Letters to the Editor
-
democrats are dmeocracy in action
Democrats could have lined up like sheep early behind one candidate like the republicans, but we over choose to let Democracy play out. The attention to the election is more alive than it has ever been.
However it has played out. Obama is winning, Hillary has no chance of catching up. Her only hope is super delegates. Everyone knows Obam has a better grassroots machine and is the most electable candidate. Besides he will bring more "down" votes with his grassroots organizating.
Unfortunately Hillary's strategy lately has been to present Obama as unelectable, instead of running on her own merits and issues. She is doing much damage to the party. If Obama has NOT been damaged by Wright but if he has it is because Hillary played into it more than McCain and the republicans. I don't think Obama is damaged at all.
If she is so electable, why is she loosing the popular vote. Why did Obama cut her 15-20 pt lead down to a SINGLE digit win of 9% in PA? She has no chance of catching up in pledged delegates even with MI & FL.
Republicans are dying to have Hillary. It is Rush and his machine that is getting republicans to vote for Hillary. The right loves to hate her.
-
Who's fault is it?
why its those pesky voters fault! How dare they actually be enjoying, looking forward to and exercising their right to vote! Gosh darn it -- the last debate had 10 million viewers -- don't they know we've already had, like, 20! How can they still be interested in hearing debates? Too much democracy, I tell you.
-
marmosetto: Stop talking for me
For whatever it's worth my tiered preferences are:
Clinton (most preferred)
McCain (less preferred)
Obama (least preferred)
Cult of personality may work for North Koreans and China during Mao. Following blindly a "personality" without specific ideas can take you to the same place.
-
Ode to KlWatkins
You are my hero. Let's hear it one more time:
"What I don't understand is why there has to be all of this blistering hate between the two sides. Or the continuous stereotyping of the supporters. Personally, I think Hillary has already lost...but I don't care if she continues to run or not. I don't think it will truly hurt Obama in the long run. Democrats, in large part, are going to vote for the Dem nominee...whoever it is...in the general election. I DO think the media plays up this whole "stalemate" question because it gets ratings. Which, again, is not such a bad thing. Democrats are getting all the airtime right now while McCain fades to obscurity. My only real problem with the continuing campaign is what it is doing to our party...how it is dividing us. So say it with me, "I will not HATE on my fellow Democrats. I will not HATE on my fellow Democrats." There you go. See how easy that was?
What if we all try to understand that this is an election, important sure, but just a contest between two strong opponents. Let's get rid of the "Obamabots" and "Hillbots" type of language in our discourse and act like adults. Hopefully, that is not too much to ask."
-
Trust me
AJCalhoun said:
For this reason alone, I would support a candadate who predicates his campaign on "hope" and "change" rather than on concrete and unwarrantable promises.
So what you're saying is that because a politician may not keep their promises, just don't promise anything.
If this is not the definition of Cult of Personality, tell me what is it?
The stuff of what totalitarian regimes are made of.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_personality
-
re: Tired of this crap too.
ShawnWM,
"And what shred of evidence to you have to support this utter b.s.. Other than Rush Limbaugh's pandering to your stupidity to play a lttle reverse psychology with what he was really doing."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080422/ap_on_el_pr/primary_exit_poll_glance_4
"One in 10 voters changed their party registration since the start of the year so they could vote in the hotly contested primary, which was open only to registered Democrats. About half of the party-switchers had been registered Republicans and the rest had been unaffiliated with either party. Another roughly 3 percent were voting for the first time in Pennsylvania."
http://www.thetimesonline.com/articles/2008/04/03/news/top_news/doc7b559e29960e5db68625741f007d6dbd.txt
"Indiana's Democratic chairman said his party is ready to challenge the votes of any lifelong Republicans who attempt to vote as Democrats in the May 6 primary. Indiana Democratic Party Chairman Dan Parker said he is concerned Republicans may try to cast crossover votes to skew results in the close presidential primary between U.S. Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama."
Well, you get the idea. Apparently, I am not the ONLY person to suspect this.
-
NOT ABOUT SQUANDERED OPPORTUNITIES
Haven't figured out by now that the Obama initial strategy was to create the effect of momentum with a win in Iowa, get the small state caucuses flooded with newly bought and paid for faces, and naturally grab the Southern states' predominantly African-American Democrats, show a math model that looked victorious enough by March, and declare the process over before anyone figured out it really wasn't?
