NationStates Jolt Archive

It took nine days to tally up all the votes, but the results are finally in:

Hillary Rodham Clinton snaps the Obama winning streak by finally coming away with New Mexico in her column.

In addition, polls show Clinton still holding sizable leads in Ohio and Pennsylvania.

For those of you in Camp Clinton, this is all some encouraging news after the ruinous events of the Potomac Primaries. It shows Clinton is still very much in the game, and that she has an opportunity to counterpunch in the big states.

:)

Actually, even with New Mexico:

Obama: 1253
Clinton: 1211


So, shes still losing. Good try though. Also polls i have seen show shes down in Penn AND Ohio AND Wisconson.

She snapped a winning streak? Someone want to tell me how she snapped a winning streak when the primary involved was held before the various primaries Obama has been defeating Clinton in? Let's also not forget that this was more or less assumed anyway.

Also, please tell me how a one percent difference is a real victory? Can someone explain that to me please? Isn't Obama winning with huge percentage increases over Clinton all over the place?

And this is the victory you choose? One where Clinton wins only by one percent?

Clinton supporters: Do you really want four more years of Bushevism?

Clinton supporters: Do you really want four more years of Bushevism?

She is hardly like George W. Bush. George W. Bush is an idealist (in conservative terms). Hillary Clinton is a realist.

She snapped a winning streak? Someone want to tell me how she snapped a winning streak when the primary involved was held before the various primaries Obama has been defeating Clinton in? Let's also not forget that this was more or less assumed anyway.

Also, please tell me how a one percent difference is a real victory? Can someone explain that to me please? Isn't Obama winning with huge percentage increases over Clinton all over the place?

And this is the victory you choose? One where Clinton wins only by one percent?

Yes, but most importantly:


Actually, even with New Mexico:
Obama: 1253
Clinton: 1211

She is hardly like George W. Bush. George W. Bush is an idealist (in conservative terms). Hillary Clinton is a realist.

Do you support the war in Iraq? Do you want war with Iran?

In what way is finally tallying a vote from 9 days ago count as 'breaking' the winning streak? She was ahead in the count for the last week so it was more or less conceded that that was going to be the result, it was just a matter of how close. But, when you're desperate to bucket a sinking ship, take any victory you can get.

Every delegate counts, so it is an important victory. Of course after eight straight blow outs it doesn't seem that much.

People are wiling to take a sock puppet after 8 freakin' years of Bush.

http://www.boomspeed.com/looonatic/lambchop.jpg

Lambchop '08!!! :D

Clinton supporters: Do you really want four more years of Bushevism?

People are wiling to take a sock puppet after 8 freakin' years of Bush.

http://www.boomspeed.com/looonatic/lambchop.jpg

Lambchop '08!!! :D

Oh, dammit, that song is stuck in my head. Quick someone...

I'll trade it out.

Snape...
Snape...
Sev-er-us Snape


At least that song ends.

Do you support the war in Iraq? Do you want war with Iran?

That depends on the situation on the ground. George W. Bush lied to the American people in order to start this war. That said, we must balance defending America's interests (is it really worth our while to stay?) with the understanding that we have responsibilities to those Iraqis. In short: I do not wish to stay in Iraq, but I also do not wish to abandon the Iraqis.

As for Iran, I do not want war with them. But if Iran posed a serious threat to the United States, you'd better bet I wouldn't hesitate to give the order if I was President, assuming I had exhausted my other options.

http://www.boomspeed.com/looonatic/lambchop.jpg

Lambchop '08!!! :D

Is that Pet.com puppet going to be her running mate?

As for Iran, I do not want war with them. But if Iran posed a serious threat to the United States, you'd better bet I wouldn't hesitate to give the order if I was President, assuming I had exhausted my other options.

Iran does not pose even the slightest threat to the U.S., yet Clinton is hellbent on attacking them.

Wait wait wait...I thought Bush WAS a sock puppet.

He is.

In what way is finally tallying a vote from 9 days ago count as 'breaking' the winning streak? She was ahead in the count for the last week so it was more or less conceded that that was going to be the result, it was just a matter of how close. But, when you're desperate to bucket a sinking ship, take any victory you can get.

Every delegate counts, so it is an important victory. Of course after eight straight blow outs it doesn't seem that much.

it closes the gap by 2 delegates! its a HUGE victory.

http://www.boomspeed.com/looonatic/lambchop.jpg

Lambchop '08!!! :D

I'd vote for him..... eh.... her.... em.... it?

Iran does not pose even the slightest threat to the U.S., yet Clinton is hellbent on attacking them.

Clinton has made no such promise, and you are a liar for suggesting she has. Furthermore, Iran's level of "threat" to us has yet to be fully determined. The Europeans, who were not with us on Iraq, are highly anxious about Iran. Perhaps we should ask what has them so worried.

Everyones forgetting, shes STILL not winning.

it closes the gap by 2 delegates! its a HUGE victory.

Did it? As far as I can tell it hasn't changed the overall delegate count. When I checked it this weekend she had one more delegate and when I checked now she had one more delegate. Without links it's kind of shooting in the dark, since apparently everyone has their own delegate count.

Everyones forgetting, shes STILL not winning.

Obama is also not winning, presently. He holds an advantage over her in delegates by approximately 40. Clinton once had a lead of over 80 delegates, and Obama erased that. It is entirely possible for her to turn the tables on him.

People are wiling to take a sock puppet after 8 freakin' years of Bush.

Wait wait wait...I thought Bush WAS a sock puppet.

Everyones forgetting, shes STILL not winning.

No I haven't. What makes you think I have?

Obama is also not winning, presently. He holds an advantage over her in delegates by approximately 40. Clinton once had a lead of over 80 delegates, and Obama erased that. It is entirely possible for her to turn the tables on him.

If she can't get within 100 pledged delegates by the convention she'll have a really hard time convincing the unpledged Super Delegates to back her.

Clinton has made no such promise, and you are a liar for suggesting she has. Furthermore, Iran's level of "threat" to us has yet to be fully determined. The Europeans, who were not with us on Iraq, are highly anxious about Iran. Perhaps we should ask what has them so worried.

God, you're an even bigger troll than CH. Completely blind to reality. Your only response is plugging your ears and screaming "LALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" Not worth my time.

Timewarps hurting head

*swoons*

Oh lordy lordy, I missed that bit of nonsense, "Obama isn't winning either..."

Not being able to conjugate verbs does not translate into an advantage for Clinton.

Obama is also not winning, presently. He holds an advantage over her in delegates by approximately 40. Clinton once had a lead of over 80 delegates, and Obama erased that. It is entirely possible for her to turn the tables on him.

Actually no, no it isn't. Obama turned the tables on Clinton through a combination of momentum, charisma, and showing that he isn't out to simply win. Clinton on the other hand is constantly sabotaging her campaign by saying things like caucuses are horrible because voters become active in them.

God, you're an even bigger troll than CH. Completely blind to reality. Your only response is plugging your ears and screaming "LALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" Not worth my time.

And you are naive. When last I checked, the delegate count was close. The popular vote was close. We have one of the best political minds in the Democratic Party on our side, and we have enough money to trade broadsides with you guys. If we win the upcoming contest, we will shatter Mr. Obama's momentum.

This isn't over until someone reaches 2,025 delegates, and if -we- have anything to say about it, it's going to be Senator Clinton.

Did it? As far as I can tell it hasn't changed the overall delegate count. When I checked it this weekend she had one more delegate and when I checked now she had one more delegate. Without links it's kind of shooting in the dark, since apparently everyone has their own delegate count.

well i thought it was going to be one more delegate to the winner than to 2nd place but when i checked just now it was giving clinton 14 and obama 12.

And you are naive. When last I checked, the delegate count was close. The popular vote was close. We have one of the best political minds in the Democratic Party on our side, and we have enough money to trade broadsides with you guys. If we win the upcoming contest, we will shatter Mr. Obama's momentum.

This isn't over until someone reaches 2,025 delegates, and if -we- have anything to say about it, it's going to be Senator Clinton.

I'm talking about her position on Iran.

