I know I am probably the only Hillary supporter on this forum...so I will be the optomistic one about her chances on Tuesday. If she wins both of these states, she will have won almost all of the big states.
These are the biggest ten states in delegate counts. California, Texas, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia, and New Jersey.
Obama has won his home state of Illinois and Georgia. Hillary has won California, New York, and New Jersey. She also won Florida and Michigan, but they don't count (yet). If she wins Texas and Ohio, she will probably be favored to win in Pennsylvania in May and has a ten point lead there now.
I think it is very possible that she will have won eight of the biggest ten states as well as sweeping the booming southwest states. She also won the most liberal state of Massachusetts. Doesn't that show real strength as a candidate, especially winning in the bluest of the blue states? These are states a democrat has to win, and she will have proven she can win almost all of them.
She will probably still be still behind Obama in pledged delegate counts, but close enough to ride the momentum back in her favor, especially with superdelegates.
RM....I did not think you "partaketh" until now. Hope your weekend is sweet.
There is no way she gets there from here. Even Texans seem to be seeing the light.
"Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats."
-- Henry Louis Mencken
Notice it's gone from when to if she wins, that says it all.
Of course, a sign of strength would be if Hillary wins the small states, too.
But she didn't. And not only did she lose those small states, but she lost them by 15 to 20-point margins.
That's why she's fallen behind in pledged delegates by three-digit margins. Obama didn't ignore the small states, and that's why he's in the lead.
Sign of strength? Pshaw. Those bluest of blue states will vote for Obama too if he gets the nomination.
Hillary thinking legal action in Texas?
http://www.newsweek.com/id/117126
This will go over real well with Texas democrats
Sorry to double post, but I also found this re: Texas GOP crossing over for Obama:
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/02/29/heart-ache-texas-republicans-crossing-over-to-vote-for-obama/
It does paint a bad picture arguing with party officials about the rules the week before the vote.
But take Hillary out of the picture and read what they were arguing. In Texas, there is a primary for 126 delegates, then when the polls close, each precinct can have a caucus where another 67 delegates are chosen.
After the polls close, the location of the caucus can be instantly changed.
What? Certain people can just decide where the meeting is at the last second? I have a problem with that. This is democracy and deciding delegates, not deboarding an airplane at a different gate.
Somebody should challenge that rule. It has just too many ways to go bad.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
It does paint a bad picture arguing with party officials about the rules the week before the vote.
But take Hillary out of the picture and read what they were arguing. In Texas, there is a primary for 126 delegates, then when the polls close, each precinct can have a caucus where another 67 delegates are chosen.
After the polls close, the location of the caucus can be instantly changed.
What? Certain people can just decide where the meeting is at the last second? I have a problem with that. This is democracy and deciding delegates, not deboarding an airplane at a different gate.
Somebody should challenge that rule. It has just too many ways to go bad.
Well, what about superdelegates? The votes of these special, uber-Democrats can actually trump the will of those persons voting in the primaries. If Hillary is all concerned about "democracy", why is she not b&tching about this.
Molly Ivins, Elvis and Obama
http://blog.niemanwatchdog.org/?p=190
"In December 2006, the ever-prescient columnist and best-selling author Molly Ivins was asked whether or not Barack Obama should run for president. Her answer: "Yes, he should run. He's the only Democrat with any 'Elvis' to him."
Molly we hardly knew ya....thanks to our local Pub.
<RM wrote:
Somebody should challenge that rule. It has just too many ways to go bad.
<end clip>
Yeah, especially if Obama wins. [}:)]
Seriously, though, you'd think someone in the Clinton camp would have sussed this out months or even years ago, not four days before a primary. It's not like the Texas primary's setup is new.
I mean, what kind of staff does she have when she can't even find a potential problem until it's nearly D-Day?
Yep FOTD, back in the day... the only place you could read Molly Ivins for years was in Frosty Troy's Oklahoma Observer..... then Frosty had a hissy-fit in the late 80s when the Oklahoma (City) Gazette started featuring her opinions as a foil to the Daily Oklahoman...
Hey, maybe Urban Tulsa Weekly could start.... oh, wait. Nevermind. Guess I'll have to be content with "Ask a Mexican"... [8]
RM keeps dancing on the head of a pin; Hillary Clinton didn't win any delegates in Michigan or Florida... in Michigan, only Clinton was on the ballot; in both Michigan and Florida, NOBODY was allowed to campaign. If the DNC would like to have a REAL primary or caucus in either Florida or Michigan (or BOTH), feel free to have one. You don't change rules AFTER a primary.... period.
It's the difference between RIGHT and WRONG. There's no in-between.
The scary part of this is that Hillary Clinton could win every single state for the rest of the primary season, and still lose... with the possible exception of Guam?, I can't see her getting any more than 55% of the vote in any of the remaining contests... in the last 10, (11 counting the Americans Abroad primary), Clinton's only got above 40% of the vote twice (41% in Wisconsin and 40% in Maine)...
My prediction: the Clinton spinmeisters will try to make a close race in Texas into an opportunity to play the "victim" card-- Obama will get more delegates due to the weird process that gives more weight to urban areas-- the Clintons (guns ablaizin'!) will then ride in to "champion the disenfranchised" hispanic voters in rural areas..... which they will then try to use as leverage to seat delegates for Michigan and Florida... can't wait for someone to tell me what the definition of "is" is... [:O]
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
<RM wrote:
Somebody should challenge that rule. It has just too many ways to go bad.
<end clip>
Yeah, especially if Obama wins. [}:)]
Seriously, though, you'd think someone in the Clinton camp would have sussed this out months or even years ago, not four days before a primary. It's not like the Texas primary's setup is new.
I mean, what kind of staff does she have when she can't even find a potential problem until it's nearly D-Day?
Kinda blows that whole experience thing out of the water, huh?
So, RM, are you ready to go double or nothing? Here's what I predict, Obama will get Texas (though not by his usual double digits) and Vermont (by double digits). Ohio will be a virtual tie (no more that one or two percentage points apart), but I imagine that Clinton will squeak out a win. She'll win Rhode Island, but not as decisively as you would hope.
In all of the focus on the various states, I think that people tend to overlook the fact that, on national scale, Obama is now ahead of Clinton in every poll, substantially by a few. Regardless of the states, overall more democrats support Obama than Clinton.
