Letters to the Editor
-
BryanS
I'm with you. I don't see how it would help much. That's why I was curious about the numbers. I knew MI was about 55% for Clinton. That's not anywhere near a margin that could erase Obama's lead or even put a dent in it.
Practically speaking, I'd like to see Obama tell the DNC to seat both, complete delegations because I think it would show the silliness of Clinton's argument. (And show she is just stirring the pot- not enough gains there to show she had been shortchanged.)
But I think in terms of principles it would be bad for the party to flout the rules set up at the beginning. It would show that a stubborn candidate can twist enough arms and subvert the process. It would seat the delagates from MI where Obama was not even on the ballot.
In the end they'll proabably compromise and put in half the delagates, or all and give them a half vote. Either way, the decision should be about fairness and not based on the outcome. I hope next time we get this settled before the primary though!
-
@TRenee
I apologize if I missed your posts, I will need to go back and read some of your letters. I too read the responses to Rebecca Traister's piece and was disappointed in what I read. Maybe I didn't read enough of them. As I have written downthread. I DO care about women's rights but I have seen NO evidence that is is a core value of the progressive left or of the Democratic party leaders. I have come to a time in my life where my vote is not free and Obama has not earned it.
-
Is it really all that surprising?
"I'm kind of shocked that older women would handicap their children in such a way because they're pissed about HILLARY CLINTON? It seems that if you really objected to the sexism that she experienced you would be for women's rights in general."
C'mon now, is "I hate that bitch Hillary but vote for Obama beacuse McCain is pro-life and will..." really a compelling selling point for Hillary supporters right now?
I mean, if it was "I hate that nigger Obama but vote for Hillary because McCain is anti-affirmative action and will..." I doubt you'd be rushing to be comrades in arms with them in the general.
I hope it will all sort itself for the best in the end, but it shouldn't be suprising that such a transparent ploy is not going to be received well at the moment.
-
Hillary Auxiliary
Dream on! Mrs. Clinton is no Wilder. After learning of an idealistic pact made at Georgetown between Bill and Hillary Clinton regarding the presidency of both, I would say that she will not leave without a place on the ticket. Period. And the Veep slot may be palatable because we have seen how it can be managed and applied (look at the current administration). It ain't policy, it's the presidency. And it may not be "equal," but rather ego after all. As for negotiations, who has the cabrones to tell the Hillmeister to bail? She'll stay on until Denver. Certainly she will not listen to Obama, absent at least the Veep slot. So who shoves? Bubba? Get a grip! Howard Dean? Not likely. I don't believe he even really knows the Clintons. So who might the kingmaker in the DNP be? There lies the clue to resolution of this. And I can't think of one. Unless it's Jimmie Carter, from whom we have heard darn little lately.
-
@ KStone
Wow, way to use the single nastiest slur in the English language in order to make a point. And you have the nerve to give me shit for the way I frame my arguments.
I find it kind of funny that most of the time that I hear Hillary referred to as a "bitch," it's by one of her own supporters, whether it's Tina Fey saying that "bitch is the new black," or yet another shrill Hil shill invoking the specter of a hypothetical Obama supporter calling Hillary a "bitch," despite the fact that most of us go out of our way not to apply that word to her.
I don't find it funny at all that every time I've seen the word "n****r" used on this site, it's been written by a Hillary supporter.
-
Clinton's hand
This article is based on the assumption that Obama needs something from Hillary Clinton. I contend that such an argument is fundamentally falacious. Therefore, the conclusions drawn are also off the mark.
Hillary Clinton needs to campaign for Barrack Obama more than Obama needs Clinton to campaign for him. Obama doesn't need Clinton's endorsement to win in November. Clinton needs to make a BIG effort to show that staying in the race was about more than her ego or her political future is in danger.
The Robb/Wilder comparison is not really valid. Had Wilder chosen to stay in the race, Oliver North was likely to win, an unacceptable outcome. Robb NEEDED Wilder to win over the Black voters. Obama doesn't need Clinton. He hasn't offended the elderly or anyone else. All he has to do is prove to them that he is a better alternative than McCain, which is a fairly easy task. The latest polls, coming on the heels of the Wright fiasco still have Obama ahead of/statistically tied with McCain, despite fighting a two front war.
The race is over. It is not going to drag on to the convention, which would indeed be bad for Obama. Read what the undecided superdelegates, and even some of Hillary's biggest supporters, are saying. She isn't being given more time to come up with a winning strategy, she is being given time to bow out gracefully. These superdelegates are her peers and in many cases her friends. The next-to-last thing they want is to humiliate Clinton by coming out for Obama or defecting to Obama to force her out of the race. But this desire is over-ridden by the last thing they want, to allow this to drag on long enough to get McCain elected.
Her bluster now is just hot air and is actually pushing the superdelegates away. Their patience is growing thin and her time is growing short. She is not hurting Obama, she is hurting herself.
As to the conclusions in the article:
Debt Relief Ha. She has spent her money personally smearing Obama and running a racist campaign. He doesn't need her or owe her a dime.
A Major Platform Win Once again, he owes her nothing. He won the race on his platform. Why should he do something he doesn't support to get approval from someone he doesn't need?
VP Right of Frist Refusal Now we are firmly back in Salon fantasy land. Obama should NOT offer Hillary the VP slot. It would hurt him, not help him. And the idea that he would allow her to take the best potential VP choices off the table is ludicrous. She has already done incalculable damage to the party with her ruthless, racist campaign. It would be crazy for Obama to let her further hurt the party by hamstringing him in the fall. I have long thought that Kathleen Sebelius was the best match for Obama as VP, with Bill Richardson a distant second. The idea that Obama would let Clinton take either of these off the table is insane.
An Obama/Sebelius ticket, in addition to them being a good political match, would do more for Obama than a Hillary endorsement. The one factor in this race that Salon has repeatedly talked around is that a lot of middle aged and senior women are backing Clinton because they want to see a woman President. Not all of them, but the anecdotal evidence is there to suggest that this is common. Sebelius on the ticket would give these women motivation to come out in force for Obama. Obama would do more to break the glass ceiling than Clinton would anyway. If he had Sebelius or Richardson with him, Clinton would be totally irrelevant.
The bottom line on the VP is that Obama needs a VP that he is personally and politically comfortable with. Letting that be filtered through Clinton's vindictiveness would be bad for Obama and bad for the democrats in general. I wouldn't trust Clinton to not accidentally-on-purpose hurt Obama in the guise of campaigning for him just to give herself a shot at 2012. Clinton's "help" could easy prove to be as genuine as Wilder's ambassadorship.