Dear Editor,
Hillary Clinton has finally won three primaries (which she was favored heavily to win but barely eked out) after a string of eleven consecutive defeats. Barack Obama won Vermont on Tuesday and is poised to win the Texas Caucus and in the process receive more delegates than Clinton in the state of Texas. So, I’m not too sure about the “comeback kid” argument.
The wins by Clinton gave her some momentum (which I believe will be short lived because Obama is expected to win easily in the upcoming two contests in Wyoming and Mississippi), but to catch up with the elected delegate count (she is behind by more than 150) is virtually impossible. The only shot Clinton has of capturing the nomination is by getting the majority of the super-delegates votes. The way she has been running her campaign recently has made this the most unlikely proposition. Many Democratic insiders and “elders” are concerned by Clinton’s tactics in the days leading up to the March 4th primaries.
She has said that she and the Republican nominee would make a better commander-in- chief than Obama; she refused to flat-out deny that Obama is a Muslim on a Sixty Minutes programme; she created a fear mongering TV ad showing that if something catastrophic were to happen to the US, she would be better to respond than Obama; her campaign is also trying to link the Tony Rezko (an Obama donor) trial to Obama.
These tactics are being seen by many within the Democratic establishment as hurting and dividing the Democratic Party and helping the Republicans win in November.
Yours faithfully,
Clinton Urling
