Readers respond to this week's events in the campaign for the presidency
Tryst M. Anderson
The Democrat nomination process for president is "déjà vu all over again," as Yogi Berra would say, and Ted Kennedy is back at center stage. While today he has turned his back on his friends and supports the junior senator from Illinois, in 1980 Kennedy was embroiled in a similar nominating process with the peanut farmer turned Palestinian lover, Jimmy Carter. In that struggle, Bill Clinton came to Kennedy's aid.
So it was a bit ironic to hear Kennedy blustering on recently about how Hillary Clinton should drop out of the race when the Massachusetts senator once used the same strategy against Carter.
Since Kennedy, like Clinton, had won the big states, including New York, California and Pennsylvania, his mantra was, "Carter won't win the crucial states in November and will lose to the Republican." In fact, Pennsylvania was where Kennedy even proclaimed that the election had turned in his favor. The Democratic leadership turned away from him, just as he has now done to the Clintons.
Why is this history lesson relevant today?
It proves Clinton should continue her fight into the convention in August, and it reminds us of the serious consequence of not being able to win the key states.
If Barack Obama is the nominee, the November election will look a lot like 1980 without the Iran hostage crisis. Are the Democrats ready for history to repeat itself?
Dorothy A. Leith
How disappointing it was to pick up Wednesday's Inquirer to see Hillary Clinton's picture on the bottom of the front page and the story of her victory in West Virginia buried on Page A4! It only proves how biased The Inquirer is and how enamored the media are with Barack Obama, even in the face of real news.
Despite her bluster about how she will be the best president, Hillary Clinton knows the race is over. She keeps talking about how she's winning the states Democrats need to win, but that's a false argument. What she leaves out is that she won them against a fellow Democrat. Once Obama is officially the nominee, the states she won will most likely vote for Obama over John McCain.
The show's over, Hillary.
It makes no sense to me why the Democratic Party is trying so hard to lose the next presidential election. We have a Republican president with the lowest approval ratings since polls have been taken and yet the Democrats seem determined to lose.
I can't understand why I keep hearing Democrats say that if Barack Obama is the nominee, they will vote for John McCain. Other Democrats say the same about Clinton.
If you truly support either Obama or Clinton, how is it possible that you see McCain as the next best person? Keep in mind that if you vote for McCain you are voting for at least four more years of the failed Bush policies.
Can someone please explain the logic in Hillary Clinton's claim that she can build a "broader coalition" in the general election? To me, this is directly refuted by the fact that she has failed to build a broad enough coalition to even win the Democratic primary election - by every metric. As someone who started off the campaign cycle as a virtual lock for the nomination, it is more appropriate to say that Clinton has lost a "broad coalition" of voters so far in this election season.
Now is the time for all good Democrats to come to the aid of their country. Most Democrats - and many others - agree that:
We want change.
We want a return to democracy and civil rights.
We want youthful vision.
We want a seasoned hand at the tiller.
We want leadership to work toward equality and justice for all races, for men and for women.
We want to restore our place of honor and respect in the international community.
We want an end to this endless war.
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have stimulated tremendous participation in our democratic process and both generated incredible support. The people have awakened from their stupor under the current regime and they have spoken. Now it's time for the Democratic party to listen.