Letters to the Editor
-
Billcap, you are not a racist!
I mean, there is no basis for saying you're a racist. As far as I know.
More to the point, I haven't called you a racist. Read my posts. You have called me an ass, which is OK.
Here we have candidate who holds the lead. His opponent suggests that he accept the Vice-Presidency, and many suggest that he step aside. As Tom Daschle pointed out, that may be a first in the long history of Presidential campaigns. What is the logic.
You say it's not race. But your alternative, age, doesn't hold up--Obama is not that young, and Clinton is not too old to run again. Others say, it's experience. But our experience with Clinton is mostly bad: war, Patriot Act, etc. Others say: it's the caucus system. But we've always had caucuses, even when Bill Clinton was elected. Why aren't they any good this year? Finally people say, it's not about numbers. Who cares if Obama has the lead. But aren't elections, and democracy, ultimately about numbers? Wouldn't Hillary claim victory if she got just one vote more?
Sorry, but this discussion reminds me of the history of denying blacks the right to vote. It was never about directly denying the vote. It was poll taxes. It was grandfather clauses. It was a thousand technicalities.
Black voters, young voters, pick your category, don't owe the Clintons a damned thing, and certainly not the nomination.
Why can't Clinton simply win the nomination like Obama is trying to do?