In the article titled, "No Delegate is Safe", "opinionator" Tobin Harshaw discusses the issue of Clinton possibly trying to "steal" Obama's devoted delegates. Harshaw interviewed a few people about the subject and asked them what they thought. These people were Roger Simon at the Politico, Christopher Orr at the Plank, Mark Kleiman at the Reality Based Community, and Ana Marie Cox at Swampland; none of which I have ever heard of.
I tried to figure out who Harshaw is and what his political past is, but nothing was found. He writes for The New York Times for The Opinionator. The Opinionator seems to be mostly controlled by another editor, Chris Suellentrop. He is a former staff writer and political correspondent for the online magazine Slate. From what I can tell, he edits writers in The Opinionator and chooses blogs and opinions to share and discuss in The Opinionator of
He states, "If you're trusting me to provide a fair, balanced or comprehensive look at the day's opinions, don't. As I wrote above, The Opinionator is by necessity one person's idiosyncratic sampling." This being said, a lot of what The Opinionator is about gut feelings, rumor, or wishful thinking.
It seems to me that his audience is mostly people who are interested in "the subjects and topics that opinion writers and bloggers discuss" and not necessarily the critiquing of a subject. Most of these people are bloggers who found this article from another blog.
Harshaw tells how Clinton may be trying to take over some of the already decided delegates from Obama. One person interviewed, Roger Simon, explains how delegates are not necessarily permanently "pledged". He explains that it has always been this way but that, by the time the convention has begun, the victor is clear.
Christopher Orr at the Plank feels if she does this she will be "overruling" voters by taking the delegates the people had already elected. By switching sides, he says, the delegates would be breaking their pledge, though not "legally-binding".
Clinton is criticized and is being called "positively Republican" where "winning-is-everything".
A good point made by Ana Marie Cox at Swampland, is that even if it is just a thought by Clinton's campaign, "we are in for a nasty, delegate-by-delegate fight if she fails to gain the nomination via primary contests.”
All in all, there was not too much opinion put in by the actual author and instead more opinions from other people he talked to. Although this could mean his opinion is the same as the interviewed, he never actually takes a stance and says his own opinion. After reading it though, it did leave a sour taste for Clinton and made her seem like the bad guy... or in this case, girl! For me, already not dedicated to Clinton, this just swayed me more in the direction of trusting Obama more.
The whole thing to me seems trivial and just makes Clinton look selfish... how is she supposed to be though when trying to win presidency.
I tried to figure out who Harshaw is and what his political past is, but nothing was found. He writes for The New York Times for The Opinionator. The Opinionator seems to be mostly controlled by another editor, Chris Suellentrop. He is a former staff writer and political correspondent for the online magazine Slate. From what I can tell, he edits writers in The Opinionator and chooses blogs and opinions to share and discuss in The Opinionator of
He states, "If you're trusting me to provide a fair, balanced or comprehensive look at the day's opinions, don't. As I wrote above, The Opinionator is by necessity one person's idiosyncratic sampling." This being said, a lot of what The Opinionator is about gut feelings, rumor, or wishful thinking.
It seems to me that his audience is mostly people who are interested in "the subjects and topics that opinion writers and bloggers discuss" and not necessarily the critiquing of a subject. Most of these people are bloggers who found this article from another blog.
Harshaw tells how Clinton may be trying to take over some of the already decided delegates from Obama. One person interviewed, Roger Simon, explains how delegates are not necessarily permanently "pledged". He explains that it has always been this way but that, by the time the convention has begun, the victor is clear.
Christopher Orr at the Plank feels if she does this she will be "overruling" voters by taking the delegates the people had already elected. By switching sides, he says, the delegates would be breaking their pledge, though not "legally-binding".
Clinton is criticized and is being called "positively Republican" where "winning-is-everything".
A good point made by Ana Marie Cox at Swampland, is that even if it is just a thought by Clinton's campaign, "we are in for a nasty, delegate-by-delegate fight if she fails to gain the nomination via primary contests.”
All in all, there was not too much opinion put in by the actual author and instead more opinions from other people he talked to. Although this could mean his opinion is the same as the interviewed, he never actually takes a stance and says his own opinion. After reading it though, it did leave a sour taste for Clinton and made her seem like the bad guy... or in this case, girl! For me, already not dedicated to Clinton, this just swayed me more in the direction of trusting Obama more.
The whole thing to me seems trivial and just makes Clinton look selfish... how is she supposed to be though when trying to win presidency.
No comments:
Post a Comment