The Obama campaign has been working what I call the "Field of Dreams" strategy, "If we build it, they will come." If they created large rallies, great speeches, new faces, and hi-jacked the nomination early enough, then the Party regulars would have no choice but to accept him. Well, they didn't "come" in Ohio, Texas, New York, Massachusetts, New Jersy, California, and now Pennsylvania, to name a few. And if they hadn't gotten stupid in Michigan and Florida by ignoring the DNC, the Party regulars wouldn't have "come" there either.
The Obama campaign bragged in the early months about how many new voters he was "attracting" - younger voters, new voters, etc. The experts should've been suspicious of an Obama campaign using so much time and money to register new voters. Massive and extensive voter registration is usually an activity reserved for other organizations. Now we know that it was the only way Obama could get around the fact that he didn't have the support of the Party's regular voters.
The Obama campaign also created an "us vs them" mentality. Too bad the "them" wasn't the Republicans. It was his own Party. There was a kind of hate-mongering attitude born out early in the blogs of young Obama-supporting males calling Hillary everything but a white woman and trashing who they thought were Establishment Democrats supporting her. Nevermind that those so-called Establishment Democrats were paying the college/living expenses of most these young snots. Obama all but declared war on his own Party. "You're likable enough, Hillary."
Clinton's major mistakes remained rooted in her campaign's inability to understand they had to run a Primary campaign before they ran a General Election. They got caught standing flat-footed in Iowa when Obama flooded in more new faces to offset the regular faces.
The Clinton campaign had to figure out first what kind of battle they were fighting. Probably insecure about her negatives, they of course started "fixing" her first, wasting time and money. She got no better media coverage by doing so. The problem was their inability to understand what battle they were fighting against Obama.
Clinton's campaign was also shocked and set back on its heels when statements made by both Clintons in February were thrown back in their faces as Obama's campaign played the race card: Her statement that it took both MLK and LBJ to get Civil Rights legislation passed. And there was Bill Clinton's continued General Election mentality when he said that Jesse Jackson won South Carolina so they expected Obama to win it too. The Obama campaign was ready, willing, and capable of further dividing the Party by suggesting people in their own Party are racists.
Then there's The Bitterness remark. Obama all but answered the nagging question as to why he can't get the votes of white, working-class, small town Democrats. He blamed THEM for their not supporting HIM. Spoken like the elitist he really is, Obama all but diagnosed them with a "condition," that keeps them clinging to guns and Jesus. Obama, of course, got his "religion" at Harvard, not in Jeremiah Wright's church. Regardless of his background and upbringing, I predict it will take both him and his wife another 10 years, or about age 50, to recover their "conditions."
The Obama campaign also knew the minute it became about race, their days were numbered. And where was Obama on Easter Sunday? He was not in his church - the one with the Pastor he "could no more distance (himself) from than (his) Grandmother." He ducked out of the country to the Virgin Islands.
The reason for this stalemate is clear: The Obama campaign had a strategy that would run the risk of being exposed the longer the campaign went on. I predict he won't recover. Clinton had a strategy that didn't work out early on but is recovering from her early gaffes. Clinton came full circle, weathered the cheap shots, and has demonstrated that she understands that it's about what the voters want and need. Obama just wants to lecture everyone on what's wrong with the process, his Party, and Hillary Clinton.
It was smart of Clinton to remind Pennsylvania voters of her Scranton roots, the fact that her family owned guns and she learned to shoot one, and to drink a shot with the crowd. Obama making fun of her once again showed he was a snob who "didn't get it."
Sure, voters are tired of the gridlock and the divisive politics. But I would bet they are more tired of the gas prices, food prices, losing jobs, and yes, getting a small, but meaningful, break on the federal gas taxes (Holiday gas tax).
Is Obama inspiring? Not necessarily once you see the strategy behind the words. I think Americans will be more inspired by having a better standard of living and real economic opportunities again than in Obama hiring Republicans to work in his White House.
The reason for such high percentages of voters who will not support Obama is not because they are racists, but because they don't see themselves having a damn thing in common with the guy - and don't want to have anything in common with a guy who has spent 6 months ignoring them, bashing them, and accusing them of having "conditions."
Those superdelegates who have not yet declared their preference need to take a hard look at who can best represent the Democratic Party this November and who is more likely to develop the rapport needed to win those small town, suburban, and rural independent voters. Sorry, but it's not Obama.