-parody days ago.
At this point it seems Salon wants the Democrats to lose. That way their truthy speculation and insistence on dvisive cheap shots will seem justified -- instead of lazy outrage mining for page views.
This is so damn ugly and pathetic.
Can Salon stop what now? Talking about the election? Are you a Democrat or not? Aren't we the party of free speech, diverse debate, questioning?
Or are you happy to give up your principles (get everyone [or just one side] to shut up) in order to win the election? Who's the Karl Rove now?!
-
Popular myths of our time
1) US political races only occured since the 60s or 70s.
2) Democrats, since the party began, are bumblers who have lost everything they ever ran for.
3) Republicans have controlled the House, Senate, and White House pretty much throughout the history of the United States, because those hapless Democrats just can find more ways to lose than (insert folsky metaphorical saying here, preferably involving animals and their enclosures).
4) Salon.com, aside from Glenn Greenwald, could not just as logically be called "Hillary.Clinton.Fan.Club.com" these days. Or "Scary.Obama.Scary.com".
-
@ldutican
You need to finish the article in it's entirety.
McGovern was an example one way (the non-establishment candidate), and then O'Hehir went with Mondale, the opposite problem (establishement).
-
Who is this guy? How dare he offer insight!!!
And this guy, O'hehir, reviews movies and film related subjects for Salon? He's in the wrong department. Rewrite! Get this guy over to politics!
One of the best analyses of what troubles the People's party—some people in and factions of the People's Party. Only the Democratic Party could debise the kind of neo-populist-back-room-Big-Party structure that gives the aroma of the people making decisions but offer ths stench of Machine Party manipulation. The Dems are ambivalent about democracy!
At the end of the day what's really and truly undermines the Democratic party is that its intraparty conflicts robs it of being an effective oppositional party. It hasn't even been able to pass National Health Insurance since Truman introduced it. The closest are Medicaid and Medicare.
And O'hehir's dead on the mark about these very issues re the party being played out in Salon's letters.
Glad somebody said it.
-
Even my ex-Bush-loving friends want change
I don't care if Hillary is a man, woman, hermaphrodite, pre-op tranny, drag queen, gay, straight, lesbian, whatever ...
People don't like her, don't like what she stands for anymore, don't like the way she's run her campaign ... but most of all ...
Don't like the fact that she is just more of the same old bullshit ... the largest transfer of wealth in the history of the country ...
As I've said, I used to like them both - the Clintons. Now I know too much, seen too much.
People want CHANGE and they want it now.
Obama can win, easily, if Diebold doesn't steal the election for the Repubes again.
And Salon really really really sucks for running this article. I may have to stop reading Salon - it has been my home page for ten or eleven years.
Way to go, Joanie!!!
-
Just Reread Fear and Loathing
and I'm glad to see someone else did, too. There are many parallels between 72 and 08, and there are passages in the book where you can just change the names and you'd think Hunter was still alive.
i'm also reminded of a Johnny Carson line from 76: this election should go easily to the Democrats, but they'll screw it up by nominating someone. This year should be an easy Democratic win, given the economy, Iraq, domestic spying, etc. But as soon as they nominate Obama or Clinton, the opposition will crystalize immediately and they'll be handed yet another defeat.
Eight years ago I would have though McCain was a great choice. Today he has so lowered himself that I wouldn't vote for him if he was running against Hubert Humphrey. But for the American electorate, a choice of Obama or Clinton may prove to be untenable, leaving McCain an open road to the White House.
I still hope, late at night, that the Democrats will have the fortitude to hold the superdelegates out of the first round of voting, and then offer a better candidate than either of the two remaining contenders.