Letters to the Editor
-
Curious . . .
. . . . what will the Obamaniacs do, after Hillary finally gets the nominations? Despite all this doom mathematics and character assassination initiatives the party knows that at the end only Hillary can win the GE and will act upon that knowledge (completely supported by all pols, BTW)
What will the Obamaniacs do?
It will be interesting to see.
-
yes it is curious..
I wonder what us "obamaniacs" would do if Hillary won the nomination...hmmm...that IS a toughie.
*scratches head*
It's a shame the Philip K Dick is dead, I'm sure he'd have some interesting ideas (maybe the I Ching would make an appearance?)...after all that scenario is so absurd that it belongs in the realm of Science Fiction...
hmmmm...
-
How low will she go?
Some years ago I was offered some insight into politicians of the Clinton ilk by a longtime PA political figure, known for his easy-going demeanor which masked his engagement in dirty, low-down hardcore politics. He stated: no matter how low you go, they will always go lower. Crassness has no limits in the minds of some.
I also have spoken to good friends who have worked closely with the Clintons. Their perspective to a person: they are far too much work, and it isn't worth it. Too much about them; too little about us. Frankly, they make me tired, not inspired.
Their remarks and their strategy are so laden with innuendo of race and class and divisiveness reflective of all that has divided the Democratic Party. They have played the us against them strategy in a manner from which the party might never recover.
I have talked to many of all races who have stated they cannot vote for Clinton. They are well educated. They understand what is at stake. Their position is that they will be no worse off with McCain than they are with Clinton. It is akin to suing the debtor who has no money, and therefore is judgment proof. Sure, they'd prefer a Democrat, but Clinton crossed a line from which some believe there is no return. They have no trust that Clinton will actually DO what she states vis-a-vis the war, education, the economy. People watch and listen.
The Clintons believe they will be able to stitch back the fabric of the party after ripping it to shreds. I think they are as wrong about this as they were about the entire black electorate and the white educated "elite" following their lead. In other words, their logic is limited, old school, divisive and ...perverse...Polls are reflective of a heartfelt desire among many to heal, not hinder.
One final point, albeit OT (sorry): So much of what we are experiencing in choosing a candidate is reflective of the professional white female versus professional black female divide, the focus on the white working class female vote nothwithsatnding. You know, for years the party talked only about the "soccer moms," code for white suburban women. They are still chasing a variant of that demographic.
Obama's brilliant strategy has been to actually COUNT ALL votes, to look at the entire electoral map, not just the big states, to examine closely the rules and to actually register the value of the caucus process. In doing so, he has emeged with the lead. How clever: an American strategy.
Clinton will likely carry PA, but I believe that Obama will do better than polls show today. He has not yet begun campaigning here, and there is a great sense of expectancy. Stay tuned.
-
@ red_gti2000
Also, the fact that -- _years_ ago -- [McCain] advocated for 2 critical things:
1. Place more restrictions on the activities of lobbyists in Washington.
2. Force all candidates for public office to rely exclusively on public funds for their campaigns.
The only way this country can achieve _real_ political change is by removing money from the political equation. _That_ is change you can believe in. Everything else is just talk.
I completely and wholeheartedly agree. That's one of the main reasons I support Obama. According to the latest financial disclosures, 94% of Obama's contributions last month were from people giving $200 or less. Only 13% of John McCain's total contributors gave $200 or less, and 70% of his contributions have been in the amount of $1000 or more. Obama has refused to accept any contributions from lobbyists or PACs, while Mr. Straight Talk has been taking them with a rictus grin on his face. It seems to me like the person who's going to have more luck restricting the activities of lobbyists in Washington is probably going to be someone who hasn't taken a dime from them.
McCain might have advocated for those two things "years ago," but he's certainly changed his tune since then. He's gone from the "Straight Talk Express" to the "Just Talk Express."
-
Obama will win the election unless
the Clinton-aholics all vote McCain.
They might, because many are completely bamboozled by Hillary.
"the party knows that at the end only Hillary can win the GE and will act upon that knowledge"
They say stuff like this in and don't even laugh.
Let's be clear - Democrats vote for the Democrat. If you vote McCain, you vote against unions, you vote against choice, you vote for corporations, you vote for 100 years in Iraq, you vote for war with Iran.
If you will say "I dislike Obama enough to vote against choice, to vote for 100 years in Iraq, to vote in favor of war with Iran, to vote against unions, to vote against public schools, and to vote enthusiastically for 4 more years of Bush."
If you can say that, vote McCain and be my guest.
-
@ red_gti2000
So, you are a McCain democrat.
Will you say, as your oath of McCain Democrat status, that you want to end choice and are pro-life? If so, say that. John McCain is pro-life and will end choice.
Are you pro-corporation and anti-worker? If so, say that.
Are you opposed to public schools?
Are you in favor of tax cuts for the rich?
Have you been happy with Bush? McCain is 4 more years. Remember that when McCain is elected, ALL the Bush policies are vindicated.
Every single Bush policy will be set in stone at that point.
Any one stupid enough to vote for McCain is not a Democrat.