Letters to the Editor
-
Posturing?
Just shows who owns the Democratic Party. If Pelosi succumbs to this threat, then we know that the party is bought and owned by people with money. Hillary Clinton after all, has big money on her side, while Obama has run on nickle and dimes from his supporters. I just sent him a check.
Obama is not posturing to get Hillary Clinton out of the race. He is trying to prevent her from destroying the party.
-
Obama the Pure of Heart again
"Obama is not posturing to get Hillary Clinton out of the race. He is trying to prevent her from destroying the party."
Could we come up with some sort of limit for how many times Obama people can ascribe naught but purely holy/altruistic motives/methods etc. to Obama? You know, maybe say call him a saint twice, tell us again how he has no ego once, remind us of how he's in the race only to save us all three times. But cap the whole spiel at say a dozen such references a day? Or we could all grow up and admit that yes, Obama does posturing. And yes, Obama does politics. And yes, Obama does pressure. And yes, Obama has an ego. And yes, Obama does negative campaigning. And yes, Obama is, gasp, a politician. Double gasp.
and if he really wanted to "not destroy the party", why did he he even run? HIllary was leading by huge margins in all the polls, would have obviously waltzed to victory over the other candidates, would have had a ton of money and lots of time to run against McCain. So by running despite the polls showing HIllary would win and despite him having "almost no chance", he has "destroyed the party". Or once again, we could all grow up and deal with the fact that a campaign is a competition.
-
@billcap
First of all, you're twisting my words a bit. I didn't say Dem votes weren't a big deal, but I did try to say was that the issue of Dem votes was dampened by TX, OH, and MS...what with all the cross-overs for Hillary. I'm not even trying to say any of these arguments are incorrect; I'm just pointing out that the message and the bar keeps shifting for Hillary, if not directly from her campaign, certainly from her supporters. People have (and some continue) complained about Obama's cross-over votes, but those same people suddenly cheered cross-overs when they came to Clinton's aid.
I actually do think Dem voters are a big deal, but I also know we'll need independents to win in November. Besides, as a statistic, it is very hard to prove who the "real" Democrats are. Registrations are very easily changed, and past registrations don't have anything to do with today...I used to be a Libertarian (to my own shame), does that mean I'm not a "real" Democrat? Exit polling is a joke.
I TOTALLY agree that "losing" does not mean LOST and "very little" does not mean NOTHING. That's why I chose those words. It is possible that Hillary could win the nomination.
As for the personal destruction stuff, I'm just calling the kettle black. We all know politics is rough, but the Clintons have a funny way of breaking their opponents' noses and then charging them with assault.
Look, I'm probably as moderate as they come around here. I'm supporting Obama, but I would gladly vote for Hillary in November. I'm, frankly, more frustrated with the tenor of the campaigns (and, yes, mostly from the Clinton camp) than I am with the candidates themselves. Both should be more focused on influencing people toward themselves rather than away from each other, especially if they're serious about winning in November. The crowd Hillary's got to influence, even more so than voters, is the superdelegates. She's not doing a good job of that at the moment.
-
Billcap
whose big buck supporters are trying to blackmail the Democratic Party? The answer is the same as for the question, "who is primarily responsible for the descent of the campaign into slurs, slimes and kitchen sink emptying?". Obama himself made a point of saying how imperfect his campaign is. How humble would like a man of his attainment and intellect to be? House darkie? No one running for this office can, or should, be anything other than ambitious, focused, and driven. The key question is: is there a limit to that ambition. I wanted Edwards to be the nominee. Obama was my fallback candidate. But the more I see of him, the more he grows. It's not an illusion. I"ve been watching campaigns since I was a little boy, starting with the 1952 campaign. Barack is not messianic, and is completely human. I get it. We don't need a triangulator, a deal cutter, a DC imbued insider. Enough. we've been there. It did not work, and i will not work. For the hundredth time, I will vote for Hillary if it comes to that. No vote for any rethug at any level for the foreseeable future. Maybe ever. The actuarial table say I've got about four more presidential elections. I intend to vote Democratic for the duration.
