Letters to the Editor
-
maisieslim asked...
...what is "tarring?" This refers to a traditional and humiliating community method of dealing with a miscreant: covering him with tar and feathers (and then riding him out of town on a rail). The tar, a sticky black substance, is extremely hard to remove from the skin and clothing, and marks the wearer as an outcast and an undesirable.
On the subject of Senator Clinton winning the nomination: it become clearer with each passing day that she is sticking (like tar) to the fantastical notion that she can win because it satisfies her sense of destiny and her right to redress of the many grievances inflicted upon her during her husband's presidency.
Unfortunately, it now appears that Senator Clinton is willing to bring down the Democratic party this year in pursuit of what she feels is owed her by fate and by her own husband.
The super delegates need to intervene now, following the lead of Gov. Richardson, and put an end to this miserable chapter in the Clintons' history.
-
@jedlmnn
"Do you really believe that the right wing won't be able to figure out that McCain has more experience than Obama?"
Gee, you must think that we are idiots or something. OF COURSE, the repukeliscum will use that tactic. But now McCain can say "even other Democrats don't think you're ready." It's just a more supported argument.
In comparison to McCain, neither Hillary nor Barack have experience. In today's world, that's a TREMENDOUS problem for McCAIN, because experienced wingnutnaziwacks have TOTALLY screwed the pooch in this administration.
-
the last 10 states deserve the right to weigh in
it's gonna be a long month before the next vote watching the campaigns -- and supporters here -- lob bombs at each other. (i'm sure i'll catch a couple today).
anyway, we'll see how it's looking after everyone has voted, which is the way the process is supposed to work. declaring the election over before it's actually finished is doing an injustice to the voters in the remaining states.
for those caught up in math, justice and respecting the will of the voters, they need to remember that the process isn't that some states vote and then we rush to judgement about who the nominee should be before the voting is over -- no matter how urgently they want to settle on a nominee and square off against the republicans.
there will be several months to battle mccain after the dust settles in the democrat's race.
-
@doc5467
That's called spin, my friend.
Spin this one: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/democratic_presidential_nomination-191.html#charts
Hillary peaked last fall and has oscillated around 45% ever since. Not bad, but not quite good enough.
Also, these national polls are largely meaningless, in terms of picking a nominee. They are also largely meaningless in terms of predicting the winner next November. Two months ago, Obama was polling at 25% in the Dem race. Last September, McCain and Huckabee, the last men standing for the GOP, polled at 15% between the two (McCain under 11, Huck at 4.5). Things change.
I don't have a big problem with Hillary hanging in there for awhile longer. There's some benefit with keeping the hate machine tied up with two targets. But it would be good to get things tied up ahead of the convention.
-
Unelectable versus Unqualified
The Obama campaign (Obama himself maybe) said that Clinton was unelectable because of the baggage she carries. But there was never any hint that she was not capable of doing the job. Especially compared to any Republican nominee.
Clinton said that McCain was more prepared to do the job than Obama is. This is breathtakingly anti-Democrat. This is saying that the Republican candidate is more qualified than the other Democrat. Really, there can be no justification for such a remark. It falls short of "endorsement," but it certainly helps McCain.
And when Obama's surrogates argued back in January that Clinton should not be the nominee because "half the country hates her, so she's unelectable" that was "just telling the truth", right?
Who turned traitor first?
Well, only one of them has "turned traitor." Only one of them has said something that will help the other party gain the White House.
Why do Clinton supporters spew such venom?
And no, I am NOT an Obama supporter. My chief concern is getting a Democrat into the White House. Either Clinton or Obama would be far superior to "Bomb Iran" boy. I hate all the work the Democrats are doing to help McCain into the White House.
-
blacktop and Political Realist Are Now On Record Also
If Obama loses the general, it is Hillary's fault.
-
Nomination is not decided
From my vantage point, Obama is desperately trying to keep his head above water. Rasmussen polls today show him trailing Hillary 46% to 44%. The Rev. Wright thing is a big deal and even if Obama can make his supporters forget about it, Hillary's supporters are not about to nor will McCain's.
Despite Richardson's endorsement which possibly kept Obama from drowning, Obama's claim to supremacy is out-sized and overstated nor do I think the nomination is decided.
-
My concern is this.
If/when Clinton wins PA, she'll get a renewed sense of "momentum" and then move on. It won't matter what everything else looks like. This is my problem, because she'll go to the convention then. No reason not to. All along the way she'll tear up Obama and try to claw her way into the nomination.
What I would like to see her do is run a pre-wisconsin campaign for the rest of the race. Tear up John McCain and the GOP. Put the focus back on them. REALIZE your chances of winning are now all but gone without a MI/FL re-vote and go back to a clean campaign.
This is better for Clinton, better for the nominee (Obama), better for the party, and better for November.
-
@ W.E.S.
Provided that Hillary drops out in the first week of June, once it becomes obvious that she lacks the popular or party support to become the Democratic nominee for president, then I wouldn't hold an Obama loss in November against her. Of course, if that happens, I don't think we'll see an Obama loss in November, but I think you and I are going to have to agree to disagree on that one until one of us is proven right.
But if she continues a pointless fight into the convention and/or takes action to undermine him after he wins the nomination, then I would definitely blame her in part for Obama's defeat. Of course, so wouldn't at least 75% of African-American voters, so her political career as a Democrat would effectively be over. So I don't think she'll do that. She's a survivor, if nothing else.