Incidentally, I know the Republicans around here are laughing their asses off. They've got their candidate locked up, and they're enjoying watching the Clinton-Obama civil war.

I'm talking about her position on Iran.

Iran COULD be a threat. We simply do not know enough to make a judgment one way or another. To automatically assume that they do not present a threat is foolish. And let us not forget that Iran DOES finance terrorist organizations all around the Middle East. They are not entirely innocent.

And you are naive. When last I checked, the delegate count was close. The popular vote was close. We have one of the best political minds in the Democratic Party on our side, and we have enough money to trade broadsides with you guys. If we win the upcoming contest, we will shatter Mr. Obama's momentum.

This isn't over until someone reaches 2,025 delegates, and if -we- have anything to say about it, it's going to be Senator Clinton.

Naive? You do realize that Clinton has resorted to attempting to get invalid votes to count because she KNOWS she cannot win the popular delegate pool. She's already started lobbying the superdelegates for the same reason. She KNOWS she cannot win the popular contest so she's doing everything to overcome that problem. We agree with her. She CAN'T win the popular contest. The entire rest of the states would have to suddenly flip to her like crazy, and there is no evidence that will ever happen, particularly caucus states.

Incidentally, I know the Republicans around here are laughing their asses off. They've got their candidate locked up, and they're enjoying watching the Clinton-Obama civil war.

oh i dont think so.

it seems that you havent been paying attention to the republican race and how so many of the big boys of republicanism hate mccain.

Iran COULD be a threat. We simply do not know enough to make a judgment one way or another. To automatically assume that they do not present a threat is foolish. And let us not forget that Iran DOES finance terrorist organizations all around the Middle East. They are not entirely innocent.

Ireland could be a threat, but we'd be silly to suggest we might invade them.

Incidentally, I know the Republicans around here are laughing their asses off. They've got their candidate locked up, and they're enjoying watching the Clinton-Obama civil war.

They have a civil war of their own with states voting against the presumptive candidate and their base rejecting him. They have their hands full enough.

Naive? You do realize that Clinton has resorted to attempting to get invalid votes to count because she KNOWS she cannot win the popular delegate pool. She's already started lobbying the superdelegates for the same reason. She KNOWS she cannot win the popular contest so she's doing everything to overcome that problem. We agree with her. She CAN'T win the popular contest. The entire rest of the states would have to suddenly flip to her like crazy, and there is no evidence that will ever happen, particularly caucus states.

That was NOT her fault. The Democratic National Committee unfairly stripped those states of their delegates for the "crime" of moving their primaries forward on the calendar.

I do not think the delegation from Michigan should be seated, because Obama was not on that ballot and it would be unfair to Obama to seat them. I DO, however, think the Florida delegation should be seated, since he WAS on that ballot.

well i thought it was going to be one more delegate to the winner than to 2nd place but when i checked just now it was giving clinton 14 and obama 12.
I might have saw it before the update or something, because when I looked it was 13-12. So one more assigned. I'd say she needs every one she can get, but she hasn't acted like that in regards to the Potomac states or next weeks primary (except some last minute begrudged campaigning in Wisconsin). Right now the only ones that count for her are Texas and Ohio...

Iran COULD be a threat. We simply do not know enough to make a judgment one way or another. To automatically assume that they do not present a threat is foolish. And let us not forget that Iran DOES finance terrorist organizations all around the Middle East. They are not entirely innocent.

The President of the United States of America swears (so help him/her God) that he/she will uphold the Constitution of the United States. There is no mention in there about playing world police, and Hillary won't mind her own damn business and she will drive this country into an economic slump.

That was NOT her fault. The Democratic National Committee unfairly stripped those states of their delegates for the "crime" of moving their primaries forward on the calendar.

I do not think the delegation from Michigan should be seated, because Obama was not on that ballot and it would be unfair to Obama to seat them. I DO, however, think the Florida delegation should be seated, since he WAS on that ballot.

But she did in fact endorse it. In September. When she thought she wouldn't need them. She didn't change her mind about that until after she lost in South Carolina. The time to make this argument was September/October of last year, when she endorsed taking their delegates. Not after the fact because she's losing.

