Letters to the Editor
-
Disenfranchisement vs. Following The Rules...
Before we go throwing around this disenfranchisement bit, lets get one thing straight...
ALL of the Democratic candidates signed a pledge that they would following the National DNC's lead on this issue of what state goes first...MI and FL ignored that threat, and they got what they deserve...the only folks that should be upset are the Dems. in those states whose party heads let that happen, despite warnings from DNC national. So for Hillary to start claiming those votes should count is shear bullshit, and you Hillary supporters know it...if the tables were turned and Obama was bitching about it, you would suddenly feel very differently about this issue, wouldn't you?
2ndly, everyone needs to get off of this caucus-hating shit...Hillary knew about those state rules months ago, and any idiot with some campaigning sense would have figured out how to deal with that issue. She may win the state by 3-4%, but she will lose the caucus by a much larger margin...and she'll lose it fair and square, there's no need to be moaning about it now.
Finally, this crap about Hillary being more important because she can win the big states is also a load...those are states that will (except for TX) go Democratic anyway...a goddamn yellow-dog could be running against McCain in Nov., and the yellow-dog would win those states, practically by default. You're flipping the Red State arguement on it's head, yet you're still missing the big point: Obama has appeal in Red States that Hillary will NEVER have, mostly because of who she is and because a lot of people just don't like her. Hell, I don't like her any more, because she would rather destroy the party in the process of losing the nomination...
Again, this all boils down to the winning-at-all-costs-nevermind-the-consequences attitude of the Hillary campaign. If she some how swindles the nomination, I'll gladly watch her choke on it in Nov.