Letters to the Editor
-
Hillary is perfect
"With Hillary, the GOP has already tried just about every attack and has failed."
Huh? Did he miss the past 16 years?
-
Clinton employee says Clinton is best
Ummm sorry, but, isn't there a missing white woman in rehab somewhere that is equally relevant?
-
Poor Li'l Barack Can't Beat the Meanies
A very patronizing memo that can't imagine any new ways to campaign against the Republican Attack Machine.
-
Where's the analysis?
Is War Room's sole function now to regurgitate press releases and Op-Eds from other sources? Where's the analysis? Maybe I'm remembering wrong, but Tim used to provide some context for these items instead of simply repeating them.
-
Why are they paying this guy?
Did they really need that many paragraphs to make the case? I've seen better written blogs by Clinton supporters that make the same case more succinctly, and I don't quickly scroll to the end stopping when I see "John Kerry" name dropped. The people running the Clinton campaign are so stuck in 2004 it isn't even funny.
-
First Off
After what 'Fold'? There's no fold in War Room's formatting...
Second- and this would be less a problem if there really was a fold- why are you re-publishing an entire campaign-prop message here? It would be more appropriate to the traditional format of this forum to have linked to the letter- perhaps with some choice excerpts quoted- than to post the entire thing. If we want to read the Clinton campaign's (or Obama's, for that matter) then we are fully capable adults who can go to their site or subscribe to their newsletters on our own.
-
Obama versus McCain
I will vote for Mccain if Obama gets the nomination and I'll vote for HRC is she gets the nomination. It is certainly false that Obama appeals to people who are now supporting HRC. Anyone with any wisdom about how the world works knows that his feel good campaign will result in zero change in Washington. We'd be safer with McCain.
-
Clinton does better than she polls?
Well that explains why she lost LA, WA, ME, and NE with larger margins than any of the polls predicted. A better description of that point is that Clinton does better than the outlying polls, at which point the rest of us can say, "Duh."
-
where is the evidence that the G.O.P. smear campaign failed
or made her stronger
when 47% of the voting population says they will vote against her.
Even when Obama's negatives rise--will they rise to 47% of voters saying that they will vote against him no matter what?
The Clinton campaign is running short on logic if you care about getting a Democrat in the white house more than you care whether or not that Democrat is Clinton.
-
"We'd be safer with McCain."
You have absolutely NO intention of voting for Clinton or Obama.
Democrats will fall into line behind whichever gets the nomination. Its the independants, young voters, the disenfranchised voting for the first time in a long while and disgruntled Republicans who the Democrats will lose in November if Clinton tops the ticket. Some will go for McCain, most will sit it out, but very very few will go with Clinton.
-
The smell of desperation....
lingers on this memo.
-
@ Jon
What you mean is that Tim Grieve was a clear Obama supporter and you miss his slant.
-
Unfortunately, there's a unpleasant problem with Penn's argument
"the Clinton memo, authored by Chief Strategist Mark Penn, anticipates Republican arguments to come and explains why Clinton can refute them."
Penn is right that Republican arguments about ANYTHING can usually be refuted with data and basic logic. However, sadly, most Americans don't vote based on data and basic logic. I like Clinton, but most Americans vote for the person they like more, not because of charts and arguments. That is why, despite Clinton's strong resume, Obama is still more likely to defeat McCain in November.
-
Electability is the wrong question to ask
I'm getting very tired of debates over the electability of Obama and Clinton. This is the very same debate that got us John Kerry last time around. He may not be the best candidate, but he's the most electable with his long resumé and sterling war record. The primary voters--well, many of us anyway--held our nose to vote for him in the primary for that reason and you remember what happened. We can't predict what will happen in the general election, so we should stop guessing and instead vote for the candidate you feel most represents your values and would do the best job once in office. I promise you that the Republicans will come after whomever wins, with guns ablazing, so it's pointless to worry over which candidate has the most baggage for the independents. If the candidate doesn't have any baggage, the Republicans will just make something up--Barrack Obama won't say the pledge of allegiance anyone?
-
Really?
"When it came to national security, "strong and wrong" won out over "right and weak" in the 2002 and 2004 elections. With Hillary, that is not and will not be an issue... She will be strong and right."
Ummm, except Clinton already voted with the "strong and wrong" people. And she continues to do so, despite her rhetoric.
"Hillary's Coalition Is Stronger. The grind of a general election will erase... the success that Sen. Obama has earned... It may even crumble. Sen. Obama will have to fall back on core Democratic voters to stay competitive with McCain. But this is where Hillary has already built a powerful base, with overwhelming support among women, Latino voters, and other stalwarts of the Democratic Party."
Clinton supporters are constantly accusing Obama supporters of refusing to back Clinton in the GE, whereas the what's-good-for-the-nation Clinton supporters would happily vote for Obama if he were chosen. If true, that would mean Obama has a better shot at being President because all Dems would vote for him whereas only select Dems would vote for Clinton. And are they suggesting Clinton would not have to rely on "core Democratic voters?" Perhaps so, since she thinks nothing of alienating them in favor of appealing to moderate right-wingers.
"After winning the Democratic nomination in 2004, John Kerry vaulted to a 17 point lead over George Bush. Even on Election Day, virtually every pollster said John Kerry would win. It did not happen. Today, commentators are touting a Time poll that shows Sen. Obama faring slightly better than Hillary Clinton against John McCain."
So we should choose the candidate who fares less well against McCain because eventually she'll confound the polls by doing better! Wait.. what?