Letters to the Editor

Letters posted here are associated with the following article:
Hillary's missteps are legion, but both candidates are flesh and blood, and their squandered opportunities have prolonged the race.
The letters thread is now closed.
  • You can always trust a post about the working class

    in which the working class is referred to as "them." That's real insider information. Like listening to your oldest white uncle tell you what's really up with minorities.

  • All that flash and dance for 9 points?

    What's the point?

  • regarding the Texas caucus

    Mr Shapiro,

    you write:

    "Despite the weirdness of Texas holding a disorganized caucus on the night of its March 4 primary, and thereby giving a much-needed delegate boost to Obama, the Clinton public-relations team also failed to get anywhere with the fairness issue."

    While I agree with you that the Texas Democratic Primary is something of a clusterf***, I've been voting in Texas primaries since '88, and to give Obama's campaign their due, they made a concerted overture to voters to participate in the caucuses in a way that I haven't seen any other campaign do, either this year or in 2004.

    The dynamic was admittedly slightly different in March of '04 with Kerry way out ahead, but Clark and Edwards still had slim but mathematical chances to overcome their deficits vis-a-viz Kerry when the Texas primary rolled around- in other words, they were in a position similar to Hillary's after Super Tuesday of 2008. I was on the email list for all three in 2004 and none of them mentioned caucusing later that evening.

    But I saw targeted ads on several lefty blogs from the Obama camp urging supporters to vote in the primary AND come back for the caucus. If there were any for Hillary's campaign I didn't see them.

    I imagine the state democratic party has been lackadaisical about getting the word out to primary voters in the past because through 2004 we held our primary in March, at a point when, traditionally, the race was sewn up or very close to it.

  • @ Christopher1988

    For the first 40 years of my life, I was working class. One of my brothers is a welder and the other works on an oil rig. I have done waitress work, checked groceries, herded cattle, and worked in a day care. My mother worked for near mimimum wage most of her life. My father went to work in a gas company uniform for most of my childhood. My mother actually rationed our meals so we could have things like dancing lessons and scouts. When I finally got enough money not to worry so much, I filled the fridge with food. Some of it goes to waste and I still have bad dreams about going hungry.

    You can sneer if you like, but I do know something about what working class people think. Actually, I wouldn't want to forget or get too far above myself, because from what I have seen of the highly educated and well-off, there are just as many jerks among them as there are in the working class.

  • Voting againist our own best interests

    Dont' the working class vote against their own best interests when voting for the centrist, HIllary Clinton or republicans (not much different).

    Of course of in realty, wealthy, well educated are voting againist our own best interests too. We know Obama will probably raise taxes.

  • AKA Smith

    I want to honor you AKA Smith...thank you for not giving up,

  • TX Primary

    In TX Hillary won the primary by only 1% pt. She lost the Caucus. Then cries foul because Obama came out of TX with more delegates killing her Big win. Yet Hillary and pundits keep spinning it as a BIG win????

    The Democrats really should refine their Primary caucus process..pick one,but not both. However at a caucus you get more voters who are real activists, organizers and voters who know the issues.

  • @ bernbart

    The Democrats really should refine their Primary caucus process..pick one,but not both. However at a caucus you get more voters who are real activists, organizers and voters who know the issues.

    And? Picking a winner might be a good consideraton. Actually getting as many people to vote as possible might be a good consideration. Making it easy and inexpensive for people to register might be a good consideration.

    The "real activists, organizers and voters who know the issues" could be construed as the party elite. You know, in Texas we used to have a poll tax. There was a poll tax (pay to vote) in many parts of the South. Do you remember what it was for? It was to keep certain people from voting. The poor, Hispanics, black people. Those not so educated folks. We could go back to that, I guess.

    The caucus system effectively shuts out many people. Maybe we can just let the Torys run things.

  • Thank you tropicalli.

    However, I do still think of giving up now and then.

  • Is eeking out numbers like 9 points gonna make any measurable difference in the end?

    Clinton might win by a small margin in Indiana, but North Carolina will probably reverse any small gains she makes. Seems like a pretty futile undertaking.

  • I'll say goodnight to all. Fight the good fight.

    I just inadvertantly trigger my own waterworks and am weeping up a storm.

  • @ bernbart

    Dont' the working class vote against their own best interests when voting for the centrist, HIllary Clinton or republicans (not much different).

    You have just made the case why if Obama is the nominee, many Hillary supporters will indeed be voting for McCain. If people perceive (whether it's true or not) that Hillary and McCain are both centrist while Obama is more liberal, they will vote for whichever centrist candidate remains.

    I think AKA just made the point that what YOU perceive as their best interest is not necessarily what THEY perceive as their best interest. You are making the same (arrogant) mistake that Obama made when he dismissed the "rural" voters of Pennsylvania. "If people weren't so stupid, deluded, or bitter they would all be liberal".

    The problem with the democratic party is that the liberal/activist base makes it difficult if not impossible for a centrist to win the party nomination. And the right/center American electorate make it nearly impossible for a liberal to win the general election. Anyone want to name the last liberal US president?

    @ AKA

    Since no one seems to have responded to your eloquent description of the appalling unfairness of the caucus system, it appears you may have identified a new group to add to the list of RINO's and DINO's... that is "LINO's" (liberal in name only).