PastaJoe

Your daughter belongs to a school lesbian club?

The way I heard it was more like: 1) Hillary - I'll keep fighting for you 2) McCain - When's the Bingo game start? 3) Obama - Hillary has some great ideas and we should embrace them Of course the media like Keith Olbermann were humping the TV monitors when Obama was speaking.

You can't deny that McCain agrees with Bush on the majority of policy issues, especially Iraq and the economy. He might have some tactical differences, but in general has the same strategic view.

Hillary ended the primary season with another strong win in South Dakota, and worked hard to get the most popular votes in primary history. I'm glad that she gave a strong speech last night that reemphasized why so many people believe she's the best candidate for the Democrats. But it appears that the party leaders are going to side with the media and go with the new kid on the block. If the numbers don't change, hopefully the presumptive nominee will do the smart thing and include Hillary on the ticket. You can't make change unless you have the job, and having both on the ticket is the best path to victory.

"Barack, I am your father. Come to the dark side. Wait, wait, that didn't come out right."

Hydroseeding is just seeds mixed in with pulpy material and water to hold it in place. First you mix the pulp mix and water, then throw in a bag of seed, and spray it out. The advantage is it's quicker if you're doing alot of lawns. But you still should have a good base of topsoil to spray it on. Don't know if you can rent one, our's fit in the bed of a pickup. Call a landscaper and get an estimate and see if it's worth having someone else do the work. But you can achieve the same result on a small lawn with a hand spreader.

Maybe he had a fling with a Kenyan woman, and the baby was raised by a woman from Kansas. The truth is out, Obama is Clinton's son!

To echo your analogy, right now I feel like Norwood just missed the kick and some Giant fans are waving "We're #1" fingers in my face. So ask me again in a week.

As I've said before, I can't vote for McCain because of his policies. Maybe the McCain of 2000, but not his 2008 version. The question is whether I'll vote for Obama.

You should be on that detective show "Numbers".

I worked for a landscaper doing this sort of work. First we used a sodcutter to remove the old lawn in the fall. Rototilling will just bury the bad grass and weeds, you won't get them all, and eventually they'll grow through. Then put down a couple inches of topsoil. Use the wide landscaper rake and crosshatch to show any high/low spots that need to be leveled. Then either sod, which is much more expensive but gives you instant lawn (when matching sides, pull both up a bit and then pat down so one edge don't overlap the other), or grass seed and fertilizer. Important thing is to keep it watered, best way is to get sprinklers to cover the entire area and put them on a timer. Then in the spring you'll have to touch up any areas that didn't grow properly (spots too dry or wet).

I believe the blue collar workers she gets are more likely to cross over to McCain than the black voters than he gets, so they are the key demographic. And I've seen stats that show he would lose more voters to McCain than the number of Obama supporters who would sit home if it's her, since Obama supporters are more liberal. But we can agree to disagree. I didn't say I'd back Obama if she concedes, I said if she concedes AND she's part of the ticket. For him to choose another women, when there clearly isn't another as qualified except Diane Feinstein, would be a big disrespect.

Does all phases include who does better with blue collar workers, and whose won the important swing states, and the Hispanic vote throughout the campaign? I don't think it's a waste of time to try to have the best candidate as the nominee, which I believe she clearly is. But obviously she's closer to the possiblities of convincing superdelegates to support her at the convention than I am, so I will defer and support whatever decision she makes. It would make it much easier for her supporters to concede and back Obama if she was part of the ticket. If he doesn't make the offer, then it becomes difficult.

You'll have to ask an Obama supporter, they're the ones who don't use actual votes to determine the winner, but look at exit polls for perceived intent to determine how many votes someone should be given, ala Michigan.

WTF? How do you unofficially change the rule? What rule? You're really reaching now. You said it, it's part of the rules, she isn't trying to change that rule. But usually these people are strong supporters, and therefore she should concentrate on superdelegates first.

She hasn't tried to change that rule; votes determined how many pledged delegates the candidates got (except for Michigan, where exit polls count more than votes, and caucuses). But there's no debate that delegates are what count at the convention. Until they vote at the convention, superdelegates choose the criteria they want to decide how to vote. It could be popular votes, or it could be whose stronger in swing states, or who sends them a Christmas card. It's up to them. And it's up to the candidates to convince the superdelegates. No rule change there. Try again.

Please state specifically what rule she is trying to change. She's not asking that the person who gets the required number of delegates to vote for them at the convention not be given the nomination. She's just trying to get the superdelegates, who are not bound by any criteria to decide who to support, to vote for her, which is within the rules, so she can reach the required number when they vote at the convention and decide who the nominee will be.

Even if you include the caucuses, more people have voted for Hillary than Obama; 17,873,000 to 17,703,000. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/02/dem...race/index.html Fuzzy math is assuming all the people who voted uncommitted were voting for Obama. You can say they didn't vote for Clinton, but you can't say who they did vote for.

What excuse, I replied to a statement that I agreed her campaign made mistakes early on. That's a fact, not an excuse. I'd hate to have you as a player on my team with your losing attitude. "Coach, we're losing by a few points in the 4th quarter. I know more fans are for us than the other team, but why don't we just give up and go get a Happy Meal."

That's not obnoxious, that's angry. Angry at a party that disregards the popular vote and disrespects the candidate. Obnoxious is telling someone who is still in contention to quit prematurely because they're not their preferred choice.

There's no other reasonable explaination of why Obama took his name out of Michigan other than fear of a bad showing that would have minimized him, and pandering to Iowa and NH. Hillary did sign the same agreement (not to campaign). Again, it's a fact that removing their name was not part of the agreement. That was an individual decision. No doubt the campaign has made some strategic mistakes; not organizing in states that will go Republican in November and missing the chance to get the delegate votes to match her lead in popular votes to make the choice clearer for superdelegates were mistakes. But they righted the ship in the past three months, and clearly her message and candidacy is the preferred in the swing states a Democrat needs to win. She has had the momentum while his campaign has been losing altitude like a week old party balloon. Superdelegates need to recognize that if they want to vote with their heads.

I can't vote for McCain because I disagree with his proposed policies. The question is whether I will vote for Obama if he's the nominee. Sometimes I think I'd vote for him, but then I get turned off due to his obnoxious supporters. Maybe it's time to look at a 3rd party candidate, or a write-in vote for Clinton.

Point of fact, there was no rule or agreement that said a candidate had to remove their name from the ballot. That was the candidate's own decisions; Obama knew he was going to lose and saw it as a way to invalidate the vote totals, and was pandering to the Iowa and New Hampshire voters who want to maintain their starter status. He didn't give Hillary anything, because he didn't have any votes in Michigan, and therefore no delegates. They were either votes for Hillary or for Uncommitted, and that's how they should have been apportioned to go to the convention. Then if they wanted to vote for Obama at the convention, they could. She was entitled to 4 more delegates based on the vote than what she got, and those went to Obama along with 55 others. If pledged delegates are just going to be given to the party's favorite son without regard to the popular vote, then why bother voting in primaries anymore?

That's not me, I don't wear that shade of lipstick.

I agree that in the end whoever gets the total required delegates to vote for them at the convention will be the nominee. But since neither will reach that number from pledged delegates, the superdelegates will be the deciders, and when it comes to tiebreakers the total popular vote and wins in key electoral college states trumps total number of states.