Letters to the Editor
-
@DeeperTruth Contributions Myth
Time for a little truth in advertising here. Anyone can check out contributions to all the candidates at http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/moneyweb.asp?cycle=2008. It's pretty cool. You and others are recycling this talking point about Obama getting funded by subprime lenders. Aside from misstating what some of the companies actually do, it's illegal for corporations to make contributions to campaigns for federal elections. These numbers reflect the individual contributions made by employees. I'm sure you will agree that these individuals have a right to participate in our system.
Both Hillary and Obama are getting some cash from folks at global firms like Goldman. Maybe we should be talking about their economic speeches if we are looking to find some differences.
Corporate and Union Activity
Although corporations and labor organizations may not make contributions or expenditures in connection with federal elections , they may establish PACs. Corporate and labor PACs raise voluntary contributions from a restricted class of individuals and use those funds to support federal candidates and political committees. Click here to download the Campaign Guide for Corporations and Labor Organizations [PDF].
http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/fecfeca.shtml#Corporate_Union
-
@deeper_truth
First, if it is soooo true that HRC "misspoke" because she was "sleep deprived" -- if that is how she handles sleep deprivation, do we really want her answering a phone at 3:00 a.m. (assuming that she is not SOOO sleep deprived as to sleep through the phone ringing?)
If her memory of such key events is so different from reality, then isn't it kind of scary that she would be so close to dictating war and peace in this world? Suppose she "mis-remembers" something regarding say... some rogue nation's nuclear weapons program and she -- suppose she gets Pakistan and India confused and goes after the wrong country? That would put us into a bit of sticky wicket, wouldn't it?
For someone who has chosen "deeper_truth" to be your screen name, you certainly seem blind to actual truth and your "truth" has nothing to do with logic. Perhaps you should change it to "Blind_Faith".
I'm kind of ashamed of myself because dt's posts are just so over the top to where they are practically troll-like. But I had a moment of weakness in my sleep-deprived state so I guess it is ok.
-
Big Dipper
The "deeper" you tell it, the more folks can smell it.
-
Cross-Over Independents and Republicans
I am a strong Hillary Clinton supporter who still thinks she can win. But I am a realist and if Obama wins the nomination I will vote for him, as I believe the vast majority of Clinton supporters will. However, this idea that as many as 25% of Clinton and Obama supporters will vote for McCain, I believe is a crock! There has been this hype all primary season that many, many independents and Republicans crossed over and voted for a Democrat. It is my belief that most of these cross-over voters didn't vote for the Democrat but against the other because they didn't want to see the other face their candidate. I would be very interested to see how many of these "so-called" traitors are really dyed in the wool Republicans!
-
follow the money
Here's how it's hurting the Dems:
Valuable campaign funds are being wasted fighting each other when it should by now be focused on defeating McSameAsBush. Friggin DUH.
Honestly, you Clinton apologists amaze me in your obtuseness.
-
Great article
Joan Walsh cites a great article on the benefits (duh!) of the extra months of campaigning and organization-building that come with a protracted primary.
A few factors to consider:
- Normally money is the factor that limits contests like this. But we are where we are because money is not a factor for either Democrat, especially Obama. And to the extent that the candidates' funding has come from a broad populist base, that shows a patience on the part of the electorate that denies the conventional wisdom about the campaign. People who are keeping the money going now are likely to keep it going in the general election, too.
- Another factor that usually comes up is simple fatigue — presidential campaigns are uniquely exhausting. But both Democrats are young(ish) and so far show no signs of long-term fatigue.
- As Walsh points out, a lot will depend on how the winner handles the convention in Denver. It will be a true test of statesmanship — which, of course, we all agree would be really nice in a president, so here's hoping one of them has it.
- Lastly, the synergy between the two Democrats is something that shouldn't be understated. Obama's campaign is as organized as it is literally because of Clinton — because he was up against her formidable early ground game and her tireless energy in campaigning. And for that matter Clinton's set-piece campaign plan has had to be scrapped in favor of a much more agile, free-form response to Obama that can't have made her in her stubborn heart all that happy — but which has been immeasurably good for the party.
As a thought experiment, consider the style and tone of both Democrats' somnolent early campaigns. Now imagine what either one would be like today as a sole front-runner, having not already had to really wake up, nor learn to show some teeth.
Sounds sort of like John Kerry. It's not a pretty thought.
-
Re: Brunnhilde
Picking this up from a while back...
First, for the sake of clarity, let me say that I don't believe Clinton, at this point, is doing anything for good reasons. I think she is being highly selfish. I just happen to think her selfishness may actually be doing some good.
I will admit that in weeks like these, it would be nice if we could attack McCain. I'll say two things here. Firstly, we can trust that McCain will continue to say stupid things up to the election. (Particularly in debates where I think he'll be stomped.) Being ignored, though, can be just as problematic as saying something stupid. I remember in 2004, the Democrats got a surge of attention when Kerry won Iowa, while Bush was giving his State of the Union address. His speech was practically ignored as the media talked up Kerry's win. Stretch that over a couple months, and you have the conundrum for the McCain campaign.
There's probably some line where this vetting will become destructive. I'm not sure where this is. The worst case scenario for me would be at the convention. If Clinton pulls some stunt (ala last minute shenanigans of Kennedy and Reagan in the past), or just plain doesn't whole-heartedly endorse Obama (or at least fakes it really well as McCain has done with Bushie), we will definitely have a problem on our hands.
If Clinton keeps trying for the little gotcha issues, though, I don't see this hurting Obama. He's shown he can get knocked down and get back up again, as opposed to Kerry in the past, and Clinton will just continue to look foolish.
Clinton is a Democrat, but she's also... Hillary Clinton. Rightly or wrongly, she has taken on a reputation as the ultimate insider D.C. partisan. I think for a while she was able to poke holes in that by casting herself as intelligent and experienced. The policy wonk vs. the pretty boy. Going negative has only served to reinforce the worst stereotypes about her to the general populace. From the plagiarism thing to the SNL reference (booed at a debate? Hell I don't even think Ron Paul got booed at a debate) she is only further associating herself with everything that people disliked about her husband's administration. The more she tries to get her foot in the door on every gotcha issue, the more the public (and for that matter the Democratic establishment, as seen with Bill Richardson's endorsement and Pelosi's recent words) wants to slam the door on said foot. (Ever see Bush tackle Kerry on the Swift Boat issue? No, he let his supporters and the media hit him on it while appearing above it all. Honest? No, but if you insist on a "kitchen sink strategy, I'm going to assume honesty is not your preferred policy.)
Personally I agree that I would like Clinton out. I don't want to find out where this line is when all this coverage starts to work against us. (Plus negative stories get boring after a while.) Having said that, I don't want people to think she was forced out by an elite who wants this wrapped up neat and tidy. My highest of hopes? Gore endorses Obama. Edwards (who I actually wanted over Obama) follows suit, and actively campaigns for him with blue collar Democrats, effectively giving the speech that he was giving throughout his campaign. Likewise Richardson campaigns with immigrants in Philly and Pittsburgh. Talking up liberal and populist causes, Obama pulls an upset in Pennsylvania. Clinton drops out shortly after.
One can dream.