I love politics. Obama has won 11 states in a row, he is ahead in national polls, and is ahead with the delegate count by all accounts. Yet, the Clinton camp is saying that the next election is "do or die" for Obama, that he has to win all four states.
I love politics too. I have the entire set of Topps Presidential candidate trading cards.
I know that Hillary will win Ohio. I know that she will win Rhode Island. I hope that she will win Texas.
If you count the voters of Michigan and Florida (not the contested delgates, that is a different issue), Obama is ahead by 287,000 votes nationally. If Hillary wins or ties in Texas and wins by eight to ten points in Ohio and she will be ahead in popular vote.
More people will have voted for Hillary than Obama in America and she will have won most of the important states.
Will you Obama fanatics then stop demanding that she suspend her campaign?
Why would you count the voters in Michigan and Florida? How many who voted "uncommitted" in Michigan could be counted for Obama? Why should a meaningless beauty contest in Florida count the same as other contested primaries and caucuses?
MICHIGAN PRIMARY
Clinton 328,151 -- 55%
Uncommitted 237,762 -- 40%
FLORIDA PRIMARY
Clinton 857,208 -- 50%
Obama 569,041 -- 33%
Edwards 248,604 -- 14%
In your math, RM, did you give Obama ZERO votes in Michigan?
Oh, and here's a preview of Wednesday, when the Clinton campaign cries foul and plays the "victim card," which will ironically come from the mouths of Texas insiders who know better than anybody the way Texas has run its dem contests for decades....
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/01/clinton-supporter-rips-texas-caucus-system/
quote:
March 1, 2008
Clinton supporter rips Texas caucus system
SAN ANTONIO, Texas (CNN) – Former HUD secretary and Hillary Clinton supporter Henry Cisneros excoriated Texas' arcane electoral process as "a great burden on voters" and said that losing the delegate count on Tuesday because of the state caucuses would be "exceedingly unfair."
Cisneros was speaking to a group of Clinton volunteers who had gathered on Saturday morning at Fox Tech High School to train for Tuesday evening's state caucuses, which follow a day of primary voting. One-third of the state's pledged delegates are allocated through the caucuses, while the rest are determined by the day's primary vote.
------------------------------------------------
Cisneros said a scenario in which Clinton wins the primary vote, but loses the evening caucuses, would be "exceedingly unfair" and warned against being "outpowered" by Barack Obama precinct teams, who have overwhelmed their Clinton counterparts in earlier caucus-based contests, outcomes he described as "tragic."
Sorry, I just don't have alot of sympathy for Hillary Clinton's Texas political insiders' when they cry foul despite knowing full-well what the rules are in their own state.
I don't have a problem with Hillary staying in the race-- she can stay in as long as she wants, dividing the party in her polorizingly quixotic pursuit of 50%-plus-one of the electorate...
She'll continue to appeal to voters by padding her resume with "35 years of experience" that includes 8 years as first lady, and years as an advocate for ???? at the Rose Law Firm ('79-??) and years on the board at WalMart ('86-'92)...
I got my math from this story...
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/hendrikhertzberg/2008/02/hillarys-challe.html
I am amazed by the strength and odor of attacks on everything Hillary's campaign does. She gets slammed for things she doesn't do as well.
I don't know what will happen in Florida and Michigan in terms of delegates. Something will happen between now and the convention. The democrat party will seat somebody from those two states. Maybe it will take a re-vote, but something will happen.
If there is a re-vote, believ me that Hillary will do well in both states. It will be just adding on to her momentum of winning on Tuesday and then winning again in Pennsylvania in seven weeks.
A river in Egypt.....
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
I love politics too. I have the entire set of Topps Presidential candidate trading cards.
I know that Hillary will win Ohio. I know that she will win Rhode Island. I hope that she will win Texas.
If you count the voters of Michigan and Florida (not the contested delgates, that is a different issue), Obama is ahead by 287,000 votes nationally. If Hillary wins or ties in Texas and wins by eight to ten points in Ohio and she will be ahead in popular vote.
More people will have voted for Hillary than Obama in America and she will have won most of the important states.
Will you Obama fanatics then stop demanding that she suspend her campaign?
I have never called for Clinton to suspend her campaign. I think her participation keeps interest in the process. Which is why I suspect that Huckabee stays in the race. Secretly, I am sure that McCain appreciates his running, since without him, no one would be paying any attention.
Still, I think you have to admit that with all of Obama's wins, the idea that Clinton will be able to succeed is very slim. Regardless of the delegates, the chance of her winning the popular vote is very slim. According to the article you rely upon:
quote:
If Florida's votes are counted but not Michigan's, then Clinton needs to carry Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania by 59 per cent to 41 per cent, or 17 points, in order to match Obama's vote totals. And if results from both Florida and Michigan are excluded, she needs to win by 62 per cent to 38 per cent. Margins like these do not seem within the realm of possibility.
It's true that, if you count Michigan, where Obama wasn't even on the ballot, she only needs to win Ohio, Texas and Pennsylannia by 8 points, but even that is unlikely, given that Obama is ahead in Texas and neck-and-neck in Ohio. He could lose both Texas and Ohio and still be ahead both in the popular vote and in the delegate count quite easily.
I do hope Clinton doesn't continue to run even after all hope of winning is gone. I have a lot respect for her, and I think that would be embarassing to her.
RM--- "I am amazed by the strength and odor of attacks on everything Hillary's campaign does. She gets slammed for things she doesn't do as well."
Nice play of the VICTIM card.
If Hillary Clinton had WON the last 11 contests, I'd expect a certain amount of discussion of things Obama doesn't "do as well."
--------"Here are the latest RealClearPolitics numbers, including the totals from Wisconsin and Hawaii (margins and percentages supplied by me):
Not counting Florida and Michigan:
Obama: 10,234,964 (52.3%)
Clinton: 9,324,418 (47.7%)
Obama's margin: 910,550
-----------------------------------------------
This IS the margin. Florida and Michigan violated the rules. Their votes NEVER COUNTED. Why change the rules now, weeks after the fact? Those two primaries were not contested.
I am listening to Hillary in Akron right now on CNN..... what a two-faced little piggy she's become... she's very definitely playing the gender card right now, maybe it's time for some Obama voter suppression...
Support Obama, Stop Your Mamma
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIa2m09Nd6E
My best response to her tactics these days.... is from her hubby Bill Clinton (who pinky-swears he won't be intimately involved in the presidency if she wins.... cough, cough...)...
Clinton on Fear Vs Hope
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGW38Zy4bJo
I think she can play the victim card on these...Obama has been playing it for some time.
The nation's media have been very Obama in this race and she has been ahead or within a few points the whole time. Yes, Obama has momentum, but I started this thread asking what if momentum shifts back to her.
I wasn't just saying youse guys when I refer to the strength and odor comment (but it is all over the television, the radio and the blogosphere). I think she has been treated very unfairly. She has been called every negative name in the book. Pick any insult (wicked, *****, mean, fat...you name it) and add her name and google it. Hundreds of thousands of hits appear.
I am not in denial. I know that the baggage of all that is weighing her down and she probably can't win. I also know that she is criticized for her laugh, her tears, her hair styles, her every move. We would never criticize McCain hair (or lack thereof). A woman is just treated different in this country. If a man argues, he is a fighter, a woman does it, she is a *****. This country is just not ready for Hillary or any woman to be president. It doesn't matter if they are.
I had a real hard time deciding to to vote for after Edwards dropped out. I decided on Hillary because I knew what it would do to this country. Electing a woman president would change the dynamic of power in every office, every workplace, every church, everywhere in this country. Her winning doesn't just change Washington, it changes everything. That is real change.
Hillary is as qualified to be president as any of the top candidates. She has a lifetime of success, but many will make up their mind that she only did it with a man's help. Maybe the next woman running for president will have an easier road because of the lessons learned from this campaign. It may not happen again for a long time. No matter what you feel about her, this is the closest a woman has ever been to being elected. I do not apologize for defending her campaign. I want a woman to be president as soon as possible, not just for our country, but for every woman in our country. Especially my six-year-old daughter. I never want her to believe that there is something she can't become because of her gender.
Genderizationist Party. Right?
Gee FOTD...you never get it, do you?
She is qualified to be president. Not every woman. Hillary is. The fact that she is a woman is a bonus.
My vote for a democrat in Oklahoma won't matter because we live a red state, but my support for Hillary matters to me. I know you must have a good reason why you support Obama, but in all your posts on this forum on this election, all you ever post are attacks on Hillary.
So FOTD, could you explain why you support Obama?
Anybody catch her on SNL last night?
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
Gee FOTD...you never get it, do you?
She is qualified to be president. Not every woman. Hillary is. The fact that she is a woman is a bonus.
My vote for a democrat in Oklahoma won't matter because we live a red state, but my support for Hillary matters to me. I know you must have a good reason why you support Obama, but in all your posts on this forum on this election, all you ever post are attacks on Hillary.
So FOTD, could you explain why you support Obama?
She'd be terrible dealing with Muslim regimes. They have no respect for women. Bill would be totally in there. He's a has been. He dissapointed many of us. She would be very divesive on the homeland. Her emotions would get in the way of her judgement.
I'm for Obama for many good reasons.
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf
http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid353515028?bctid=416343938
There is a clear disitinction between the two.
I'd sit out the election if Billary faced McCaint.
It's cut and dry. We need a new face for America. See change and sea change.
She's old hat too.....old hack as well.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/02/29/718538.aspx
Sen. Hillary Clinton has declined to return $170,000 in campaign contributions from individuals at a company accused of widespread sexual harassment, and whose CEO is a disbarred lawyer with a criminal record, federal campaign records show. "This is by far, hands down, the worst case I've ever experienced," said Diane Smason, one of the EEOC lawyers handling the lawsuit. "Every woman there experienced sex harassment, they were part of a hostile work environment of sex harassment." Senator Clinton is keeping the money.
Intelligent design? Don't take the bait.
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
Notice it's gone from when to if she wins, that says it all.
If she wins?
(http://themoderatevoice.com/wordpress-engine/files/2007-october/hell_freezes_over.jpg)
I don't think she's the worst candidate, I just think she can only win if democratic party officials ignore their constituents.
A democratic president should be a shoo-in for 2008, but it seems they are desperate to find a way to screw it up.
quote:
She also won Florida and Michigan
No other major democrat was even on the ballot in Michigan, of course she won!
This entire thing bothers me. She is firmly on record saying she agrees they should not count because they broke party rules. She wins, and now they should count. For me, that pretty much is the entire MO of Clinton - what I said or stand for be damned if it helps me win. If she never agreed she would have a case to assert it should count, as it stands she can either give up on them or be a hypocrite, no other choice.
And yes, she won e 3 of the 10 big states (2 of them being her "home" state in NY/NJ plus California. MI isnt even an indication, and FL "should not be counted," quote is from Hillary). Meanwhile Obama has won 2 of them. It looks increasingly like they will split TX and Ohio, so for the big states Hillary will officially be up 4 to 3 in the big states. Not exactly a landslide.
For the small states I count Obama 25, Hillary 8. For the popular vote Obama is up by about 1,000,000 people. In the state's where Hillary won the democrats can count on delegates if a well spoke clam ran for the presidency (NY, NJ, California, & Michigan) and polling indicates that Obama wins more cross over republicans and independents - so I don't see a "but I won these state's!" argument winning a convention.
What's more:
quote:
she will probably be favored to win in Pennsylvania in May and has a ten point lead there now
Just like the 10 point lead she had going in to Wisconsin, where she lost by 14. Or Iowa. Or Texas... if you look at the polls she had a 14 point lead, then 12, then 8 and now 4. Same as what happened in the Texas of Ohio polls. The more people know about her and the more the know about the choice, the more ground she loses. She has yet to GAIN ground when campaigning in a state picked up in earnest.
To me, that's telling.
ut I am an unabashed Hillary hater so clearly I have issues looking at this with a clear lens.
^+1
I should add that I'm not a Hillary hater, at all. I just think that Obama is a better candidate for the Democrats -- and has proven it on the campaign trail.
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
So, RM, are you ready to go double or nothing? Here's what I predict, Obama will get Texas...
You are on.
Hillary wins the Texas popular vote.
Loser pays for dine-in Mazzio's pizza for both families at the downtown location.
Jamie Dupree was saying on Boortz this morning that he was not seeing very much overt support for Obama, even in Austin of all places.
Hillary isn't ever going to concede before the convention, regardless of Texas and Ohio.
The Clinton legal machine will spring into action.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Jamie Dupree was saying on Boortz this morning that he was not seeing very much overt support for Obama, even in Austin of all places.
Hillary isn't ever going to concede before the convention, regardless of Texas and Ohio.
The Clinton legal machine will spring into action.
Texans won't brag about voting for a democrat. The last Democrat they voted for was Jimmy Carter. Heck, they'll end up being frightened into voting for McCaintco.
Hillary would do well being gracious and conceding. You are probably correct in saying she won't give in. Makes for good TV at the convention. Big ratings.
"A thing worth having is a thing worth cheating for." W.C.Fields
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Jamie Dupree was saying on Boortz this morning that he was not seeing very much overt support for Obama, even in Austin of all places.
Hillary isn't ever going to concede before the convention, regardless of Texas and Ohio.
The Clinton legal machine will spring into action.
Texans won't brag about voting for a democrat. The last Democrat they voted for was Jimmy Carter. Heck, they'll end up being frightened into voting for McCaintco.
Hillary would do well being gracious and conceding. You are probably correct in saying she won't give in. Makes for good TV at the convention. Big ratings.
"A thing worth having is a thing worth cheating for." W.C.Fields
Count on her not conceding any time soon. I think she'll fight for it even more embarrasingly than Teddy did in 1980. The Clintons are running around telling people that the primary elections really don't mean anything. Those delegates are up in the air till the DNC.
I could honestly see Hill's ego being large enough to keep it tied up in courts till after the convention. The Clinton's are loyal to the party so long as it's loyal to them. It's Hillary's turn you Democrats, don't you get that?
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/03/01/politics/fromtheroad/entry3896372.shtml
"Senator Hillary Clinton implies that She or McCain would be a better President than Obama. Now, Senator Clinton is campaigning for McCain. Joe Lieberman, move over. Beyond being a betrayal of the Democratic Party, She "balked" at describing any -- repeat, any -- foreign policy experience that would make her more reliable to pick up a WH phone at 3 AM. Shameless. "
Come on FOTD.
You just posted slander from a blogger.
Hillary didn't say she liked McCain over Obama.
^No, but she did imply that only she and McCain have the necessary experience to be president:
quote:
"I think that I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002."
Yet, when pressed, she cannot give specifics of that experience. Here is the problem of continuing the campaign beyond any hope of winning--the tendency to start attacking and thus ruining our chances of winning in the fall.
This is funny (Warning: Pro-Hillary)
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/03/04/comedy-gold-slate-focus-groups-hillarys-daisy-ad/
What effect, if any do any of you believe exit poll results in Ohio and Texas will have on the vote as it goes into the late afternoon and evening?
I've always thought exit polling unfairly benefits or hurts candidates when voters get in their car to go to the polls undecided and hear a report of who is winning, that it becomes a herd mentality.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
This is funny (Warning: Pro-Hillary)
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/03/04/comedy-gold-slate-focus-groups-hillarys-daisy-ad/
STRAIGHT FROM THE FRIGHTWING PLAYBOOK.....she's a dueschebag!
We don't need your rude insults, FOTD.
This forum stands out because people can debate both sides of many topics and are willing to do their homework and back up what they believe.
You do not.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
We don't need your rude insults, FOTD.
This forum stands out because people can debate both sides of many topics and are willing to do their homework and back up what they believe.
You do not.
She needs to accept her fate, suck it up and accept losing. There's nothing left to debate except the future of the Democratic Party.
She's a loser.
I need not point this out. Monica made it evident.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
This is funny (Warning: Pro-Hillary)
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/03/04/comedy-gold-slate-focus-groups-hillarys-daisy-ad/
Our own little example at TNF of how the frightwing is rooting for Billary all of a sudden.....
FOTD, you are giving us Obama supporters a very bad image.
If Hillary wins both Texas and Ohio, she should be treated as a viable candidate.
Obama has won eleven in a row and has outspent Hillary by over two-to-one in both states. The format and Texas rules favor his campaign strengths clearly. Texans get to vote in a primary and a caucus and the delegate distribution puts extra weight in Austin and Houston with large black and student populations. Losing after winning all those in a row, having your strengths as part of the rules and doubling your campaign spending over your opponent would be a terrible blow.
His failure to close the deal should worry his supporters.
Losing big states is not the way to win the White House. Obama is far from winning this election. He needs over 2,000 delegates and only has 1,300 today and is only 100 in front of Hillary.
You don't stop the Indianapolis 500 car race after 350 miles because one car has a small lead. That is especially true if the car in second is catching up.
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
FOTD, you are giving us Obama supporters a very bad image.
I'm throwing Hillary to the wolves today. She's giving Democrats a very bad image not to mention how she is aiding and abetting the enemy. She'd be more likely to run as veep with McCaint at this juncture the way she has chosen to campain.
This is Oklahoma. Do you think Obama supporters here make any difference?
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
FOTD, you are giving us Obama supporters a very bad image.
Uh, NO. FOTD/AOX or whatever else he calls himself gives TNF a bad image.
RM: Once again I find myself agreeing with you. Twice in as many days I think.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
If Hillary wins both Texas and Ohio, she should be treated as a viable candidate.
Obama has won eleven in a row and has outspent Hillary by over two-to-one in both states. The format and Texas rules favor his campaign strengths clearly. Texans get to vote in a primary and a caucus and the delegate distribution puts extra weight in Austin and Houston with large black and student populations. Losing after winning all those in a row, having your strengths as part of the rules and doubling your campaign spending over your opponent would be a terrible blow.
His failure to close the deal should worry his supporters.
Losing big states is not the way to win the White House. Obama is far from winning this election. He needs over 2,000 delegates and only has 1,300 today and is only 100 in front of Hillary.
You don't stop the Indianapolis 500 car race after 350 miles because one car has a small lead. That is especially true if the car in second is catching up.
Sen. Clinton started "shaming" others - then, I saw her mocking Sen. Obama, and indirectly, those of us who agree with his message.
Have any of you seen or read about Hillary mocking Obama's entire message of hope? It's ugly as hell.
I urge the candidate to save some face by changing her behavior, looking realistically at her situation, and withdrawing from this race.
I urge her to ignore FOTD.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
FOTD, you are giving us Obama supporters a very bad image.
Uh, NO. FOTD/AOX or whatever else he calls himself gives TNF a bad image.
