Letters to the Editor
-
Anon @ 12:20
I wasn't trying to point out that we should "depend" on republicans voting for Obama - but I do think that the concept tha there are some anti-war Republicans that will go for Obama is just a bit more believable than a vast Right wing conspiracy to nominate Obama. We'll never know, either way, but common sense (and comments by "talking heads") seems to point to the fact that many Republicans favor Hillary as the more beatable candidate. Anyone that can really argue otherwise with a straight face must have inhaled.
I suspect WES is inhaling a lot of something.
-
Aaaaaaaaagh!
I have lost count of the number of posters who have made some kind of reference to American democracy. We are NOT - I repeat, NOT - a democracy. We are a constitutional republic.
-
Lord They Can't Read
The republicans voting for Hillary in the primaries is not intended to nominate Obama as an eaier candidate to beat........It's simply votes against Hillary, that people are counting as votes for Obama tnat got him delegates.
-
Amen Madame Defarge!!
"I'm a bit surprised with Joan's thesis, that it's OK, depending on the circumstances, if the party elders tip this thing. It's ironic because, women and blacks have had white men decide for them, on the basis of their status as inferiors, for a very long time."
This type of paternalism won't be tolerated by either side. As a black person, I can just imagine the reaction in the black community if Obama "wins" the nomination in the pledged delegate count but loses because Clinton has more support from party leaders.
I imagine, if the roles were reversed, women would be furious if the candidate of Democratic voters was pushed aside because party leaders decided that a women wasn't ready for "primetime". Whether that mean running a country or a presidential campaign. This self-serving silliness needs to stop. HRC and her supporters advancing this argument is bad politics that just drives each side into their respective camps more and more.
-
ironocrat
Maybe I have to be clearer for you - already said it in my post, but a troll, or someone I want to ignore, is someone who posts incessantly unsuppported propaganda type posts. It has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing. I'm happy to disagree, just would like some real discourse vs the 6x per page one liner propaganda. I think most on salon feel this way - there would be a very few that would be ignored, but just not having them on the pages of those that chose to use the ignore feature would improve the discourse immensely.
-
Like I Said
There's a big bunch of wingers that don't give a damn if they win the general or not...........I'm just saying for the sake of honesty, which the Obama supporters seem to be calling for non-stop, a segment of his delegation at the convention should be called the winger-vote delegates.
-
Changing the Rules
Since people want to change the rules in regards to how the superdelegates vote, the FL and MI delegates, etc., why don't we just simple say winner takes all. It works for the Republicans. Oh, we can't do that, because Hillary would be way ahead in the delegate count and wouldn't need FL or MI or the superdelegates to reach 2025. You see, someone can always find a way to make someone else unhappy.
If you want to change things then go to your local, county and state caucuses and institute the changes. All states should either have to have a caucus or a primary, but not one or the either (caucuses are the least voter friendly and limit how many people can participate in the process.) You can't change things for this year, but you can for the next election. It is all part of the growing process. Just as our forefathers never imagined a pair like Bush/Cheney, the people in the Democratic Party during the 80's never envisioned what is happening now.
Old cliche, but change is hard.
-
Socs
I appreciate the "Maybe I have to be clearer for you..." line. Next time you could just insult me directly.
95% of the posts on Salon are "unsupported" and "propoganda-type".
-
Please
If Clinton were winning in delegates, Walsh would be howling that superdelegates must "obey the will of the people" and vote for Clinton.
Since Obama is winning, she is pontificating that they should "search their conscience" and vote for Clinton even if Obama actually won the election.
I had thought that Clinton was a tolerable alternate candidate, but I now perceive her campaign and supporters as prioritizing Clinton's victory within the Democratic Party over a Democrat victory in the general election. This turns me off very badly. I already voted, but I'm sure it has a similar effect on others who haven't.
It took a lot of work to turn me off. I had strong sympathy for Clinton and even thought that she was better than Obama on some issues.
It really isn't working Joan. If you people were arguing "Clinton is better than Obama because of (some positive Clinton trait)", it might work, but instead it's all just "we want Florida and Michigan after all" and "the superdelegates must give the nomination to Clinton no matter what".
It's very, very tough to argue for your candidate when the other candidate is the one who polls to win the general election, as Romney supporters learned. But Clinton supporters have compounded that situation by making arguments that would be bad in any circumstances.
The superdelegates can do whatever they want under current rules; that's why they're "super". But honorable thing for them to do is to support the candidate who wins the majority of other delegates.
It probably won't matter. Thanks to all the "help" that Clinton is getting from her supporters, Obama will probably pick up enough delegates to make it all moot in the long run.
-
Hillary's Iraq Vote Was Her Defining Moment -- of Shame
Hillary's Iraq Vote...
It was the point when she voted with her ambition -- and NOT with her heart, mind, or intellect
It was a point when she very visibly put her own personal ambition ahead of altruism or the good of the nation
It was the point when she, very publicly and very clearly, pandered for everyone to see
It was the point when she showed us how "soft" her Democratic principles really are, and how her decades of experience prepared her -- to make the worst decision of her political career
No amount of disingenuous rhetoric or memory failure can take that away from those of us who knew -- who opposed the war then -- and who contacted Clinton and her ilk to urge them to vote against the war.
But Hillary Clinton did what she thought would be good for HILLARY CLINTON.
She usually does, and and she usually will. Just like her hubby.
End of story.
She's going down in flames if she's the nominee. Luckily, unless there is some truly dirty Billary-mandering, and the party decides to nominate her against their own best interests and chance of winning in November, we're not going to have to find out.