The President of the United States of America swears (so help him/her God) that he/she will uphold the Constitution of the United States. There is no mention in there about playing world police, and Hillary won't mind her own damn business and she will drive this country into an economic slump.

In case you hadn't noticed, we happen to get a LOT of our oil from this region. If Iran destabilizes the region politically, it could imperil those resources. That, too, would drive our economy into a slump. I'm not saying we should go around bombing everything in sight, but we cannot simply disengage from the region either.

Incidentally, I know the Republicans around here are laughing their asses off. They've got their candidate locked up, and they're enjoying watching the Clinton-Obama civil war.

You know, I keep hearing this rhetoric from Clinton supporters, but the simple fact is that regardless of the candidate once the primaries are over, the Democrats will unite behind the candidate chosen. After all, the Republicans were split all over their own candidates for some time, and McCain only pushed ahead due to his reputation.

That was NOT her fault. The Democratic National Committee unfairly stripped those states of their delegates for the "crime" of moving their primaries forward on the calendar.

Something she supported. They did not have a fair election where candidates campaigned. One did not have Obama on the ticket and both favored name recognition since no campaigning was done. She supported it till she needed them. THAT is her fault.

I do not think the delegation from Michigan should be seated, because Obama was not on that ballot and it would be unfair to Obama to seat them. I DO, however, think the Florida delegation should be seated, since he WAS on that ballot.

Again, it favored name recognition. If she wanted to have them count, she'd be pressing for those states to vote in a FAIR election. Both of them.

She's not.

Something she supported. They did not have a fair election where candidates campaigned. One did not have Obama on the ticket and both favored name recognition since no campaigning was done. She supported it till she needed them. THAT is her fault.



Again, it favored name recognition. If she wanted to have them count, she'd be pressing for those states to vote in a FAIR election. Both of them.

She's not.

Oh. Please.

You'd have to be living under a rock to not know Senator Obama is. He's been all over the news since late last YEAR.

I might have saw it before the update or something, because when I looked it was 13-12. So one more assigned. I'd say she needs every one she can get, but she hasn't acted like that in regards to the Potomac states or next weeks primary (except some last minute begrudged campaigning in Wisconsin). Right now the only ones that count for her are Texas and Ohio...

well shes in a bad spot with money. she has to decide how best to spend her resources--a little bit everywhere or a lot in selected states. there isnt really a good answer.

Actually, I think on some level the Obamites are kind of afraid. Clinton has already demonstrated in New Hampshire and Nevada that even when she's down, she's not out. I think they're afraid that they haven't been able to finish her off. She may well come back in Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania and win....and if she wins, it imperils Obama's lead and breaks his momentum.

Oh. Please.

You'd have to be living under a rock to not know Senator Obama is. He's been all over the news since late last YEAR.

Skipped something, didn't ya? The fact that she did in fact endorse taking the delegates back in September? (http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_politics/2007/09/top-democrats-s.html)
On Saturday, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards added their names to the list of Democratic presidential hopefuls who plan to skip campaigning in Florida and other states that violate national party rules for when they can stage primaries.
This from Patti Solis Doyle, Clinton's campaign manager:
"We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process. And we believe the DNC's rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role. Thus, we will be signing the pledge to adhere to the DNC approved nominating calendar."

IF clinton somehow becomes president we are all fucked in the butt.
:gundge:
:mp5:
:sniper:

If she wins america has been pwned bigtime by some a holes
ron paul would be off the friggin chain!!!!

I wouldn't be so certain about that. I'm not really seeing much of a sign of fear on the part of Obama supporters.

In fact, I'm seeing quite the opposite. Obama supporters are becoming more and more confident as time goes on.
It's like being in a race, and the leader starts to break away and the person in second place turns to the crowd and says, "See? He's afraid of me."

Actually, I think on some level the Obamites are kind of afraid. Clinton has already demonstrated in New Hampshire and Nevada that even when she's down, she's not out. I think they're afraid that they haven't been able to finish her off. She may well come back in Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania and win....and if she wins, it imperils Obama's lead and breaks his momentum.

they are both "afraid". its a great contest with 2 excellent candidates who are going to make history. its still too close to call. only a fool would feel confident.

