Letters to the Editor
-
counting clinton out energizes her supporters
this has happened repeatedly in this election.
if, before pennsylvania, there's a big chorus of people saying that clinton is done and should drop out of the race, it will drive up her numbers in the actual vote.
whether justifiably or not, clinton supporters think she gets a raw deal in the press, and they'll see this as more of the same, simply adding fuel to their competitive fire. it's a great turn-out-the-vote motivator.
-
@Reality-based Liberal
Exactly what I've said. The meme was repeated ad nauseam, so people ended up believing it. The fact that Obama's camp used it early on allowed me to see him back then for what he has turned out to be in reality -- just another pol. So, was Obama considering the "good of Democratic Party" when he used it? Or was he just thinking about himself? People will argue that he was "rescuing" the party from Clinton's doomed candidacy. Pretty self-serving, that argument. Reinforce a prejudice created by the Republican party for one's own ends. Hypocrisy is so subtle, most people don't see it even when it's staring them in the face. A pol is a pol is a pol.
And since obama's followers love comparing him to Lincoln, I will remind them of another one of the wisdoms attributed to Lincoln: "You can fool all of the people some of the time, you can fool some of the people all of the time -- but you can't fool all of the people all of the time."
Obama's time came late in the campaign. So Hillary loses the nomination. Big deal. He's still a treasonous hypocrite in my book.
-
@Reality-based Liberal
This is only an endorsement if you assume, as you seem to be, that being an experience "commander-in-chief" is essential to being President. Clinton did not at any time say that she wanted McCain as President. A lot of people have said nice things aobut Clinton, McCain, or Obama without "endorsing" them. You can't have it both ways: either experience is the single most important factor in choosing a President, in which case Clinton's words do essentially amount to an endorsement of McCain over Obama, or experience is secondary, in which case Clinton's words do not amount to an endorsement, only a comparison of a single character required by a President.
-
Hillary will destroy the party before she lets Obama win
http://www.counterpunch.org/stclair03242008.html
Here is her sorry history.
I am resigned to the fact that Hillary will slash and burn the party. I expect nothing less from her.
When that happens, there will be a huge revolt. So be ready for whatever falls out of that. There will be seismic shifts in all directions. McCain has already neutralized the christian coalition, Hillary is more in bed with him than her party, and Obama has galvanized the progressive wing which will not allow Hillary trickery to get in the way.
Actually, I am no longer feeling sad about what Hillary is going to wrought. Let the games begin. Let's see how the party, that is showing signs of moving back to its original charter will react. Viva America.
Do read the above column to get a taste of the Clinton machine.
-
Who won Texas?
pardon me, but hasn't he already won Vermont, Mississippi, Wyoming, and Texas
If you mean win by receiving more delegates while losing the popular vote, sure Obama "won" Texas as he "won" Nevada.
The problem is the win is even more tainted than Bush's 2000 "win"
-
@Brian Lupiani
Fear not... the "JEB" in my name has nothing to do with your "Jeb". It's an acronym that shall remain personal.
-
Delegates vs Popular vote
Count the Delegates: Right or Wrong, isn't that how the DNC defines winning?
-
winners and losers aren't chosen in the early 4th quarter
"pardon me, but hasn't he already won Vermont, Mississippi, Wyoming, and Texas??"
I don't think Wyoming and Miss were AFTER Wisconsin but if either were, then fine. I knew he won Vermont on the day Hillary won Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island. He did not "win" Texas, of course. Hillary won the primary by over 100K votes, as more than a million people voted. Then 45,000 of them came BACK, AND VOTED AGAIN in a caucus system that fell apart in chaos. I like the democratic notion that we only vote once per election, don't you? It took 22,000 voters in the Texas primary to win a single delegate; the people who came back to vote a second time that day needed only 1800 people to win an equal delegate. Not the democratic model I've ever been told about.
I will say this, though. Of course neither you nor I know how the remaining contests will come out, or what if anything will be done about Florida, but I will support in June the person with the lead in the actual popular vote. The candidate who ends up with the most Democrats voting for him/her is the one our Party should choose. I wish Obama supporters could bring themselves to agree.
-
Huh?
The problem is the win is even more tainted than Bush's 2000 "win"
Care to tell us how, or was that just another creative use of Clintonite hyperbole? I didn't see the Texas supreme court declare any winners. All I saw was a bunch of Democrats at our local elementary school caucusing for Obama, and him winning Texas according to the rules.
-
@jebldmm
Keep splittin' those hairs! Anyway you slice it Hillary said that America needs a president who "is ready on 'Day One'". She went on to say that is either Her or McCain. To support Obama, she would have to explain away her statement that electing Obama is not in America's best interest.
-
@doc
The candidate who ends up with the most Democrats voting for him/her is the one our Party should choose. I wish Obama supporters could bring themselves to agree.
I'm an Obama supporter, so I'm already doing that.
-
More of the same unfair reporting...
The press needs to state the situation like it is -- NEITHER Obama nor Clinton is likely to win the nomination the traditional way, by amassing the magic number of elected delegates and both need the support of a large majority of the superdelegates, none of whom is legally bound (or, in fact, morally bound) to vote for ANY candidate, and all of whom, in fact, are charged with the task of electing the best Democratic candidate for the nomination as they see it. The existing rules of the Democratic party DO NOT provide for the candidate who has amassed the MOST popular votes or the MOST delegates to win the nomination. They provide instead for the candidate who amasses 2,024 delegates to win. No more and no less. And since neither of the front runners is likely to get that number without superdelgates, each is entitled to make their best case to this audience to win their support and the nomination.
Isn't that an accurate statement of the existing state of facts?
If the numbers were reversed, you can rest assured that the press would NOT be crowing that OBama lacked the ability to win the nomination. They would be focused instead on Hillary's inability to get to the magic number and would be applauding Obama's drive to win the superdelegate vote.