RM: Once again I find myself agreeing with you. Twice in as many days I think.
RM....do you need a better example of playing into talk radio politics?
http://thejoshuablogs.blogspot.com/2008/03/obama-clintons-experience-chose-to-not.html
"35 years of "experience" wasn't enough to read the Iraq NIE the Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee said she should?
35 years of "experience" wasn't enough to provide an actual moment of crisis where that experience prevailed.
We can't afford Hillary Clinton's definition of 35 years of experience."
If Hillary can only win core Democratic votes, if she can't win Independents, then why bother to nominate her, when that's the clearest proof that she's unelectable?
Unless Democrats want to hand this election to McCaint.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
I urge her to ignore FOTD.
I urge FOTD/AOX to get lost.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
I urge her to ignore FOTD.
I urge FOTD/AOX to get lost.
Whine Whine Whine.....just like Hillary.
The Clintons need to go away. Put a stake through her heart. Draw blood. Mine to if you want me to get lost. Only way to deal with the devil....
"Better stay away from him
He'll rip your lungs out, Jim"
Warren Zevon
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
I urge her to ignore FOTD.
I urge FOTD/AOX to get lost.
Whine Whine Whine.....just like Hillary.
The Clintons need to go away. Put a stake through her heart. Draw blood. Mine to if you want me to get lost. Only way to deal with the devil....
"Better stay away from him
He'll rip your lungs out, Jim"
Warren Zevon
It is not whining. I have just had it with you. OUT. I encourage others on this forum to join this position.
Clinton takes Ohio, Rhode Island; Obama takes Vermont.
Texas is up in the air and reportedly, some caucus leaders who supported Obama locked out Hillary supporters....
This is going to get ugly.
Hillary has her dukes up, though, and has two more states up her sleeves. With such a wide margin of victory (so far) in Ohio, it looks like (based on similar demographics) that Pennsylvania will follow...
That means she has the majority of the HUGE states.
+/- Texas.
quote:
Originally posted by DScott28604
Clinton takes Ohio, Rhode Island; Obama takes Vermont.
Texas is up in the air and reportedly, some caucus leaders who supported Obama locked out Hillary supporters....
This is going to get ugly.
Hillary has her dukes up, though, and has two more states up her sleeves. With such a wide margin of victory (so far) in Ohio, it looks like (based on similar demographics) that Pennsylvania will follow...
That means she has the majority of the HUGE states.
+/- Texas.
"This will come down to delegates."
Mark Penn (Clinton campaign manager) in 07
There's no dent in the lead. The count is accurate. The party will embrace Obama. Just a matter of time. Big states don't rule. David Axelrod has had a great strategy. The Obama people have had the counts right on for months. A tremendous positive campaign versus Clintonian slop.
Meanwhile, Bush will anoint John Dubyah McCain on Wednesday at the White House. Got to love it.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
There's no dent in the lead.
Hillary picked up 27 delgates and possibly more from the caucus in Texas. She got 350,000 more votes than him last night.
She now has more popular votes than him nationwide.
"no dent in the lead"?
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
There's no dent in the lead.
Hillary picked up 27 delgates and possibly more from the caucus in Texas. She got 350,000 more votes than him last night.
She now has more popular votes than him nationwide.
"no dent in the lead"?
She seemed very pleased afterwards.
I just can't seem to put any trust in her. I've tried to erase my pre-dispositions, and let her start over with me with a blank slate, but then she gives a speech and my danger alarm goes off again!
(http://www.nydailynews.com/img/2007/10/26/gal_hillary_6.jpg)
That little turd BHO better start smoking 2 packs a day now to keep his speaking voice in prime form because the Clintons are back.
-
I think Americans are finally waking up and seeing that this guy's substance barely goes skin deep.
Notice that in states where you didn't have a cadre of young stupid activist voters--hillary won.
I've posted my strong support for Ms. Clinton here for about a year and a half now.
Democrats must finally remember that both of our candidates share many values. At this point I don't see how we can win in November if we don't have a Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton ticket.
My man Jack Henderson won last night too. I love the way Rich Tulsa can't buy North Tulsa's vote. This isn't good news for Taylor.
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
I've posted my strong support for Ms. Clinton here for about a year and a half now.
Democrats must finally remember that both of our candidates share many values. At this point I don't see how we can win in November if we don't have a Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton ticket.
My man Jack Henderson won last night too. I love the way Rich Tulsa can't buy North Tulsa's vote. This isn't good news for Taylor.
if that is the way that it has to be then it needs to be a Clinton/Obama ticket to keep that smoking turd in check.
Looks like we owe you dinner, Rm. Clinton had to win both Texas & Ohio to remain in the race, and she did. More to come.
She will roll in Pennsylvania as well.....
quote:
She now has more popular votes than him nationwide.
Are you including Michigan where Obama was not even on the ballot?
Here's a source for totals:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html
Deep down, a lot of Republicans I've talked to have been saying privately that if McCain were to lose in November, they'd rather him lose to Hillary as she is a known quantity and will likely have to become more moderate much as Mr. Clinton did.
Obama is too much of an unknown. His character has not been thoroughly tested since he's missed so many Senate votes. I still don't get the cachet a candidate holds who hasn't fulfilled the duties of his Senate job.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
There's no dent in the lead.
Hillary picked up 27 delgates and possibly more from the caucus in Texas. She got 350,000 more votes than him last night.
She now has more popular votes than him nationwide.
"no dent in the lead"?
Both these statements are false. Hillary does not have more popular votes. She trails by a mere 100,000 or so out of 25,000,000. NOT THAT IT MATTERS.
As far as Texass delegates. She picks up 5=10 on the popular vote, but due to a strange caucus system loses 7. She'll gain a net 3-5 delegates after he was so far behind 2 months ago.
Good democrats need to keep in mind this fact. The prepondreance of black voters have helped Obama carry many close races. They will not support Hillary in the general election. Then you can look back to 2000 and 20004 to see how the election unfolds. Republicans will focus only on their strongholds knowing the critical electoral votes lay in their traditional fold.
If Barack does get the nomination, black voters turn out in droves and drive the repugs from power.
quote:
Originally posted by Breadburner
She will roll in Pennsylvania as well.....
Barack does not need Pennsylvania to win the nod.
The fact remains that Hillary picked up seven and a maximum of 10 net delegates last night, according to MSNBC. That's not going to do much against a fellow who had a 100-delegate lead.
It was kind of interesting how Hillary's goals kept changing. First, she needed "big" wins -- as in 15 points and more -- in Ohio and Texas. She didn't get that in either.
Nevertheless, Obama needs to finish strong.
I could picture Bill Clinton personally appealing to Obama:
BC: "Now Barack, let's do what we all know is right and back my little Hillary."
BHO: "Why on earth should I do that?"
BC: "Well young man, because it's her turn. America loves a Clinton and I don't think you ought to stand in the way of what America wants."
BHO: "Well sir, don't you think it's time for change? Maybe someone different should run the country than a Clinton or Bush the next four years."
BC: "Barack that 'change' thing is cute and all but it's Hillary's turn. You can be her vice president for eight years, then you can have your turn, okay? First woman President before first black President, okay?"
BHO: "Uh, Mr. President, with all due respect that didn't work so well for Al Gore."
BC: "Now don't start up with that Gore crap or I'll have you picking cotton...."
Based on Hilldog's quotes last night, don't put it past the Clintons.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Deep down, a lot of Republicans I've talked to have been saying privately that if McCain were to lose in November, they'd rather him lose to Hillary as she is a known quantity and will likely have to become more moderate much as Mr. Clinton did.
Obama is too much of an unknown. His character has not been thoroughly tested since he's missed so many Senate votes. I still don't get the cachet a candidate holds who hasn't fulfilled the duties of his Senate job.
http://blogs.reuters.com/trail08/2008/02/13/clinton-leads-obama-in-missed-senate-votes/
Clinton leads Obama in missed Senate votes
February 13th, 2008, filed by Jeremy Pelofsky
WASHINGTON - Hillary Clinton may be falling behind rival Barack Obama in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, but she has the lead in missed votes in the U.S. Senate so far this year.
After reviewing Republican presidential hopeful John McCain's voting record on Tuesday, we examined how the Democrats were handling their day job as well.
Clinton missed 18 of 21 votes while Obama missed 10 of 21 roll calls so far this year, though they spent much of Tuesday casting votes related to a bill that ultimately passed, empowering U.S. intelligence agencies to conduct domestic surveillance on terrorism suspects without court orders.
The two skipped the final passage vote for that measure as they headed back out on the campaign trail but McCain, who has a commanding lead for his party's nomination, stuck around for it.
McCain matched Obama's tally for 2008, missing 10 out of 21 votes.
In December, Obama and Clinton each missed 27 of 30 votes. http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/clinton-obama_pillow_fight.html
...In fact, Obama sponsored more than 800 bills during his eight years as an Illinois state senator. And his U.S. Senate career, while brief, has been action-packed.
As for Obama's list of his accomplishments, he's right on every count. A Washington Post editorial credited Obama for helping to create "the strongest ethics legislation to emerge from Congress yet," and the Coburn-Obama Act created a new Web site, USAspending.gov, which allows anyone to see where federal contracting and grant money is being spent. Moreover, it was an Obama-sponsored amendment that ended Walter Reed's practice of requiring outpatient military personnel to pay for their own meals. And as a state senator in Illinois, Obama championed a bill requiring the police to videotape prisoner interrogations. Although initially controversial, the measure passed the Senate unanimously; even Republicans conceded that the turnaround was largely Obama's doing. Finally, while Obama didn't mention this one, we think it's worth noting that the Lugar-Obama non-proliferation initiative provided funds for destroying nuclear weapons and for intercepting weapons of mass destruction.
In short, Clinton is wrong to suggest that Obama lacks a substantive legislative record.
Go back and re-run that total dating back to last June and you'll get my point.
Sorry Conan. He had to create a campaign out of nothing. His campaign has been run very well. Funny how all those other US Senators including Kerry and Kennedy and McCaskill, etc etc... don't have a problem with him missing senate votes, endorsing him in a campaign for the highest office in the country.
Yet Conan has decided that this should disqualify Obama to be president. Hmmm, which opinion holds more weight? The opinion of a serial TNF poster or the opinions of people and politicians who have experience and know the senate...???
One of the BIGGEST issues he has to counter with his campaigning are his detractors who will INSIST on using his initials BHO.... that's right....
"Barack HUSSEIN Obama, say it over and over again... 'Barack HUSSEIN Obama, say it loud and there's music playing... say it soft and it's almost like praying...'" [:D] /sarcasm
It is a non-issue. Except in the media's "tennis court of spin"... I've observed the guy over the course of years and years in Illinois. He has the experience and in my opinion deserves to be president.
Why don't you try commenting on other's posts without resorting to personal attacks?
BHO sounds more respectful than B.O. Endorsements from Kerry & Kennedy- that's all I need to know, say no more. Obama is the perfect sock-puppet for guys like that.
I'm not picking strictly on Obama. I think all members of the House and Senate should be required to abdicate their seat in order to run for higher office. It's a rip-off to the citizens who elected them to look out for the best interests of their constituency in Washington.
Awww, did Conan get his feelings hurt?... Sorry. I thought you could take it.
Geez, you've got an avatar that accuses Hillary Clinton of being a communist.
Obama overwhelmingly won the state of Illinois in the super tuesday primary (and yes, Hillary Clinton grew up in Park Ridge, IL)... if the people of Illinois didn't have a problem with it, why should it be an issue... unless you're just grasping for straws, not unlike the gossip over Kathy Taylor voting in two states?!?
And you think YOU'RE the subject of personal attacks... geez. [;)]
Obama is no more of a "sock-puppet" for Kennedy than Paul Simon and Paul Wellstone were... keep spinnin'...
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
Awww, did Conan get his feelings hurt?... Sorry. I thought you could take it.
Geez, you've got an avatar that accuses Hillary Clinton of being a communist.
Obama overwhelmingly won the state of Illinois in the super tuesday primary... if the people of Illinois didn't have a problem with it, why should it be an issue... unless you're just grasping for straws, not unlike the gossip over Kathy Taylor voting in two states?!?
And you think YOU'RE the subject of personal attacks... geez. [;)]
Yes, Conan have vewy tender feewings. I crave approval from you Ruf. [;)]
Just saying we can disagree without snipey comments like "serial poster".
No kidding Obama carried Illinois. It's pretty rare a candidate for President won't carry his or her home state in the primaries or in the general. Hell, Even Minnesota carried Mondale in '84 (only state which did, along with D.C.).
