Letters to the Editor
-
Like I've been saying...
Republicans have crossed over and voted in Ohio and PA just for fun. There is little room for doubt.
-
I'm betting...
...they're pretty happy about this. With both Democratic candidates out-earning McCain consistently throughout the primary season, I'd be thankful for every dime they spent trying to take each other down. No matter which one of them wins (I'm backing Obama), they can count on the financial support of at least some percentage of the other's backers in the actual election.
In addition, the expensive primary battle is tying up Democratic dollars that could (and should, by this point) be going to regional gubernatorial, Senate, and House races. Every time the DSCC writes me for cash these days, I write back to tell them to end the primary battle first. Then I remind them of their awful telecom-amnesty bill, just for kicks.
-
The point of a short primary season
Remember this whole Democratic primary season was engineered to be over quickly. In fact, it seems to have been engineered as a coronation for Hillary. Best laid plans and all...
-
16 months of campaigning is preposterous in any event.
They need to change it to about 1 month total on an even playing field for all comers. This media sponsored pageantry is anti-democratic. We need to do it better or quit quacking about other places needing democracy.
-
Kristol = concern troll
Doing what right-wingers say they should has been working so well for Democrats the last few elections.
-
Let's Get on with It, Already
The only upsides I can see in this lingering primary engagement are (1) that John "100 Years War" McCain can't focus his campaign's hate machine solely on one candidate yet, but must spread (and perhaps thereby dilute) its strength against Barack Obama AND Hillary Clinton; and (2) that so much of the media attention is on the Democratic race, with remarkably little interest being paid to the comparatively pathetic presumptive Republican't nominee. That said, I'd still like this contest to be over soon, and to see Obama get down to the business of winning Clinton backers over to his side. Because, really, what value could Democrats see in voting for McSame? Another four years of failed Bush policies? Or maybe not even four years, if septuagenarian McCain doesn't last that long.
-
Yeah...
John McCain and Joan Walsh both.
-
He needs all the time he can get
Considering that he only got 73% of the republican vote last night in Pennsylvania. (Ron Paul 16% and Mike Huckabee 11%)
For someone that supposedly has the Republican base locked up it appears he has some more boot licking, double speaking, and pandering to do.
If I were John McCain I would continue to cheer on my two enemies simply to hide my own less than stable footing.
-
Classic Prisoner's Dilemma
I wrote this in the "Obama Can't Close the Deal" letters section and their wasn't a single response. Many writers are lamenting that the primary is continuing and want the opposing candidate to drop out. Both candidates are prisoners in a Prisoner's Dilemma. The only situation that has a high probability of a positive outcome is Cuomo's proposal. Given the policy similarities between the candidates, why is cooperation now such anathema to both sides?
HRC and BO seem to be unable to cut into each other's core demographics. The result is akin to classic WWI trench warfare. Supporters on either side may sit out the general election if their candidate loses. As Cuomo has proposed, why not agree right now that regardless of the outcome, the ticket in the general election will be either BO/HRC or HRC/BO? The VP candidate is usually chosen to shore up either demographic, geographic or policy weaknesses of the presidential candidate. That would seem to be the situation here.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/03/29/how_to_avoid_a_democratic_disaster/
Once this agreement is made, then the contest can go all the way to the convention (if needed) to decide the order of the ticket.
If both candidates (and their respective supporters) sincerely believe their rhetoric about change and bringing people together, then it should not be a problem for them subsume their egos and join forces to effect change for the greater good.
Its a very interesting situation. BO and HRC (as well as this country) are in a classic Prisoner's Dilemma situation. In this case, the prison sentence is a continuation of the existing policies that led us to this place.
-
re: Why is cooperation now such anathema ?
Given the policy similarities between the candidates, why is cooperation now such anathema to both sides?
My Take:
1) There's been quite a bit of harsh words exchanged, even by folks less than troll like. That's hardened even the less rabid supporters.
2) Many are convinced the other side's candidate is going to get killed in the general. If you're convinced the other candidate is a loser, a joint ticket is not exciting.
When was the last time Salon had one or more articles about Policy? Most articles seem about non-policy issues.
My 0.02 eruo.
-
VP slot
I can see how having Obama as VP could help Clinton's prospects in the general election. I don't see how she helps his prospects. If Obama wins the nomination, then I'd rather see Clinton as Senate Majority leader -- or as Pres. Obama's first nominee to the Supreme Court.
-
McCain is happy, of course!
The GOP believes that it may have a cakewalk to the White House if Democratic partisans continue sniping at each other. And perhaps they are right, and perhaps not.
Here's the thing: We have one candidate who speaks clearly and plainly about policy issues, how it's not fair for lunchbucket Dems who voted for Reagan, and she does a hell of a job of it.
The other candidate is all about change and hope and the future, and it all sounds exciting but to many, somewhat nebulous.
I suspect, however, that anyone winning the nomination will have to buckle down and get to brass tacks. But the issue is this: when I talk to Clinton supporters, I very often hear sentences beginning with "back in the 90's..." In fact, I heard this today.
Why is this an issue? Historically (OK, since FDR, at least), the Democrats have been about change, while the Republicans are about finding some glorious past which may or may not have ever been. If Democrats elevate someone who instills any sense of "going back", something a Clinton by association will inevitably do, branding becomes a problem. And as Clinton works more and more of her toughness, her experience, her credentialing into her speeches and interviews, her brand blurs more and more.
At what point do we have a problem sealing the deal? I don't know, but this concerns me greatly.