Letters to the Editor
-
Excellent news, Obama's uniting his Party support, but you're gonna catch hell for this one
Cue up the Hillary supporters yelling, "I'll never vote for him, never! Not in a million years. I'll vote for John McCain. Don't you dare me, I'll do it. Or just stay home! Sure she lost fair and square according to the rules she agreed to, but it's her turn now, now, NOW!"
But this is great news. If Obama can shore up his Hispanic support and female support (which is crucial to ANY Democratic candidate) he can pull this thing out. I'd be happy with 38% of the hard working-class white American male support. More would be better, but Clinton got 40, Gore 36, so 38 would be good.
-
There haven't been any scandals lately
The right has been very careful. They've been releasing their attacks gradually, letting Obama's numbers go up for a while before they crash as a result of some scandal (or pseudo-scandal). Anybody who believes that Wright is the worst skeleton in Obama's closet is naive. I don't know what the next attack will be. Something Obama said that can be distorted, something untrue, or something valid that simply wasn't important enough to mention before the right decided to make it an issue, but there will be attacks, and Obama has a glass jaw. Every time the right attacks, his numbers crash. All they have to do is to attack often enough before the election to ensure that he never has a chance to really shore up his support - then make a final attack in the days right before the election. The formula worked before, and there is no reason to believe it will not work again.
-
@jebldmm
I guess we'll see, but, given the attacks Clinton has unleashed on Obama, and the sources she's used for some of those attacks (Sciafe, among others) why do you think that there's something left to uncover?
I suspect we'll get a lot more Wright, and a solid dose of Rezko (nevermind that it's pretty clear that the latter was an above-board transaction). But given the complete lack of restraint Clinton showed in attacking Obama, what makes you think she'd have left anything on the table?
-
@jebldmm
They've been releasing their attacks gradually, letting Obama's numbers go up for a while before they crash as a result of some scandal (or pseudo-scandal). Anybody who believes that Wright is the worst skeleton in Obama's closet is naive.
<sarcasm>
Yes, and everyone knows that Hillary's closet is skeleton-free, so she could never be the target of this kind of attack.
</sarcasm>
-
Is this a Real Question?
The media likes to pretend that who heads the Democratic ticket in the fall, is going to significantly impact the number of voters choosing a Democratic. Virtually all Democrats - with the exception of the died-in-the-wool racies will vote for Obama. Most swing voters will vote for Obama. Even some Republicans will vote for Obama. If Clinton had been at the top, her numbers would have been similiar but she would have been similiar but she would have lost the women-hater voter and held on to the raciest, so it would have been a wash.
People who think McCain had any chance at all have their head in the sand. I live in a Republican area, and people from very blue areas just don't get how much Republicans and Independents hate Bush and most of the crop of Republicans. Even if McCain was a strong candidate, popular with the tiny - now 28% of population is still registered Republican - base, it would be nearly impossible for him to win. The Democratic Primary is a race for the President for the United States of America. Clinton and Obama understand that which is why this has been such a hard fought race and why Clinton isn't not going to give up until the end.
-
national polls
Will someone please tell me why it is important to conduct national polls that determine who is ahead of whom in the Democratic contest? Why is it relevant that Barack is leading Hillary in national polls? The public has spoken via votes. Barack is ahead in the popular vote and in delegates. Sheesh! No need to tell us that a national poll reveals greater support for him. And, oh, by the way, talk about question bias. If someone called me and asked me whether I preferred Barack or Hillary, I'd say Barack too. After all, no one wants to admit to backing a loser. I wish the national media would focus on reporting NEWS that is relevant and important. Sheesh! Talk about the dumbing down of America. Guess what, everyone. Barack has won the most votes -- oh, and guess what, a poll shows he's leading Hillary as well. Duh!
-
Kentucky's not a swing state
Clinton could win 75% of the Democrats in the primary and still get clobbered by McCain in the general election. Trying to draw inferences about the general electorate from what happened in Kentucky doesn't make any sense, any more than extrapolating from the results in DC would.
-
Politics is about compromise. Delegates should force an Obama-Clinton ticket
Sweep November, have lots of coattails, and have a good successor to continue Democrats in the White House in 2016 election. Hopefully, Obama and Hillary can figure that out. And to people who don't like that combination because they hate Obama or hate Hillary: Bush sees the world in Pure Good-Pure Evil. Do you too?
BTW, I'm a Hillary support, but I've donated to both. I like both. I see the world in shades of gray.
-
RE: Whispers' post
Indeed, Kentucky is a firmly red state and likely will not be a blue state in November. The same can be said for red states that Obama won including Idaho, Kansas, North Dakota, Colorado, Utah, etc. Some of the Barack-loving media would have us believe that the messiah, er, uh, Barack, can turn these red states blue. Hog wash! And, oh, by the way, most of these red states held caucuses in which 6 percent or less of eligible voters turned out. Assuming loyal party activists are reflective of how the general electorate will vote in the fall is a recipe for disappointment. Not to mention just plain ignorant.
-
VP Choice
It'll be Obama-Webb in November, mark my words. And a great ticket, too!