I'll repeat it again: elected legislators,
including John McCain spending the majority of their time on the campaign trail are a taxpayer and constituent rip-off. There should be a law...
Where I qualify Obama moreso as being different on my point is that he's missed more votes than McCain or Clinton in the last calendar year. None of the three fulfill their constitutional obligation to constituents when they play hookie from their day job. Hillary and McCain have had to build campaigns as well. I disagree Obama had any more of a hill to climb than Hillary or McCain. If anyone, McCain has had the greatest odds to overcome. Nobody wanted him last September and everyone thought he was done.
That alone is not my biggest problem, I personally think Obama is the perfect sock-puppet for unelectable Democrats like Kerry, Kennedy, and Gore. I can see liberal duds like those living vicariously through Obama and pulling a lot of his strings.
well of course, because Obama is used to having his strings pulled by scumbags like Resko.
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
well of course, because Obama is used to having his strings pulled by scumbags like Resko.
Pathetic....
Is that slander the best you can do? Crawl back into your paper bag. I know a few ready to light it and put it on the White House front porch.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Deep down, a lot of Republicans I've talked to have been saying privately that if McCain were to lose in November, they'd rather him lose to Hillary as she is a known quantity and will likely have to become more moderate much as Mr. Clinton did.
Obama is too much of an unknown. His character has not been thoroughly tested since he's missed so many Senate votes. I still don't get the cachet a candidate holds who hasn't fulfilled the duties of his Senate job.
This from a guy who supported Rocky Frisco?[:D]
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Deep down, a lot of Republicans I've talked to have been saying privately that if McCain were to lose in November, they'd rather him lose to Hillary as she is a known quantity and will likely have to become more moderate much as Mr. Clinton did.
Obama is too much of an unknown. His character has not been thoroughly tested since he's missed so many Senate votes. I still don't get the cachet a candidate holds who hasn't fulfilled the duties of his Senate job.
This from a guy who supported Rocky Frisco?[:D]
I'm finding the longer I'm off the nicotine, the more I become a political enigma. [;)] You will probably be [:O] when you hear where my support is going in an upcoming election.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
well of course, because Obama is used to having his strings pulled by scumbags like Resko.
Pathetic....
I know a few ready to light it and put it on the White House front porch.
Now that's just ****ing hillarious. FOTD has just pwned Inteller.
Delegate count:
Obama- 1566
Clinton- 1457
difference Obama +109
How much movement has occurred since yesterday?
http://abcnews.go.com/politics/elections/delegates?ref=ipb
Billary picked up a net of 12 delegates yesterday. Thanks to Matt Drudge, Lorne Michaels, Jack Nicholson, John Stewart and fright wing talk show comedy.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
That alone is not my biggest problem, I personally think Obama is the perfect sock-puppet for unelectable Democrats like Kerry, Kennedy, and Gore. I can see liberal duds like those living vicariously through Obama and pulling a lot of his strings.
And personally, I think Obama HAS HIS OWN VIEWS. Those views owe a debt to midwestern liberals like Paul Wellstone and Paul Simon...
Besides, aren't all registered Republicans actually looking for sock-puppets for Ronald Reagan???.... god knows, if it'd win them an election, Republicans would gladly vote for a DEAD Ronald Reagan, ala that 80s flick,
Weekend at Bernie's. [8D]
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/bf/Weekend-at-bernies.jpg)
While we're stuck in the 80s, your Republican arguments remind me of asking for advice from the GOP for who ran against Don Nickles back in the day... moderate dem James R Jones ran against him, yet the Daily Oklahoman still managed to paint him as a far left liberal, pinko-commie, etc, etc,... even when the most liberal "Kennedy luvin'" democrat in Oklahoma at the time was Mike Synar. And looking back on it, I have much more respect for Mike Synar and his Kennedy-esque liberal positions over the fiscally conservative James R Jones...
You never get tired of assuming you know more about my political views than I do myself. [:D]
Nickles and Jones has been years ago, still not certain what point you are trying to dredge out of that, but, hey, it's your keyboard. Jones was very, very popular in this Congressional district. David Boren was incredibly popular amongst Oklahoma Republicans when he was in the Senate.
Real Republicans realize Reagan has been out of office for 19 years and that they closed his casket a few years back.
Hannity seems to be the only one still screaming "Reagan Conservative".
One likeness of Reagan I would like to see in our next President would be a great unifier of all Americans. His stunning landslide in 1984 is all you need to know about the man to see what a great job he did in unifying our nation after the tumultuous 1970's.
I'd like to see the fiscal responsibility again of the Congress and Exectutive Branch working together again that we had from 1994 through 2000. By all accounts, history shows Clinton to have been a slightly better fiscal conservative than Reagan, though Clinton did not walk into the economic disaster that Reagan had to help lead the country out of.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
well of course, because Obama is used to having his strings pulled by scumbags like Resko.
Pathetic....
Is that slander the best you can do? Crawl back into your paper bag. I know a few ready to light it and put it on the White House front porch.
slander? And I guess you have the ultimate proof otherwise?
Listen, it is a KNOWN fact that obama and resko were driving around looking for properties AFTER resko had be indicted for FRAUD.
You haven't even seen the tip of the iceberg on this slimeball. he and hillary would make the ultimate slimeball ticket. She could teach him all her old Whitewater tricks. the only reason hillary hasn't pressed the issue is because of her own skeletons.
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
well of course, because Obama is used to having his strings pulled by scumbags like Resko.
Pathetic....
Is that slander the best you can do? Crawl back into your paper bag. I know a few ready to light it and put it on the White House front porch.
slander? And I guess you have the ultimate proof otherwise?
Listen, it is a KNOWN fact that obama and resko were driving around looking for properties AFTER resko had be indicted for FRAUD.
You haven't even seen the tip of the iceberg on this slimeball. he and hillary would make the ultimate slimeball ticket. She could teach him all her old Whitewater tricks. the only reason hillary hasn't pressed the issue is because of her own skeletons.
Non sense....AGAIN!
Advice to Right Wingers for Nothin' and Insight for Free
By Peter Michaelson
"The day-to-day reminders of our calamitous Iraq War have backed off the front pages as the fight for freedom and the American Way intensifies on the homefront. Beginning now, the nation's attention will be drawn more to the fusillade of words discharged by John McCain, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama.
