Letters to the Editor
-
@AKA Smith
You talk about damage ...
I think Clinton really damages herself with some of the actions she undertakes. For example, her major speech on the housing crisis - and chooses to include Alan Greenspan as part of the solution.
That's a serious mis-step.
Greenspan and his rate drops pretty much resulted in the nation going all hog-wild with credit. Much of which I think relates to a lot of the problems with the mortgage industry today.
Her votes to allow Bush to invade Iraq? I'm pretty sure Hutman didn't tell her to do that.
-
Smith: Youth vote considered
If Obama is president, man, he'll change the weather, and we'll, like, have perfect tubes forever! I'm so stoked! I was going to vote in the primary, you know, but then I forgot I wasn't registered, and then I had to score, but then the polls were closed. Did you see the lastest Warren Miller, man? I was so stoked.
Youth have yet to rock the vote in any general election. We will see, but it is entirely possible that with slightest shift in the wind, their attention will be elsewhere in November.
Well, I suppose my mighty sarcasm is in reality quite puny. The whole point of that screed was illustrate that the dude was too spaced to register to vote. Whether or not the youth vote shows up or stays home, that dude piece is tabloid. If I want tabloid, I can stick with the Drudge report, who faithfully executes in that genre.
And I agree that some people are not going to vote for Hillary because she is a woman. That includes men and women. Some people are not going to vote for Obama because of his skin color. Just like some people are never going to vote for the democratic candidate. I don't think we should let the tail wag the dog. For whatever reason, it looks like the younger folks are politically roused, I think its going to talk more than a little breeze for them to cool off.
Then: Don't trust anyone over 30
Now: Don't trust anyone under 60
-
@Uncle Fester
Yes, but the Nagourney/War Room story is a telling one.
First, I recall the headline from War Room said something like 'Nagourey: Clinton could win'
Clicking on it then led to 'Nagourney: "At least one scenario where Clinton could win"'
But reading the story, the article is actually titled, 'Obama poll collapse may be Clinton's best hope'
And I'm not the only one who notes this. I'm sure if you sift through the letters about his Salon story, you'll find other's who've noted the same.
In getting to the actual story, one had to sift through two Salon links, filled with biases that are not actually present in the actual article.
Of course as readers we are drawn to it. I'd say this is probably the single most important US Election to-date. That's precisely what bothers me. That Joan Walsh and her cohorts are using that need to know as an attempt to both -
1) Inject their bias (conscious or otherwise)
2) Use our need to know by being deliberately controversial in order to spike readership and web traffic.
Yes, I know, with each letter I type, I contribute to the problem. But it comes from frustration more than anything else.
-
From the Huffington post on the race-baiting.
HuffPo is harding a Clinton-favorable site:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/14/michelle-obama-reinforces_n_81318.html?load=1&page=2
It was Michelle Obama who tried to reframe Bill Clinton's fairy tale remark referring to Obama's war opposition to being one that characterized Obama's entire campaign. Clinton never did that and it is a lie to say that he did.
-
MVP: Greenspan
I concurr about Greenspan.
I still remember Greenspan giving that bogus advice that homeowners should switch to adjustable rate mortgages (ARMs). He waited until rates fell to their lowest before he offered this advice, and then he failed to note that it was likely that rates had bottomed out and that future rate increases were much more likely than decreases. How did that turn out? I'm not sure I want to put this guy in charge of cleaning up the mess he helped create.
It's also interesting to note that Greenspan has never renounced his perference for some type of gold standard, though he may be on to something with that one, given how the Fed has hosed everything.
Hillary had some pretty scary stuff to say about Greenspan (IMHO)
He has a calming influence still to this day on Wall Street—don't ask me why because I never understand what he's saying [emp added] — but nevertheless people respond to that Delphic oracle approach. I think it would be wise to include him. And recently he's come out, and very smartly so, that we have to deal with housing and maybe we need to have some kind of buyout mechanism for mortgages. So he's moved on his understanding and depth of the problem— but you know you could pick three others. You just have to have some demonstrable involvement of presidential leadership.
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2008/03/hillary_clinton_can_not_think.html
-
Reality Wes et. al cannot face
If the superdelegates give Hillary a huge, from behind comeback at the convention, it will wreck the Democratic Party.
If Michigan and/or Florida are given their delegates, against the rules, in a move seen to crown Hillary, it will wreck the Democratic Party.
If Hillary pulls 70-80% of the vote in the final 10, all bets are off. Otherwise the game is over, or the party is over. Dean is smarter than to wreck the party. FL and MI stand as is, rejected, and Obama will need far less superdelegates to win.
He will get them. He only will need likely a third or less, who are smart enough to not overturn the popular vote, the delegate count, and the state count, i.e. - the popular will by every measure we have.
Hillary will need practically all the remaining superdelegates, which she could only get through a bizarre cult ritual of hundreds of zombie followers. She is finished. She has gotten all of them she's going to get unless she starts winning big, and the fat lady is past clearing her throat on that.
Anyone who's not totally just a sheltered little weenie knows that black pastors can get a little crazy sometimes with the paranoia. Well, guess what, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you! If you didn't grow up there, in his neighborhood, you can't understand the depth of paranoia associated with his normal daily life.
It's Republicans who will get all upset about Barack's pastor, for chrissakes, not rank and file Dems. The uptight types, who never did trust those black folks too much anyway, will continue to vote their distrust. We don't need them this time. You'll see.