Letters to the Editor
-
@gezelligtexas Hillary's time was 2004
but she chickened out, thinking, if she helped bush fuck up she'd be a shoo-in now. too bad. it gang agley.
-
@Notorious WES
Notorious WES: "You should thank me for doing short posts.....That prevents you from having to go through your normal ritual of pathologically quoting and responding to 25 points."
I always assumed you do the short posts because there's so little substance to your opinions.
-
You Know What Happens
When you assume.
-
Oh just what we need
A Democrat saying a Democrat can't win.
Fantastic. Curse the election, you moron, go ahead.
-
When you make an assumption...
...you make an "ass" out of "u" and "mption."
-
every once in a while, Silenced, you write poetry
Fantastic, Curse the election | you moron - go ahead.
-
electability
That worked real well in '04. President Kerry has done a fine job. Mark Penn, the strategic genius that has engineered Billary from a twenty point lead to a virtually insurmountable deficit, is the man we're supposed to believe about election outcomes. This particular Penn isn't mightier than a fresh steaming dump.
-
Becoming clearer and clearer
As some other posters have said, Clinton is actively knee-capping Obama so she has a shot in 2012 against McCain. That is to say, she's selling out women's reproductive rights for a generation (cf. coming supreme court changes if McCain is elected) so that she can lose again in 4 years rather than 8 years. What a lovely person.
-
"Obama's Gary Hart-Jesse Jackson coalition is untested in modern general elections"
What is this statement supposed to mean?
-
@ Michael Bowen
Michael Bowen: Just out of curiosity what does anyone expect this guy to say? ... He's saying what he's being paid to say, that's all.
Indeed. And what at least some of us are saying is: This is not newsworthy. So why the hell does Salon see fit to repeat a logic-defying press release from someone like Penn, if not to aid in the dissemination of that message?
And if that is their intent, then perhaps it is germane for us to dispute that message here.
You know, instead of working. ;-)
-
Unreasonable partisianship
There's a constituency (which I belong to) in this country that I think is being a little overlooked. That is, the people who are completely and utterly fed up with the red state vs. blue state mentality, Us vs. Them bullshit that modern politics has evolved into.
Personally, I look at the last 8 years under Bush and see an unmitigated disaster that will take years to recover from. Given that, we need new leadership that will encourage transparency instead of secrecy, partnership instead of partisianship, and rationalism over extremism.
With McCain, who I liked as a candidate 8 years ago, I see a man who is past his prime, who has kowtowed to the religous nut-jobs, and who embraces the administration that has dug the country into such a deep hole.
With Clinton, I see a woman who virtually personifies the hyper-partisianship of the last... what, 20? years. I worry because her campaign is rapidly becoming a train-wreck (due to clowns like Penn), and that makes me think her executive skills are lacking.
With Obama, I see a man who has demonstrated that he can work with both Democrats and Republicans, who's main premise is changing the atmosphere in government, who's campaign is steady and exceedingly well-run and, as evidenced by the depth and breadth of his fund-raising, has triggered an impressive grass-roots movement.
That makes the choice obvious for me. I do think that either Clinton or Obama could win in the general, but it's clear to me that the outcome would be much more positive with Obama.
-
@jebldmm
How does this differ...
...from Obama's people saying that if Clinton does not win "X", then she will not be able to win the primary? Or, for that matter, from Obama himself saying that Clinton will not be able to win the general election? This is just another pseudo-scandal where the media are being whipped into a frenzy by the Obama campaign's choice to spin something as dirty politics.
Well one is based on facts and polls, the other is apparently based on some delusion (or even disingenuousness).
-
Hillary Isn't Knee-Capping Obama
To win in 2012........She's knee-capping because it's 2008 and that's politics. That's the business they've chosen. Don't ask who gave the order. Because it has nothing to do with business.
It's been that way since the Founding Fathers. They were cut throat too, despite having acquired the legend of saintly angels.
-
Mark Penn is a total nimrod
His statement was so bad that Wolfson immediately tried to pretend he didn't say them. Enough said, I would imagine.
And when I say bad, I don't mean in a Ferraro/ Power kind of way. Not inappropriate, but inaccurate, illogical, and just plain stupid.
If Clinton can win PA in November, so can Obama. And if he can't, she can't either. The only difference between the two on this is that polls suggest that Obama doesn't desperately need to win PA against McCain to still be President.
And that's the big difference here: Every Clinton argument or rationale on how they are going to win the primary and become the nomineee is based on delusional, fantasy land thinking. Obama's reasoning is based on simple math.
(I will refrain completely from any of the real easy 'women can't do math' gags that spring to mind every time something like this comes up. I hope everyone else can do the same.)
-
A funny thing happened on the way to the Forum
Mark Penn is living is the 90s and I tink he has been a disaster fot the Clinton cmpaing. Are they delusional?
Obama is the LEADER in this race. Hillary's big state wins were NOT BY BIG MARGINS.
A funny thing happened on the way to the forum. At the beginning of the campaign my book reading group (all women) had a discussion about Hillary and her run; who we liked and who we would support. I was the only woman in the group who was in the Obama camp, and they were all surprised because I am the older feminist. Some undecided between Obama and Edwards, Some split between Obama and Hillary, and some Hillary supporters. The week before the CA vote most had fallen into the Obama side, but those who voted for Hillary early by mail regretted it. We had not discussed it since.
Last night we discussed the campaign briefly, and even those who had voted for Hillary agreed they would love to see Hillary get out of the race as they feel the divisions are hurting the party. As one women said, I'm not sure which face she will put on today. Most have quit watching as they cannot stand it any more. All agreed that if Hillary is the candidate we can count on McCain to be our next president.