Letters to the Editor
-
The fallacy of the winner-takes all argument
Clinton supporters claim that if Democrats used the Republican system this primary that she would have won long ago.
This is possible, but it is also possible that, knowing the stakes, enough voters would have maintained the bump Obama received in Iowa to clinch his nomination early on.
The cold hard facts in this primary are that a majority of the political zeitgeist in 2006 and going into 2007 had Hillary Clinton as the presumptive nominee before any votes were cast, and the reality is that her lead disappeared and a long-shot candidate came from behind to take a (tenuous however practically decisive) lead.
In 1992 one William Jefferson Clinton, against the odds and the conventional wisdom of the punditry, won the nomination, election and won a second term.
Bill Clinton had a number of factors working in his favor, but one of the most valuable factors that everyone can agree on is the cult of personality surrounding his campaign, the buzz and excitement surrounding it.
I will not be able to sway these straggling Senator Clinton supporters that this is what we need to win, and that Hillary doesn't have it. But the "cult of personality" that Obama detractors like so frequently to cite is exactly what Clinton lacks, and McCain will charm more voters than Hillary will in November.
In the famous words of anonymous source Karl Rove, who would you rather have a beer with? I think even the weary rural or blue collar whites can bring themselves to vote for that black guy with the funny name once they get to know him.
The more I get to know of Hillary, the more I think to myself "I would never be friends with this person, I don't trust this person and I don't want this person to be put in charge."