Letters to the Editor
-
General election
Obama consistently gets independents and Republicans to vote for him, and not in an attempt to skew the results but because they like him. Clinton, in contrast, is now viewed negatively by more than 50% of the nation, and rightly so--hardly a day passes without her putting out another lie or digging a little further into the bottom of the barrel to find another piece of slime to sling at her own party's likely candidate.
So, to the question of the article: The system is flawed, the party is flawed, and both candidates are flawed. These are givens. But the ones at fault now are (1) Clinton, for her atrocious behavior (is she actually a remote-control android piloted by Rove?) and (2) Dem party leaders who have failed to step forward and decisively endorse the candidate who leads in all meaningful categories, is conducting himself with integrity in the face of Clinton's crapstorm, and has genuine crossover appeal while still holding onto (and even expanding) the party's base in a general election. It's clear as water from a mountain spring, but then we're drowning in the muddy morass brought to us by the Clintons. Thanks, Hill and Bill, but no thanks.
-
@ ALG2008
Excellent post. I haven't tracked it in any systematic way but have been getting a creepy Clintonista vibe from Shapiro's commentaries lately. They pose as analysis but subtly adopt Clinton spin as premises that lead to "objective" conclusions which seem full of logical holes, as you astutely point out.
-
It's not a stalemate
Obama is ahead and has been for some time. To the point where Clinton can't catch up.
That's the whole point. The Pennsylvania results for example were expected. He was ahead before they happened, and nothing has changed after. But because the Clinton campaign puts out press releases spinning her 12% plummet in support in PA as a sign of huge upward momentum instead, you and others start trumpeting the "stalemate" again. That's the only reason.
Put another way: Who's responsible for the "stalemate"?
You are.
You and the other pundits who invented it.
-
Obama needs to hammer the warmongers and the right wing thug
McCain is a thuggish, corrupt, flip-flopping warmongering right wing fool with a seriously adolescent anger management problem. His slight differences with Bush and Cheney are tactical.
He didn't like the agents of intolerance until he did. He didn't like the tax cuts for the rich until he did. He was open-minded about abortion until he wasn't. He didn't like the influence of so much money on politics until he started using his foundation to skirt the laws.
He has nothing constructive to offer about any problem we have - healthcare, the economy, education - nothing. He is a great big zero.
What's more, he is a condescending ass who talks down to people who are right as often as he is wrong.
This is the guy that Clinton praises to the skies, intimating that McCain is qualified to be "commander in chief" while Obama is not.
Obama should be hammering McCain night and day, relentlessly pointing out what a phony he is. But no. He tapdances around the issues and plays right into Clinton's hands.
As for Clinton, how about this: she is a warmonger. Don't vote for her unless you run a company that sells bombs and bullets.
Man up and take them down. They are ruthless and you better believe it.
-
Dean's
I think it goes back to the whole seating of the states. I could be wrong, but Florida and Michigan's state legislatures are the ones who wanted to be first in the election cycle. And those legislatures are GOP controlled. They wanted chaos.
Why Howard Dean chose to give them exactly what they wanted is beyond me. When they called his bluff, when they essentially beat him, he should've surrendered. Florida and Michigan should've had regular elections, and it should be up to them to decide when to hold them. This was a classic blunder on the democrats part. They intervened in the state's will to choose when to hold an election. I'm a die-hard democrat, and all I can do is shake my head in disgust at this lack of foresight, this lack of ability to see a ploy for what it is, this lack of ability to step aside from the trap.
We lose because of this. We absolutely lose and we look idiotic doing it. Why hasn't Dean been fired yet?
-
superdelegates
"But superdelegates-- members of Congress and party officials who remain Clinton's only route to the nomination -- are regarded as the sort of anti-democratic creations that North Korea might embrace."
news flash - Obama can't win without superdelegates either.
-
It’s Obama’s Fault
Who else could be at fault? Don’t forget that, as the first line of this article tells us, there are members of the press and there are partisans. Very different entities. So Salon, as a part of the press, cannot be partison.
The thing about Salon is that’s it’s even-handed. No, it’s better than that. In the quote about maybe it’s Obama and Hillary’s fault, Obama’s name is highlighted in blue. You almost don’t notice her there. Just like you almost don’t see her in the photo. Because Salon clearly favors Obama, so they have his name attached to a link, and they give him pride of place in their photo-ops. So when Salon suggests a fault in Obama, you know it’s an accusation worth considering.
And really, who is this person, who thinks he’s so great? What is Mr. High-and-Mighty trying to get away with when Hillary Clinton, a woman of the people, a compatriot of the working class, is just trying to run a good, clean election?
And she’s doing well. Almost double digits in Pennsylvania. You can’t argue with that. You can’t even thinking about raising the issue of the majority of races which have preceded this, in which she’s lost. For Obama to suggest such a thing is hubris.
I mean, he’s Hollywood. He surrounds himself with stars. Hillary would never do that. And we all know that back in his day, her husband would brook no conversation with that crowd. If they tried, if say, Barbra Steisand or Michael Douglas or Paul Neman or Steven Speilberg or Rob Reiner or Will Smith or Chris Rock or Eddie Murphy or Jennifer Aniston or George Clooney or Bonnie Raitt Brooke Shields or some other such persons tried to raise money for him. If they tried to do it for him, why he would have turned those phoney-boloneys in Hollyweird down flat. And her actions flow from the same purity of motive.
While Obama, he's got money from all these stars and singers and things you could fill the Grand Canyon with. He’s got big names supporting him. And donations from just regular people too, but let's not talk about them because the regular people really belong to Hillary, no matter who they've voted for in the majority of state nominations so far. He’s got most of the wins, too.
Maybe it's not all his fault. Maybe it just went to his head. A guy gets in that position and, you know, he gets a little too big for his britches. He thinks the race belongs to him. And that’s wrong. It’s snooty. It may be un-American. It probably is un-American. You know whose church he used to go to.
Hillary’s American. She’s women and whites and hispanics and working class people. I bet, being from Illinois, living all that time in Arkansas, she’s a person of the people. That’s why she fled them to be a senator in New York. So she could serve the working people in the heartland of America. That’s why she connects with them.
She’s so American, she can’t even spin a story. Couldn’t if she tried. It backfires on her. She’s just honest, that’s what she is. Nothing else seems to work for her. She’s humble, too. Couldn’t bring herself to push for a re-vote early on in Michigan and Florida. Which she clearly would have won had she done something about it. But she doesn’t like to make a fuss. She just went about doing those daily little tasks a person of the people does. And then when she had time to stop and think about it, well darn but it was too late. And you know, the Florida Democrats even said they didn’t want to vote again if they got the chance. Even though they voted for her and their votes could help her get into office, they didn’t want to do it again. Which is plain selfish.
But at least that's more understandable than weird Texas, which is so weird Obama won there. Weirdos. Bet they vacation in Hollywood. You know they live right there next to Mexico. Just how American middle class can they be?
It’s nice that Shapiro tries to put the blame firmly on Hillary. But we can’t let him do that. It’s clearly Obama. He’s the fly in the ointment. And despite Salon’s pretense at bias, which is a cloak for their subtle pro-Obama articles and editorials, we’ve got to shout out loud that Obama has done this.
Hopefully the superdelegates will hear our cries and vote for Hillary. Of course, she’ll be called president of North Korea or somesuch. She’s always had to deal with these smears. It’s never easy. But she does it. She resiliently marches forward, beyond popular votes, beyond delegate votes. To victory. Because she cares about the working class. And women. And Hispanics. And she wants to serve them. Humbly.