Whether or not Iraq is sidelined in this political debate, this presidential race is, in large part, between those Americans who have begun to assimilate the reality of our horrendous self-defeat in Iraq and those evolutionary stragglers who adamantly refuse to do so.
Even if the Iraq War lurches along in a tense standoff, it would still be an American defeat because it has made us more enemies and left us weaker. The debacle is worse than a simple defeat on the field of battle. The idea of invading Iraq was sheer perversion from the moment of its budding erection in that lower chakra where neo-con consciousness breeds. Predictably, the war has become our great self-defeat. Many Americans, notably supporters of George W. Bush, refuse to come to terms with this notion of self-defeat and their role in it. McCain, an invasion fist-pumper from the beginning, is one of them.
The financial cost alone -- $2 trillion and climbing -- is an overdose of insanity being dumped on our children. Are we too dysfunctional ourselves to know madness when we see it?
Many Americans, notably right-wingers, totally refuse to recognize the extent of our folly, grieve for our loss, and feel our shame. They have, for starters, ensnared themselves in an Orwellian world where passivity is freedom, ignorance is innocence, and denial a starry-eyed patriotism. They also refuse to relinquish their greatest strategic "strength" -- their ability to distort the truth.
"You can't handle the truth!" said Jack Nicholson famously in "A Few Good Men." In fact, the character portrayed by Nicholson in that 1992 film -- the ruthless right-wing Col. Jessup -- was wrong. The colonel was the one who couldn't handle the truth of how his paranoid worldview was shaped by the hateful, evil bastard he was.
Truth is the enemy of illusions, and the biggest illusion among fervent right-wingers is the faith in their innocence and the purity of their intentions. These evolutionary stragglers have a faith-based perception of themselves that spills over to our intelligence agencies and the military. The church-state divide is threadbare when the imperatives of national security are mythologized as state religion.
Shock and Awe, the American gods of war, glide over the Potomac, cloaked like Stealth bombers, roaring out battle hymns of profane ferocity. Down below, heads bowed, eyes closed, our politicians float weightless in their own non-being, compulsive appeasers of the Great Destroyers.
Right-wingers are happy under Bush, as they would be under Putin. It makes no difference. All that matters is that they can make a claim, however overdrawn, to be honorable and noble in their own little square foot of self-absorption. John McCain is a fan of the words "honorable" and "noble," and he uses them as guiding principles. The prefix "The Honorable" or "The Hon." is often of necessity applied to politicians as linguistic deodorant.
"These people have honorable records, and they're honorable people," McCain said last month, defending the lobbyists who are part of his election team. Indeed, corporate lobbying is one of the most honorable of professions.
Honor, nobility, and loyalty are lesser human virtues, and they offer, like a trio of minor bards, unstable plot twists by which to guide one's life. (The human refinements of integrity, compassion, and wisdom are stronger virtues.)
The lesser virtues are easily converted into illusions of innocence, or made to serve as props for a grandiose self-image, or erected as forms of self-defense against a harsh inner conscience, or (as in the case of loyalty) employed as a reciprocal arrangement for the protection and advancement of one's own person.
When guided principally by notions of honor, nobility, and loyalty, we can't see evil for what it is. Evolutionary stragglers who might wish to come to terms with the evil they have unleashed in Iraq have to begin to develop integrity. This means they take moral responsibility for whatever is done in their name. Start by contemplating the word "atonement." The buck doesn't just stop at the president's desk. If we're authentic and mature, even a buck touched by a lobbyist stops at the kitchen table for our stamp of ownership.
Evolutionary stragglers wishing to keep pace in the human race must first die to the old ego, the old identity. This process usually involves disorientation, confusion, and anxiety. If they can weather the passage with a sense of trust and purpose, they'll be born again into their selfhood. Compassion is awakened as an expansion of the self, and truth is discerned out of one's own goodness. We discover that it's a blessing to feel grief for our misadventure in Iraq, as opposed to being dead to our deeds and thus to ourselves.
If right-wingers begin to acknowledge the Iraq War for what it is -- an ignoble, dishonorable, and traitorous assault on American integrity -- they will stay abreast of us on the road to redemption and renewal."
Like McCaint is unvarnished? Plus he is a culprit in the ruinization of our economy and wants to continue on for many moons....
http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/wahl/090
Bill Clinton endorsed the Kazakhstan Dictator, won Giustra a $3.1 BILLION Deal; So Giustra gave Bill $131MIL. Hillary Clinton lent her campaign at least $5 Million Dollars allegedly out of a joint bank account with Bill. Get it? http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us/politics/31donor.html?_r=1&pagewanted=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin
You will never "get it" inteller.....you must be a war monger.....are you a war monger inteller?
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
I've posted my strong support for Ms. Clinton here for about a year and a half now.
Democrats must finally remember that both of our candidates share many values. At this point I don't see how we can win in November if we don't have a Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton ticket.
My man Jack Henderson won last night too. I love the way Rich Tulsa can't buy North Tulsa's vote. This isn't good news for Taylor.
How did it feel to finally back a slam-dunk winner? You do have chameleon colors, I thought you were done w/ Jack, now he's your "man"?
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
Listen, it is a KNOWN fact that obama and resko were driving around looking for properties AFTER resko had be indicted for FRAUD.
Rezko's muuuuuuuch more damaging to Blagojevich than to Obama.
You oughta hang out up in the Windy City a little bit more, Inteller. You might like it. Great hotdogs, amazing architecture, the Lake, the Cubbies, and Rod Blagojevich, one of the most crooked Dem governors you'll ever meet.
This is playing - unfortunately -- like it's a big expose on Obama, but it really isn't. It's much more of an expose on state politics, and the office of the governor.
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
Listen, it is a KNOWN fact that obama and resko were driving around looking for properties AFTER resko had be indicted for FRAUD.
Rezko's muuuuuuuch more damaging to Blagojevich than to Obama.
You oughta hang out up in the Windy City a little bit more, Inteller. You might like it. Great hotdogs, amazing architecture, the Lake, the Cubbies, and Rod Blagojevich, one of the most crooked Dem governors you'll ever meet.
This is playing - unfortunately -- like it's a big expose on Obama, but it really isn't. It's much more of an expose on state politics, and the office of the governor.
yeah, of which obama spent much more time in than he did a US senator.