Letters to the Editor
-
Rules
It would hardly be fair to Obama to have the Michigan vote count since his campaign followed the rules and removed his name from the ballot
There was no rule about including his name on the ballot. It was up to the candidates. Obama chose to not risk offending other early states. Clinton took that hit.
Since you don't know what happened, I'll generously put you in the "braindead" category and not the "scum" category.
-
White folks never say things like White nigger...
yeah sure..
-
@johncp
johncp: "It's as obvious as the nose on your face."
I can't see my nose unless I look in the mirror. Or maybe I do see it but my whole life I've learned to avoid noticing it.
johncp: "Media, from far left to far right, from underground to overground from Letterman to Randi Rhodes, are being instructed to sell Obama to us."
"Being instructed"? Wow, you sound crazy. You really think the media takes orders from some sort of central-command media-control room? As if they wake up each morning and a deep, deep voice intonates, "DAILY BULLETIN FROM YOUR MEDIA OVERLORD: TODAY YOU WILL SAY NICE THINGS ABOUT OBAMA."?
David Letterman had Obama on doing the Top 10. Letterman has had John Edwards on to do the Top 10. He might have even had Hillary Clinton though I don't keep a running log of who appears on his show. I know Letterman had the entire cast of "Battlestar Galactica" on his show to do the Top 10. I doubt he wants them to become president (maybe galactic overlords though).
As for Randi Rhodes, apparently she made her insulting statement during a comedy routine. She either got suspended or fired for that, I'm not sure which (fired, right?). If somebody is fired for something then it would stand to reason they're not part of some conspiracy.
johncp: "This attempt to publish a phony slur against Kantor, is more proof of the fix that's been forced on media journalists and talk show hosts, to "sell" Obama to us, at all costs."
The Kantor thing was probably dredged up by some YouTube nerd in his mother's basement who thought it would make a fun viral controversy and wanted to see if he could affect the daily news cycle, since nothing else in his life affects much. Or maybe somebody sincerely misinterpreted that part of what Kantor said, and was over-eager to find a way to "get back" at Hillary Clinton for the Wright controversy. Or something. Either way it's small-time stuff. I don't think it deserves to be covered by the news. I agree with the people who are wondering why Koppelman hasn't covered the N.C. robo-calls or Hillary Clinton's gaffe criticizing a factory shut-down that it turns out happened under her husband's administration, though. Those are actually related to real events that are happening. Not some early 1990's documentary.
johncp: "Got to SavagePolitics.com to see what what media are "not" telling us..."
OHHHHH! I get it! You're not sincere at all! You're here to SELL something to us!
It all makes sense now.
-
@lolcait
lolcait: "There was no rule about including his name on the ballot. It was up to the candidates. Obama chose to not risk offending other early states. Clinton took that hit."
Okay, not a rule, but an acknowledgement that the votes wouldn't count. Clinton too signed a statement to the effect that the votes were null and void.
Your only response is to jump on this little thing, at the exclusion of all other arguments, eh? That says a lot.
-
Rules
If all agree to the rules beforehand, and the rules are clearly stated to all and agreed to by all ahead of the game, then I don’t see why adhering to the rules suddenly becomes a problem later.
The rules suddenly become an issue when the states in question become decisive. I'll assume you know that so for now, not in the "braindead" column.
Naturally there is nothing untoward about not fighting that fight when it isn't expected that it would be decisive, but you can pretend there is.
The rules also allow the DNC to seat the delegates as they are or hold re votes if both campaigns agree. Obama sent lawyers to make sure there would be no re vote in those states.
The rules also allow superdelegates to consider the popular vote including those states, the delegate count including those states, or whatever they want. Obama continues to lie by suggesting they must adhere to the pledge delegate count minus Florida and Michigan.
I have no proof you were aware of any of that so will just let it go as "shockingly uninformed."
-
Melthough
I have a different take on trolls.
It would be nice to think that the trolls are all Republicans in disguise (and really, after 8 years of Bush, who would admit to being a Republican?), but I am not so sure.
I liken these threads to road rage. How many people vent and spew unbelievable things about other drivers simply because they are strangers and the likelihood of ever knowing them and having to atone for our vitriol is nil? Such are these threads in my mind, places for people to vent frustration anonymously.
That being said, I worry that the majority of posters on these threads are revealing their true sentiments (ugly as they may be) in an effort to promote one Democrat over the other. Given that, how will we put the vitriol behind us and put a Democrat in the White House?
-
@lolcait
lolcait: "None of the groups Obama has alienated think he's suitable for the presidency and they don't think it's in their self interest to elect him. They think McCain is much more acceptable and he can never win them back."
Not true at all. Polls show that a percentage of Clinton supporters have said they "will not vote" for Obama, but that is a relatively low percentage and most of those people are speaking out of their bitterness. After a couple months they'll lighten up and Obama will win them over. Considering that he has been relatively respectful and decent toward Clinton throughout the race (even though, sure, his campaign has attacked her on policy issues) it will not be difficult for people to come around to the Obama side.
This is will become further enhanced by the fact that Obama will fight very effectively against McCain. We've already got a glimpse of McCain's campaign style, and it's quite obvious to anybody with any objectivity that McCain is going to be a weak campaigner, much like Bob Dole in 1996.