Letters to the Editor
-
Ah, the new Clinton meme.
Goes hand-in-hand with the "pledged delegates aren't really pledged" nonsense.
I grow very, very weary of this losing campaign.
-
Miller
That is correct pledged delegates are not pledged in stone BY THE RULES...........If no one gets 2025, then BY THE RULES pledged and superdelegates should have freedom of action as re-votes take place at the convention.
-
These Obama People
Always wanting to change the rules gets old.
-
Of course Reps are registering to vote Democrat
There's no contest in the Republican primary. Unless you think Hillary and Obama are interchangeable, you vote Dem. How does this help the Democratic party?
I don't believe the cross-overs are voting for whom they see as the loser. Only a republican who doesn't think would do that. Look at the polls. McCain has not consistently polled large margins against either Democrat. The 2000 election hung on chads. No matter who wins the primary, the election will be very, very close. A sensible Rep will vote for the Dem they think is best. But, they are still voting for second choice.
But, again, how does this help the Dems?
-
For Instance
Again if no one gets 2025, and say Hillary wins Pennsylvania big and wins Indiana, Kentucky, and North Carolina behind it, with Obama falling in national polling simultaneously it may give pause to a superdelegate and to a pledged delegate from some mickey mouse caucus 3 months earlier.
-
My candidate is JesusMarxGandhi
Yours on the other hand smokes crack with Satan.
-
I want what she's smoking
Joan says that 25% of Obama's supporters will not vote for Hillary, and in fact might vote for McCain (and vice versa). She goes on to say that she doesn't believe it -- and she shouldn't.
In my house the number is 100%. Neither my wife nor I will vote for Hillary, or McCain for that matter.
Frankly I have a hard time seeing the differencce between the great Bush election theft of 2000 and the great Clinton primary swindle of 2008. In both cases I am able to see the mendacity and corruption of both personalities as if I were a front row witness to a vivisection of their souls (or more properly soul cavity).
If there is justice (and that is truly in doubt in this country no matter where you look) the Clintons will go down in history as the most unscrupulous, destructive, self-serving duos since Cheney & Rove.
-
@W.E.S. RE: I'm Listening To The Obama People
What Obama people (I assume you mean letter writers who indicate a support for him) are you referring to that make you think they'll blame others for a loss?
I have observed lot of people being frustrated with the Clinton campaign tactics (as for myself, my real concern over the last week or so has been the way Joan Walsh and several of the contributors are inserting their bias towards Clinton, but acting as if neutral. This article is but another example of that, as pointed out by many people. But that concern has more to do with my continued usage/respect for Salon.com, rather than the nomination contest).
But to get back to you - So far, all indications I've seen don't seem to agree with you.
I think Obama has a very good chance winning the US Presidency this year. I base that on what I perceive to be a very strong set of messages, the observance that he's run a very solid and smart campaign to-date, as well as lot of grass-roots support. People I've spoken to over the last month or so who never really cared for politics at all are being drawn in to support him, in part due to his age, message and charisma. And lot of what I think makes him appealing to those who consider themselves independant, have largely to do with his age and relative disconnection with much of the Beltway politics of the last 30 years. These are things neither Clinton, nor McCain can claim despite their language to the contrary.
And while I think Clinton's tactics are certainly not helping her or the process, ultimately I don't think they will really work. The mathematics of the situation seem to get tighter with each primary/caucus.
-
reality based politics
This support of Hillary against the reality that she has no chance of wining does remind one of head in the sand folk who brought us this war...if you just will hard enough and spin enough people will fall in line....This is your worst article EVER!
-
Hey Joan,
I think that your article was pretty good. There is a nuance in the stats that is being overlooked. It is after all nuance that has led to the rebirth of the Democratic Party. And it is the particular point that was expressed in the article and overlooked by most of the posts. It is also that nuance that delineates the difference between the Clinton and Obama camps. The first holds on to the old DLC attitude of win the Blue States plus one. The latter is exercising the Fifty States strategy expoused by Dean.
It is that approach that is contributing to the increase of voters and voter turnout. The belief that every vote and voter counts. It is also a strategy that will win for us in November.
Now, I do not know that you specifically support Sen Clinton or not. I can not. I still see her as a surrogate for the DLC mindset of the only way to beat a Repuglican is to be more like them. This just plain chafes my ass. I am an old fashioned Roosevelt Democrat. I believe that there IS a difference between the parties. But to be more like "them" is no real way to stand-up for our ideals
So I see this primary campaign as a fight between the old attitudes that to win we must be like them and the renewed groundswell of Obama standing-up for our old time beliefs and princples. Whether this infighting is good for our party or not, will be decided in November. However, I will voice this, "If we do not hang togather, we will surely hang separately".
footsore
-
MVP
If you are saying if Obama loses the genral it's becuase HE was an inadeqaute candidate and nothing else, you are correct.