Letters to the Editor
-
various
"Every single donor who is a signatory to the blackmail note sent to Pelosi should be publicized, named out right. We have a right to know who the fat cats are that are trying to exert undue influence on this election."
yes, because of course we all know the only "fat cats" trying to exert "undue" influence are Clinton people. Of course. Obama has white-winged angels calling from above singing hymns and strumming harps into the ears of superdelegates. He is, after all, Obama.
"it shows how unelectable Clinton is"
except of course the difference between Clinton-McCain and Obama-McCain is within the margin of error for both. Which means they are at the exact same spot in terms of "electability". But what the hell, who cares about facts?
"That's why he's favored over McCain, and Hillary isn't."
And again. Would you people please learn to read a poll? The margin of difference on that poll was over 3 percent. Neither Obama nor Clinton are farther than 3 percent from McCain. There is no statistical difference between the two. And that's at this singular moment in time. When Hillary had her worst week in a while due to the Bosnia deal and Obama had his much-lauded speech. Take the poll before Bosnia and just after Wright and guess what, Hillary would be "up" by two points. Take it after she wins PA and who knows. Take it after more deaths in Iraq in Basra etc. and McCain goes down. The poll is meaningless. It's meaningless first because it's being taken now. And it's meaningless second because the three are in the same statistical spot.
Oh even better. If you actually, you know, read the poll, you'll also see they "over-sampled" african-americans. Hmm, let's see, african-americans vote for Obama monolithically at about 85 percent. Hmm, could that possible skew results at all . . .Nope, obviously not.
"That clearly hasn't provided you enough insight into politics"
A little ironic from someone who can't read a political poll
"She has not persuaded the party to get behind her;"
Why yes, she has only, you know, persuaded more Democratic voters. Clearly she can be dismissed as not persuading the party. In other startling insights, night is day, black is white, and dogs love cats.
" Give in to the phenomenal ego of the Clinton political establishment"
Yes, luckily Obama has no ego. It certainly wouldn't be egotistical to run for President based on a single speech and the reaction to it. In other Obama news, he's smarter than Einstein, more humble than Christ, and emits no bodily fluids.
"Clinton coronation crew"
Interesting perspective. Accusing the group that wants everyone to vote as the coronators as opposed to the group that want to name their candidate the nominee despite not everyone voting and despite him not getting the required delegates. In other such accusations, the family of Chapman accused Lennon of being a killer, Ken Lay called his shareholders "thieves", and Dick Cheney accused anyone of being an as-hole.
"If they want to abandon the party, then go! "
wise advice, telling a majority of the party to leave. Also, sell low and buy high, vote for Eliot Spitzer, and ignore that radiation symbol.
"I thought she was the tough one"
so the one fighting on despite incredibly low odds is less tough than the one saying she should just quit so he can stop having to fight? Interesting.
"If she wins it, fine; I'll vote for her. Even if Senator Obama holds the lead in pledged delegates and popular vote. I'll support her even though I disrespect every aspect of her campaign. Even after her supporters have called me every name under the sun. Can you say the same?"
short answer? Yes.
"Does the ideology and philosophy of the party mean nothing? Are Clinton supporters willing to give Republicans additional SCOTUS justices, more war, less choice, no health care plan at all, because Hillary Clinton was treated rough?
Are you a Democrat or a Clintocrat?"
The difference between the percentages of supporters from either side who say they will vote for McCain is relatively small and has seesawed back and forth in terms of who has said so more. So shouldn't you be asking this of both sides?
"it is highly unlikely that she will catch Obama on any other meaningful metric"
except of course, you know, actual Democratic voters. But hey, how meaningful can they be in a Democratic nomination process.
-
Sometimes I am even amazed
This letter is ridiculous.
HRC has publicly stated that everyone should be heard from and that the super delegates and the regular non pledged delegates are under no obligation to vote as their constituency has voted. This is correct as far as the rules go, but it is not correct as far as letting the voice of the people be heard. So in one breath she says do not subvert the will of the people, but subvert the will of the people (to my gain).
A few points:
Primaries and Caucuses are not a right. They are not part of the Constitution.
Why has the press so far given HRC a pass on this obvious double speak?
So 20 big name donors have decided that they may not get any ROI for choosing HRC over BHO. Sorry guys and gals but thats how the chips fall and to insinuate that you are owed something because you have donated in the past (with DONATE being the operative word) is beyond the pale.
Power brokers throwing a fit. You can tell a lot about a person by the people who are around them.
-
Campaig Finance Reform
This is good. Big money guiding the electorate. Now is the time to get Campaign Finance Reform as one of the major issues to discuss in the run up to the nomination, as well as the General Election.
Wasn't McCain complicit in the McCain-Feingold limp reform? Gotta get this back to the front burner.
-
possible poll correction
In my response re the poll, I cited the poll's site (citeacite--sounds like a vitamin or health drink) as saying they "oversampled" african-americans, noting how that would skew results. Somebody now says they may have not explained themselves fully--without going into the polling science details, it's unclear if that would skew or not (maybe the site will clarify so it can re cited again--recite?). In any case, don't like leaving possibly bad info out there. Other objections still apply--mainly that it's meaningless. But beyond that, continue to cite it (the poll, not the cite)