-
Jerm
"you're twisting my words a bit. I didn't say Dem votes weren't a big deal, but I did try to say was that the issue of Dem votes was dampened by TX, OH, and MS...what with all the cross-overs for Hillary"
If I twisted them, it was unintentional. I still can't say I'm getting what you're saying even with this clarification. When you wrote she wouldn't catch him on any "meaningful metric", it seemed to dismiss the fact that she's already ahead with Democrats. And then when you clarified by saying they were a "big deal until", it seems to imply that they stopped being a big deal. But if what you're saying is you do think her winning a majority of Dem voters does matter (even if it doesn't outweigh the others), that's fine. I'm willing to accept maybe I'm just being dim or overly sensitive (having come to your post after wading through so much crap on the way).
I have no argument with you saying the campaign keeps shifting the bar, so long as that doesn't mean it negates earlier arguments. It just lessens the number. I can live with the shifting bar as it's what I would expect of anybody in this situation. And if Obama were in this position, he'd be doing the same. I see no reason to fault anyone for something every single person would be doing.
The same is true with inconsistencies. Look at Obama on public financing. Or look at Richardson's past quotes on what superdelegates should do (hint--it wasn't vote for the person who lost your state). They've both been inconsistent where it benefits them to be. And in ways that nobody would expect any differently. Why would you expect Hillary to say SD's should vote for the pledged delegate leader when it would hurt her? Why would I expect Obama to take public financing when it would hurt him? Calling these "faults" just seems silly to me and near to childishness.
"Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have no right to try to influence supers, and if they do (for Obama that is), then it's all unfair and against the rules."
Well, first I'd say they have the right to try to influence but not without criticism. Why should they have that right? Secondly, I do think there is a difference between influencing them behind the scenes and having the chair of the national convention publicly say what SD's "should" do. I do think her alleged neutrality is a facade. That said, I don't have a big problem with her saying it except that I think she's wrong, nor any problem with people complaining about her saying it--both are well within fairness. I will say, though, speaking of inconsistency, that it's hard to take her seriously when she says within minutes of each other that
a) super-delegates should listen to the "will of the voters" and
b) we won't seat Florida or Michigan delegates if they would decide the nominee.
Accepting all the stupidity that is Fl/MI, it strikes me as a bit ironic to say listen to the will of the people, as expressed by, say, the two million voters that gave their states to Obama in
Conn, Dele., Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Neb, Utah, Vermont, Wyoming, Sc, and Alabama (I believe those states' voters total roughly two million) but ignore the will of the two million in Fl/MI. Or cut the list in half and just refer to Fl. If she really was all about the "will of the voter" she would have done a hell of a lot more to ensure those two states got to vote somehow.
" it is very hard to prove who the "real" Democrats are. Registrations are very easily changed, and past registrations don't have anything to do with today..."
I don't disagree but I'm not quite sure how that's relevant. I think if a candidate gets a majority of registered Democrats, that's meaningful. I'm not sure it does or should outweigh anything else, but it seems to get far too easily dismissed by too many Obama supporters. As does the fact that she's garnered nearly the same number of overall votes. Too many people talk as if Obama has swept her aside and the truth couldn't be further from that. He hasn't won more Democrats, he's barely won more voters, and that lead will likely be cut in further contests (though very unlikely it will disappear), a lead that is also somewhat skewed by process and demographics. Basically, the party is pretty split on these two. I just think that should be acknowledged no matter who you support or what arguments you (generic you, not you personally) you make for your candidate.
As for the personal destruction, we'll just agree to disagree on that. I think she's been far from tough on him, I think the two have been equally rough on each other, and I think it's nowhere near the "personal destruction" that Clinton was decrying. When Hillary starts questioning his sanity, his love children, his inability to control his temper, etc. then we can talk.
No argument with your last paragraph. And not only will I happily vote for Obama in Nov. I actually already have here in NY (where we can split our delegates) and have happily contributed to his campaign. My defense of Hillary isn't from some belief she's a thousand times better than Obama or that the apocalypse will fall should he win, it's from the basic unfairness I see in many of the accusations and the sense of smug condescension I see from too many Obama supporters here.