Letters to the Editor
-
@xufa
Don't you think its time to stop your anti-Clinton tirades and stress the positives that Sen Obama represents? Do you think your hurtful remarks are going to win folks over to your side? The party has to unite behind the nominee. You seem to be doing your best to ensure that will not happen. Sen Obama is trying to reach across to Republicans. Are you going to berate him for that?
-
@ Alan Bennett
I've posted many times on Senator Obama's "positives", but those posts I think you are refering to as anti-Clinton tirades are in response to the nonsense that Senator Clinton is now more electable than Senator Obama.
I didn't think of them as tirades at the time, but a query to Clinton supporters who think Mrs. Clinton can win without African-American support. I've read nothing but arguements over the past month that put forward that Obama can't win without white working class voters. My contention is that Bill Clinton won without them twice, but he most certainly wouldn't have without overwhelming black support.
While some Democrats are worrying about reaching out to a demographic that simply will not vote for Obama or Mrs. Clinton in large numbers, they are knowingly pissing off the one bloc of voters every Democrat up and down the ticket MUST have in order to win in November.
If that seems like a tirade to you, your skin is way to thin.
-
Substance vs Style
I think one of the reasons the race is so close is that the candidates are so similar on policy. The decision this year is really more about style than substance at this point. Clinton backers think that the way to win this time is how the GOP has won recently. Obama backers think that using the GOP tactics to win is a bad idea - that the way things are done needs to be changed from the campaign onward.
I think this is why things are getting personal. At this point the policy differences seem to be more about semantics than positions so the only thing to differentiate the candidates is their personal style.
After my candidate of choice (Edwards) dropped out of the race, I had a hard time picking a candidate to support. I started by learning toward Clinton because I 1) like the idea of a female president, 2) had positive associations with her husband’s time in office and 3) felt that her style would be what we needed to get the problems that Bush has dumped on this country resolved. While I liked Obama's message of hope and cooperation, I didn't think it was viable as a way to actually get things done. During the course of the campaign however, I've changed my position. I no longer think that Clinton's approach is necessary to fix the issues. I think that Obama has generated enough interest among voters that his election will bring with it Democratic majorities in both the House and Senate. Then we can really talk about making some changes.
I'm hopeful that Obama's campaign can shift us from a country (feed by a lazy media) that wants to choose a "regular" guy as President to a country of citizens that can identify a leader that is really competent. Now, I feel both Obama and Clinton would make good President's but I think that a win for Obama has the possibility of opening eyes to the fact that you don't have to run to the lowest common denominator - tell the people what they want to hear, respond to a controversy the way the pundits think you should. I really like the way that he's handled the statements by Wright and the "gas tax holiday". I think that he's shown thoughtfulness and understanding of root causes instead of playing knee-jerk politics.
Once a candidate is selected we need to rally together to pound McCain on the issues. On the issues, I don’t think it matters which democrat goes up against him if we can hammer away at the issues. We’ll be able to take back the office either way.
(On a side note – I had a friend in collage that was a total blast to have a beer with. I would no sooner trust him with my check book much less the country’s budget. I just don’t understand this obsession with electing people who are less qualified on the grounds that they are “more like me”. Boggles the mind. Guess that makes me elitist, huh?)
-
@Xufapemu
Thanks for carrying on the argument, I had to stop as it just got ridiculous to post the same argument over and over, only to see people run away or just change the argument when they could not win.
And when you start winning they get passigve aggressivem, call you hateful, and play the victim. Just like Hillary.
Good luck, but they just hate Obama or are blindly loyal to Hillary. You cannot win with them, no matter what happens it is back for Obama and good for Hillary. Many of these people are GOP hacks who now carry water for a man they once vowed to never support (McCain). But they fell into line and did as they were told.
But you are correct - Hillary and the media mis-identify white working class (Catholic) pro-life voters as "Reagan Democrats", when really these people are McCain and Santorum voters. These are the same Nascar Dads we go after every time and lose. The blcak urban vote will walk if the SD's overturn the pledged delegate count, which puts states like mine - PA - firmly in the red. McCain would not even have to campiagn here all that much.
And I am the type of person who tears up when they see a horse put down like we saw yesterday. Christ, I get misty watcxhing the Barbaro thing on HBO. But I believe in omens. Can you believe that the horse that Hillary wanted everyone to bet on (a) finished second and (b) had to be put down on the track?
I mean, c'mon. That freaked me out!