Letters to the Editor
-
If Obama was winning at all costs, you would be cheering him on.
When did an election become "not winning at all costs." If a man were doing this, they would say...."Obama pulls out all stops to win" Rah Rah....rah......
This is just another way of the press demeaning the run of Hillary Clinton and continuing to try and denegrate her in the
public eye. Obama is trying to win at all cost also, it's just the sun shining off the mountain of St. Obama has blinded all his followers to what is going on behind the scenes. The newspapers in Illinois this morning carried stories of
the 11 superdelegates in Illnois that are calling superdelegates to bring them on board for Obama. The strategy being forged by Senator Dick Durbin and others is to try and
get Hillary to pull out if she doesn't have enough delegates after Texas and Ohio and not wait for the PA primary where they are afraid Gov Rendle will bring in a landslide for her.
Last night the cable networks were pushing the story that a gang of 5 has formed lead by Al Gore to try and keep the party from not being fractured before the November election. Which is code for, let's keep Clinton from winning whatever it takes. The Clinton campaign this morning said they are not doing anything any different than Obama and his people and are angered by the stories that the press is spinning. I have yet to find a Clinton supporter that plans to vote for Obama and
this continued trashing of a candidate is what is splintering the party not Hillary Clinton.
-
Bring It On, Hil
The pledged delegates who are willing to change their vote (not many; unlike super delegates these are grass-roots activists who take this responsibility seriously) and the super delegates will vote for the candidate who emerges from the last state contest in June with the most pledged delegates.
The candidate who accepts the nomination in August will be the candidate who emerges from the last state contest in June with the most pledged delegates.
The candidate who carries the Democratic banner into the general election will be the candidate who works the hardest for the next three months to win the most votes and delegates in the remaining primary states.
And that person will, therefore, have earned the Democratic nomination, and will, therefore, be the best Democratic candidate, by definition.
Everything else is bullshit.
-
Notorious WES
Notorious WES: "If Obama has 50 more delegates than Hillary and doesn't immediately offer her the V.P. slot, he's destroying the democratic party."
Is there some reason you're spewing one nonsense post after another?
Are you trying to make Clinton supporters look brain damaged?
-
paul
There you go. Everyone for Hillary, and Hillary herself, are all dishonest. Who sounds like scooter and elephantman?
-
Desperation is Good...
It means she's losing.
As I've said before, she's going down in flames, and she knows it.
She's so convinced that she is OWED the presidency, like some sort of birthright, that she's clawing at it as it slips away, determined to do anything to save her dream, even as it fades away.
It's getting hilarious, actually, watching all the desperate tactics she's trying.
Attacking Obama's speeches
Trying to subvert democracy
Sending her husband out to fight her battles
Stealing delegates
Fake crying scenes
What's next? Is she going to claim she got Castro to step down? Will she personally find Obama bin Laden? Start hacking at voting machines one by one with her nail file? Have a sex change and go for the male vote? Start wearing blackface?
I'm just waiting for the next ridiculous pandering ploy from Hillaryland, because each one means they're even more desperate than before, and that's a good sign for those of us who want to see an electable candidate on the Democratic ticket.
-
Hillary Is Fighting
Because she wants the democratic party to win in November. She thinks she's better suited to accomplish that, and once again short of someone with 2025, it is her duty to fight.
I suspect she thinks the Obama traveling faith-healing-tent show will collapse in the general.
-
I thought it was a well worded memo,
but I still don't see clear evidence that Politico's story about stealing pledged delegates is actually true. Why is everyone assuming it is? Seems like everyone just believes it because they want to - even though Politico's reputation has never exactly been ... clean.
The Clinton campaign denied the charge outright, and unless Politico has a memo or e-mail instead of just a behind-the-scenes whisper, I see no reason to get all bent out of shape over a rumor about what tactics a campaign is considering regarding a purely hypothetical future scenario. Jeesh, people. This is the sort of on-background "journalism" that has kept the Bush propaganda machine churning for years. We should not be supporting it now. It's always wrong, no matter whose side you're on.
-
@gabbyone
If Obama was winning at all costs, you would be cheering him on.
Not true, Gabbyone. If Obama were in Clinton's situation, he'd already be out of the race.
It's only because Clinton's CLINTON(tm) that it's even gone this far. Obama wouldn't have a nuclear option to use, because he's not Clinton(tm). He hasn't been bucking the DNC; Clinton has. So, your attempt to reverse it falls flat. Obama's not been winning at all costs; rather, he's simply been winning. He lacks the means to win at all costs, just as Clinton apparently lacks the means to win in the field, which is why she's opting to win at all costs, trying to game the system, Clinton-style.
-
@gabbyone
gabbyone: "When did an election become 'not winning at all costs'?"
Ummmmmm...........Watergate?
-
It was funny when it was GWB
It bothers me that this column does seem to have lost some journalistic impartiality as the democratic primaries have progressed (regressed?).
But I guess I never came here for real news in the first place just two fisted responses to the GOP propaganda machine. It was funny then. I am not sure it is funny now. Like Krugman says today, I am starting to get a bad feeling about this.
-
@ gabbyone
I think maybe you misunderstand, the issue at hand is not about wooing superdelegates, but about trying to get pledged delegates, you know, the ones you win by winning a primary or caucus, to switch their votes at the convention.
Besides I think you're mistaken I think a lot of Obama supporters would be disappointed to learn that he'd behaved this way.
Also, being an election this is more about perception than reality. Outside of us Salon readers/letter writers who I assume are pretty well informed compared to the rest of America, you have to ask, irregardless of the realities of hardcore politicking which I expect all the candidates to engage in, how will the REST of the electorate perceive this news? The issue isn't whether HRC is doing it or not, or whether it is right or wrong. That won't be decided in a letters column. The issue is how will this information affect the election?