Chilly Posted May 5, 2008 Share Posted May 5, 2008 Read the book and then talk to me. No need, look at his campaign tactics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted May 5, 2008 Share Posted May 5, 2008 He is in one very crucial way - he is nowhere near dirty as the Clintons. I don't know that point can be made with empirical evidence, but I'm willing to bet most of us think its true. Which is a result of him not being in politics for all that long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yall Posted May 5, 2008 Author Share Posted May 5, 2008 Which is a result of him not being in politics for all that long. Probably. But if I have to eat a chicken wing thats been sitting on the floor, I'll take the one that barely violates the 5 second rule, as opposed to the moldy one with dirt and spider eggs all over it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted May 5, 2008 Share Posted May 5, 2008 Probably. But if I have to eat a chicken wing thats been sitting on the floor, I'll take the one that barely violates the 5 second rule, as opposed to the moldy one with dirt and spider eggs all over it. At least with the moldy one you know what you are getting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted May 5, 2008 Share Posted May 5, 2008 That's just not true and you know it. The majority of her speeches and ads are about what policies she would enact. You see 10 second media clips of her answering questions on what she would have done regarding Rev. Wright or about Obama's "bitter" comment and think that's all she talks about. If Obama wants to talk policy, why not accept the challenge to unmoderated debates where they would be directly asking each other questions? Because he knows he would lose on substance. That funny, I haven't seen or heard one iota about a 'position' from either of them in weeks. Of course Hillary wants any kind of wild, unpredicable forum she can get since the only way she's going to win is if Obama keeps sticking his foot in his mouth. But even that may not be enough. Despite 'bittergate' and the MSM fawning all over her status as a "fighter" , she's still not making up any ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted May 5, 2008 Share Posted May 5, 2008 That funny, I haven't seen or heard one iota about a 'position' from either of them in weeks. Of course Hillary wants any kind of wild, unpredicable forum she can get since the only way she's going to win is if Obama keeps sticking his foot in his mouth. But even that may not be enough. Despite 'bittergate' and the MSM fawning all over her status as a "fighter" , she's still not making up any ground. Really? Moving Indiana from a deadlock to whats looking like a Clinton victory, and NC from being down 20 points to being down 7 points or so isn't making up any ground? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted May 5, 2008 Share Posted May 5, 2008 Really? Moving Indiana from a deadlock to whats looking like a Clinton victory, and NC from being down 20 points to being down 7 points or so isn't making up any ground? What does that difference equate to in delegates? Meanwhile, he's almost caught her in the Super Delegate count where she once had an big lead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted May 5, 2008 Share Posted May 5, 2008 What does that difference equate to in delegates? Meanwhile, he's almost caught her in the Super Delegate count where she once had an big lead. It strengthens her only shot in hell (the argument that she'd be a better candidate than Obama, and that he couldn't win). The Democrats will likely ignore that argument for other reasons (even if it is the correct one), but it is helping her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted May 5, 2008 Share Posted May 5, 2008 That funny, I haven't seen or heard one iota about a 'position' from either of them in weeks. Of course Hillary wants any kind of wild, unpredicable forum she can get since the only way she's going to win is if Obama keeps sticking his foot in his mouth. But even that may not be enough. Despite 'bittergate' and the MSM fawning all over her status as a "fighter" , she's still not making up any ground. You obviously haven't been listening, there have been multiple interviews in the past couple of weeks where Hillary has talked about her positions on the economy, gas and food prices, Iraq, Iran, healthcare, and taxes. All I've heard from Obama recently is flip-flops on Rev Wright and negative attacks on Hillary. He says removing the gas tax for the summer is naive, but offers no alternative. Complaining without offering alternative solutions is not leadership. Hillary still has had more people vote for her than Obama, and in fact more than any Democrat in primary history. When's Obama going to catch her on total votes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjamie12 Posted May 5, 2008 Share Posted May 5, 2008 When's Obama going to catch her on total votes? I love this! This is like an NFL team missing the playoffs but petitioning the league with "... but if you add our pre-season record in, we've actually won more games than them!!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted May 5, 2008 Share Posted May 5, 2008 I love this! This is like an NFL team missing the playoffs but petitioning the league with "... but if you add our pre-season record in, we've actually won more games than them!!" Yet Obama supporters think he should be given the nomination by superdelegates because he has more pledged delegates achieved with less popular votes due to varying caucus rules, even though it doesn't reach the 2025 necessary to win. "We were ahead in the playoffs after the 3rd quarter, so we should be given the game. And don't count some of the points the other team scored, even though we all saw them scored". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted May 5, 2008 Share Posted May 5, 2008 I love this! This is like an NFL team missing the playoffs but petitioning the league with "... but if you add our pre-season record in, we've actually won more games than them!!" Never mind the fact that it's b.s. because he's including the primary where Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot. In the races that count, Obama is well ahead in total votes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjamie12 Posted May 5, 2008 Share Posted May 5, 2008 Yet Obama supporters think he should be given the nomination by superdelegates because he has more pledged delegates achieved with less popular votes due to varying caucus rules, even though it doesn't reach the 2025 necessary to win. "We were ahead in the playoffs after the 3rd quarter, so we should be given the game. And don't count some of the points the other team scored, even though we all saw them scored". Very funny stuff. Let's go and continue with your painful analogy, and make it even moreso. Obama supporters are arguing that the game should be decided on the field. They are arguing that the referees shouldn't decide at the end of the 3rd quarter that they are going to call 'holding' on every single play that Obamamania (since we all know holding could be called on every play) runs against Hillaryitis, and, further, to start calling defensive holding on every single play in which Obamamania is on defense (because you can call holding on every play) While, technically, this is well within their rights, and legal, it just doesn't seem right, fair, or equitable to most people outside of the fans of Hillaryitis. No one is saying there shouldn't be referees, just to let the game be decided by someone other than them, even though it is well within their rights to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted May 5, 2008 Share Posted May 5, 2008 Bill Clinton Campaign Chairman and Hillary Clinton '08 Advisor Mickey Kantor tells George Stephanapoulos and James Carville: "Look at Indiana...it doesn't matter if we win. Those people are sh--. How would you like to be a worthless white ni**er?" http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Clinton_...ss_White_Ni_ers Even though it's old, I hope this gets some play and is enough to derail her. Pfft...it's the Democratic Party. They have "Superdelegates"... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted May 5, 2008 Share Posted May 5, 2008 Very funny stuff. Let's go and continue with your painful analogy, and make it even moreso. Obama supporters are arguing that the game should be decided on the field. They are arguing that the referees shouldn't decide at the end of the 3rd quarter that they are going to call 'holding' on every single play that Obamamania (since we all know holding could be called on every play) runs against Hillaryitis, and, further, to start calling defensive holding on every single play in which Obamamania is on defense (because you can call holding on every play) While, technically, this is well within their rights, and legal, it just doesn't seem right, fair, or equitable to most people outside of the fans of Hillaryitis. No one is saying there shouldn't be referees, just to let the game be decided by someone other than them, even though it is well within their rights to do so. Not to mention the fact that despite the rules committee specifically outlawing drop-kick FGs during the pre-season, the Hillaryitis proceeded to attempt several of them in the first quarter and now are upset because they have not been registered on the scoreboard. Thus they continue to insist that they are winning because they keep trying to count the illegal drop-kicks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yall Posted May 5, 2008 Author Share Posted May 5, 2008 Yet Obama supporters think he should be given the nomination by superdelegates because he has more pledged delegates achieved with less popular votes due to varying caucus rules, even though it doesn't reach the 2025 necessary to win. "We were ahead in the playoffs after the 3rd quarter, so we should be given the game. And don't count some of the points the other team scored, even though we all saw them scored". Um, you know that he actually leads in popular votes, states won, and delegates, right? Because only a ninny would count popular votes in states where the only two choices were 'Clinton' and 'Undecided'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted May 5, 2008 Share Posted May 5, 2008 Never mind the fact that it's b.s. because he's including the primary where Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot. In the races that count, Obama is well ahead in total votes. Obama took his own name off the Michigan ballots, he wasn't asked or required to, and then he told his supporters to vote for "Uncommitted", yet still got less than Hillary. Obama didn't show the good judgement he speaks about in this case. It's a fact more people have voted for Hillary than Obama. Obama runs the risk of disenfranchising Michigan and Florida voters at his own peril. I never thought an African-American would want to disenfranchise voters after those that came before him sacrificed so much to be counted, but that must be some of the "change" he talks of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yall Posted May 5, 2008 Author Share Posted May 5, 2008 Obama took his own name off the Michigan ballots, he wasn't asked or required to, and then he told his supporters to vote for "Uncommitted", yet still got less than Hillary. Obama didn't show the good judgement he speaks about in this case. It's a fact more people have voted for Hillary than Obama. Obama runs the risk of disenfranchising Michigan and Florida voters at his own peril. I never thought an African-American would want to disenfranchise voters after those that came before him sacrificed so much to be counted, but that must be some of the "change" he talks of. No - Florida and MI disenfranchised themselves when they decided to break the party primary rules. It had nothing to do with the candidates. The only !@#$ here aside from the FL and MI Dem party idiots who put themselves into this mess, is the one candiate that decided to stay on the ballot and engage in the asshatery... (any guesses...???) But obviously she can do no wrong in your book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted May 5, 2008 Share Posted May 5, 2008 Um, you know that he actually leads in popular votes, states won, and delegates, right? Because only a ninny would count popular votes in states where the only two choices were 'Clinton' and 'Undecided'. "States won", what a dumb arguement. Like winning Utah's primary is going to mean anything in the general election. If you want to play that game, count the electoral votes from the swing states each won, and then tell me who's the stronger candidate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted May 5, 2008 Share Posted May 5, 2008 No - Florida and MI disenfranchised themselves when they decided to break the party primary rules. It had nothing to do with the candidates. The only !@#$ here aside from the FL and MI Dem party idiots who put themselves into this mess, is the one candiate that decided to stay on the ballot and engage in the asshatery... (any guesses...???) But obviously she can do no wrong in your book. There was a simple solution, a revote in both states, but Obama and his supporters blocked it. The states were ready to move, financing was available, and the DNC would have done it in June. But once again Obama rope-a-doped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts