Letters to the Editor
-
umm...
Isn't there something more substantial to discuss about politics than polls?
Aren't you doing exactly what every other hack in the MSM is doing by empowering those who are prone to be willfully ignorant of the issues by turning it all into a contest of numbers?
Can we please try to aspire to be more?
-
Iowa and New Hampshire would like to matter
But they don't. It's just the media and the party machines perpetuating this myth. Do you really think voters in California, or Georgia, or anywhere else are looking to voters in these two states to guide them? No. Remember that McCain beat Bush in NH in 2000.
These states are wannabees and has beens at the same time
-
I'm starting to breath a bit easier now.
Hillary will polarize this nation for the next four years if she is elected. The GOP will hammer her and her husband into the ground once again. Obama, on the other hand, has no stake in re-fighting the battles of the 1990's. He will lead us in the manner we will need to join forces to pull america at least back to "life support" status.I think Edwards would do the same.
giuliani, too, will be an agent of hate. He's as evil as it gets. As much as I abhor him, I hope he gets the nomnation. Then we'll get an opportunity to see just where Bush has positioned us. If giuliani wins, I am otta here. The economy is in awful condition (see the dollar, see the dollar fall, see the dollar fall farther, see the dollar disappear), we are dispised around the globe, our foreign policy is in shambles and we have accepted torture and spying on the population as a way of life. Hate is building to a crescendo and we are faced with choices pushed into our faces by incompetence at a national scale. American's will either embrace a continuation of this morass or decided to begin the struggle to turn it around. I, for one, don't have a lot of hope for this to happen but perhaps the latest poll numbers on Ms. Polorization is a signal that some are finally seing what it is she can't offer: Hope.
-
It makes sense
She is too much of a ham and egger to be dominating this race. She may be a reasonably effective Senator, but she is a mediocre "candidate" at best.
-
The faux "polarizing" charge against Hillary
The reason Hillary is seen as polarizing is that the right wing slime machine has already had years to trash her. Anyone who thinks Republicans won't do the same to Obama, Edwards or any other Democrat is delusional. Just remember how they convinced millions of people that Gore was a serial liar when, in fact, it was Bush who was constantly misrepresenting the facts. And then there was the Swift Boating of Kerry. Managing to take an example of a man's true courage and turn it against him is quite a feat.
The propaganda from the right coupled with a compliant media and the wimpyness of Democrats is the reason that voters, while clearly preferring Democratic policies, vote for Republicans over and over. (Check out the shenanigans Republicans pulled in Mississipi against Paul Minor and Oliver Diaz if you don't think there is a vast right wing conspiracy against Democrats.)
Until Democrats wake up and realize that the problem is how to counter this attack machine and pressure the media to stop playing along with it, they will continue to lose. And it is not just the leaders that need to step up! The rank and file of the party need to stop trashing other Democrats and start protesting the unfair treatment ALL Democrats are getting. Until guys like loopy Guiliani get the scrutiny given to the Democratic candidates, the deck will remain stacked against us.
-
Future is Today
Look, there's one good reason the Democrats won't get elected next year: they were elected last year!
They are in significant offices NOW. The country is in trouble (on so many fronts) NOW. And yet they are so consumed with positioning themselves for the big office they think they will inherit next year they refuse to lead today.
Well, that's not gonna work. This country--as has been shown by several elections--is split down the middle, electorate wise, between people who vote Republican and those who vote Democratic. And, barring some unusual competence by one side or the other, neither of those factions is going to move toward the other.
Bush's incompetence gave the Democrats a big chance in 2006. They could have seized the day. Instead, they tried to seize the future. But that is much more elusive and unpredictable, and in any case, you can't get the future unless you act today.
I'm not saying Democrats can't expand their majorities or even win the presidency next year. I'm saying they have to start acting as if they realize that more than their own narrow future political fortunes are at stake in what they are doing RIGHT NOW. Only that sort of civic mindedness will convince the future that they are the right choice.
The country wants the war to end; the country is sick of rights violations; the country wants health care; the country wouldn't mind it if our nation was not an international pariah. All of this is documented by many, clear polls. It doesn't take electoral courage to show leadership on these issues. What it takes is a realization--evidently a light-bulb moment for these people--that they are being asked to lead, and not simply run for office.
-
Oh, please...
The polarizing charge will turn out to have actual "legs" and be a very tangible hurdle for Dems to overcome. Just look at how Her Imperial Majesty has managed to polarize we Democrats...
She's waffled on Iraq (to put it in the most charitable light); she can't or won't admit that she was wrong on the vote for war; she's either very gullible or very cunning (in the pejorative sense) with her vote on Kyl-Lieberman; and her take on special interest monies is blithe at best and simply antithetical to (little d) democratic values at worst.
Yes, yes, oh Defenders of the Clinton Faith, I know there's a semi-plausible rationalization for each of these points and, frankly, as a yellow dog Dem myself, I'd vote for her if forced into it. But many Americans simply won't (or will recognize these self-serving rationalizations for what they are) and-- particularly if given a palatable alternative (and if Shrub could be packaged by the GOP machine as palatable, who amongst the current pack of righty candidates could not?)-- would vote otherwise.
As far as I can tell, she's come this far on name recognition and because most voters aren't paying close attention yet. It certainly isn't because of her Democratic values.