Letters to the Editor
-
@damnthatxanadu
You're not a history buff, are you? Kennedy's 1980 campaign against Carter was widely detested within democratic circles at the time, and many rightly were calling on him to quit and later blamed him for Carter's loss that fall. That's what people are afraid of now. More recently, remember that guy Huckabee? When people lose all chance of winning, they are urged to withdraw. When they don't, history shows it tends to be damaging to the eventual nominee.
-
@The Professor: Kennedy's Run criticised?
Apologies if this post is a dupe. Do you have any links to any articles about this topic? DTX is convinced that any concern about a long running primary damaging the winner is simply 'Obama Myth'.
-
Re - Distortions R U
Equating BHO's statement about voters perhaps not going for Clinton with Clinton's supporters saying they would never vote for BHO--sure, it's not the same thing, but if you're not paying attention, maybe you might think it is.
It's exactly the same thing and Obama encouraged it, until he realized it would backfire on his arrogant ass.
Similarly, trying to equate comments that would BHO "the black candidate" rather than "a candidate who is black" with BHO's comments about his own life experience--once again, if folks are snoozing while reading, they might buy it.
WTF? Once more, in English please.
"Because we all know that when Obama promises to bomb Pakistan, that's OK."
I understand how convenient it is for you and yours to obliterate (oh my, there's that word again) the distinction between targeted bombings of terrorists and using nukes against a whole country--I understand, because I wouldn't want to defend casual genocidal talk either. Gosh, it would make me very embarassed! So sure, do your best to do what the Clintons do best: spin.
I'm glad that in your video game fantasy land we have perfect intelligence only the guilty get killed by your smart bombs and there are no wider repercussions.
It comes down to this: McCain supported the war, HRC supported the war. McCain supports the obliteration of Iran, HRC supports the obliteration of Iran.
In 2004, Obama said he didn't know how he would have voted had he been in the Senate. Since he's been in the Senate, how has his voting record different from Clinton on matters relating to the Iraq War?
On Iran, all Obama is said is that somehow he'll magically prevent the Iranians from developing nuclear weapons technology. Pander, See.
McCain panders with a gas tax holiday HRC panders with a gas tax holiday.
In contrast to Obama who panders about his religion, his health care proposal, ethanol, NAFTA, how he doesn't take money from oil companies, the Republican party being the party of ideas not to mention the great job they did with pollution control, Iran (see above).
As John Stewart said last night, HRC would be McCain's perfect choice for a running mate.
Ha ha ha ha ha. See below.
But y'know? I'll vote for HRC if she's the nominee in the fall. Will you and yours say the same about BHO?
I ain't holdin' my breath for the answer.
If, as you claim, Clinton is identical to McCain and would be his perfect running mate, why would you vote for Clinton?
Or does the fact that you'll vote for her point out that your criticisms are full of shit?
-
@Uncle F.
For me a lot of it is personal memory, but there are articles you can find about it, like here: http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/the_snub_circa_1980.php
-
@Prof re: the snub
Thanks, interesting article. I like marshalling a supporting cast to supplement my often lean assertions. There's a lot of info available online these days, and it's always cool to be able to dial it in.
-
I give a red star to....
...Clockwork Smurf on page 1 of this comments section.
Clockwork Smurf writes about how Obama's race probably won't hurt him that much in an election against McCain. Clockwork Smurf's arguments here seem pretty sound to me.
Clinton supporters decry the sexism that has been used against her. I back them 100% on that -- I think people should be very diligent in NOT using sexist language or arguments against Clinton. I also think that Hillary Clinton being a woman probably wouldn't be much of a handicap for her in the general election. I think America is ready for a woman president....very ready. Equal rights and equal treatment the basis for our system of government.
That said, WHY do Clinton supporters insist on claiming Obama's race will work against him in the general election? WHY do Clinton supporters insist that "he can't win" because he is black? That's an amazingly insulting and wrongheaded argument to use, ESPECIALLY when you are supporting a woman for president!
One other thing: To Clockwork Smurf, how did you come up with that name? That's pretty funny, and I imagine a Smurf tied down and forced to watch violent films with his eyes clamped open.
-
If you think the Michigan votes should count...
...then you are on the Idiot List.
Period.
-
@DamnThatXanadu
Damn That Xanadu: "Clinton has every right to go ahead as far as she wishes. All the way to the convention."
You know what? I agree with you. Hillary Clinton has the right to keep campaigning. By all means. Let her do it. After all, Mike Huckabee stayed in the race long after his chances were kaput. So have others.
So go for it, Hillary Clinton.
That said, I think media commentators who have declared her chances to be low are just being honest. I think Tim Russert went overboard when he declared Obama the nominee, journalistically speaking. (But who trusts Russert at this point anyway?)
Politicians can do what they want. They can call for Hillary Clinton to step down. Just as it's Hillary's right to stay in the race, it is the right of others to say they think she should concede. They have their reasons, she has hers.
-
LET'S SEE...
was that Mark Penn? He should know all about being a loser.
-
How many times do you have to do articles on this
There are only about 4 weeks left in the actual campaign. Don’t you think it would be less divisive , to drop the whole “why won’t she get out and save the party” campaign. Almost every pundit has been singing this chorus since Alter first started it after Iowa. Actually, the calls may have been more effective if the Pundit class had waited till now to ask her to bow out.
There is a primary in West Virginia that she will probably win on Tuesday followed by Kentucky and Oregon. She should win Ky, he Or. The final is a last hurrah for her in Puerto Rico. Then it is over and the party can try to make it right with the differing sides. The constant focus on the fact that she is still actively campaigning is what is causing the divisiveness.
It looks like the party establishment wants Obama. He has a strong group of followers as well. There would need to be something cataclysmic at this point for her to get the super-delegates to change their trend and vote for her. So why be so prissy about it. Let her have her moment with these last couple of states and then it will be over. The constant bashing of her and her campaign as racist and evil is seriously causing a rift that could take longer than November to heal. It is about time to finally see a little of the nobler “different kind of politics” that has so far only been talked about in this campaign.
You don’t have to stop the nasty attacks. If you think the “new coalition” of young people, the black community and elite progressives are enough to win the election, then feel free to do your attacks as viciously as you wish. But there is a cost for that type of short sighted behavior.