Letters to the Editor
-
Here's a tip: TiVo doesn't work into the future
I keep trying to fast forward past all this uncertainty.
I suspect Mr. Smooth himself is quietly relaxing. Hillary is probably knocking one back, talking to McCain on the phone.
-
Volvo liberal?
I haven't heard that term in fifteen years. Who is this dinosaur that you're quoting?
-
I don't know much about the rest of NH
.. but my father-in-law lives in Rochester and I am extremely surprised at Clinton beating anyone in that area.. Rochester, Somersworth, Dover... very surprised.
-
Codgers for Clinton?
With 59% reporting, Clinton's leading at 39% to Obama's 37%. The median age in NH is ~40 years, so odds are Clinton's edge with the oldsters might be reaping some dividends. Maybe it really is sunset again in America.
-
Props to Clinton
I give her terrific props to saving herself in NH. Even if Obama pulls out a win of a couple of percentages, Clinton still wins just by defeating expectations.
If she pulls off the democratic nomination, I guarantee that emotional moment will be seen as the moment that saved her candidacy.
That being said, I still want Obama to win.
-
HIllary!
I still haven't made up my mind who I'll vote for, but tonight I'm cheering on Hillary. Go Girl. (I totally understood the tears, and I am tired of the deeply entrenched sexism in our culture...Rush Limbaugh be damned!)
-
Hooray, it's still a horse race
Gee, perhaps the media won't get to decide the race for us, after all.
-
It's a media disease
Most of media are made up of Clinton-haters. Why? Because media are essentially conservative, and the Clintons have angered the republicans and conservatives more than other democrats. That's a rough sketch, but you won't make much headway denying it. Just recently, it was discovered, much to the embarrassment of the C-Span channels, that they were getting 3 times as much source material for their coverage from conservative forces, as they were from liberal sources. I wasn't surprised, but I asked myself, how far to the right must the commerical channels be. Far. I'm also not surprised that media are making all the same mistakes and engaging in all the same nonsense about Hillary, now that she's won, stunningly, in New Hampshire. Consider, that media are by and large talking about Hillary "squeaking" by Obama. They know better; they're simply lying. They dislike Hillary so much, they can't tell the truth about her. Hillary did not squeak by Obama, she massacred him. The vote totals shown to the public were an admixture of democratic "and" independent votes; allowed in the NH primaries. If only the democratic votes are tallied, Hillary's victory over Obama doubles. These are democrats, after all, aren't they? But media would rather speak of her victory, without making the difference in this election clear to the general voter. Why? Because the truth makes her victory twice what it is in the newspapers. There is this nonsense about Hillary "tearing," which is being used to explain a vote reverseal of the polls, of staggering proportions. Hillary "didn't" cry, her eyes teared, and not only media, pundits, newspapers, but even her husband, bought the argument that this tear episode "explained" a 10 to 15 vote reversal of poll predictions.