Actually, I think on some level the Obamites are kind of afraid. Clinton has already demonstrated in New Hampshire and Nevada that even when she's down, she's not out. I think they're afraid that they haven't been able to finish her off. She may well come back in Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania and win....and if she wins, it imperils Obama's lead and breaks his momentum.

I wouldn't be so certain about that. I'm not really seeing much of a sign of fear on the part of Obama supporters.

In fact, I'm seeing quite the opposite. Obama supporters are becoming more and more confident as time goes on.

It took nine days to tally up all the votes, but the results are finally in:

Hillary Rodham Clinton snaps the Obama winning streak by finally coming away with New Mexico in her column.

In addition, polls show Clinton still holding sizable leads in Ohio and Pennsylvania.

For those of you in Camp Clinton, this is all some encouraging news after the ruinous events of the Potomac Primaries. It shows Clinton is still very much in the game, and that she has an opportunity to counterpunch in the big states.

:)
It's a Super Tuesday win, so is mostly irrelevant at this point. Not to mention the 48.8-47.6 result and 14-12 delegate difference. Big whoop.

Do you support the war in Iraq? Do you want war with Iran?
How about skipping Iran and just invade Pakistan?

Obama warns Pakistan on al-Qaeda (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6926663.stm)

US presidential candidate Barack Obama has said he would use military force if necessary against al-Qaeda in Pakistan even without Pakistan's consent.
Mr Obama made the comments in a speech outlining his foreign policy positions.

Pakistan's foreign ministry said any threat to act against al-Qaeda from within its territory should not be used for political point-scoring.

they are both "afraid". its a great contest with 2 excellent candidates who are going to make history. its still too close to call. only a fool would feel confident.
Well your post certainly is one of the most profound of all the axe swinging that has been going on. :)

Well your post certainly is one of the most profound of all the axe swinging that has been going on. :)

Are you saying that hoping we won't notice that ax you've been swinging around?

It took nine days to tally up all the votes, but the results are finally in:

Hillary Rodham Clinton snaps the Obama winning streak by finally coming away with New Mexico in her column.

In addition, polls show Clinton still holding sizable leads in Ohio and Pennsylvania.

For those of you in Camp Clinton, this is all some encouraging news after the ruinous events of the Potomac Primaries. It shows Clinton is still very much in the game, and that she has an opportunity to counterpunch in the big states.

:)

Woohoo, 10 days later she gets 1 more delegate and trails Obama by nearly 50 delegates. You can't break a winning streak posthumously. I'm bored with this before being bored with this.

Skipped something, didn't ya? The fact that she did in fact endorse taking the delegates back in September? (http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_politics/2007/09/top-democrats-s.html)

Thus ends any Clinton claim to the delegates, in my eyes.

Are you saying that hoping we won't notice that ax you've been swinging around?
What ax?

It took nine days to tally up all the votes, but the results are finally in:

Hillary Rodham Clinton snaps the Obama winning streak by finally coming away with New Mexico in her column.

In addition, polls show Clinton still holding sizable leads in Ohio and Pennsylvania.

For those of you in Camp Clinton, this is all some encouraging news after the ruinous events of the Potomac Primaries. It shows Clinton is still very much in the game, and that she has an opportunity to counterpunch in the big states.

:)

No, this is a bad thing.

Oh Christ...
Well, what ax?

How about skipping Iran and just invade Pakistan?

Obama warns Pakistan on al-Qaeda (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6926663.stm)

"It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al-Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005," he said, referring to reports that the US had decided not to launch a strike for fear of harming ties with Pakistan.

"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will," Mr Obama said.

Hmmm... How about posting what was actually said (and directly quoted in your own source), instead of more Bush/Clinton fear-mongering?

And you are naive. When last I checked, the delegate count was close. The popular vote was close. We have one of the best political minds in the Democratic Party on our side, and we have enough money to trade broadsides with you guys. If we win the upcoming contest, we will shatter Mr. Obama's momentum.

This isn't over until someone reaches 2,025 delegates, and if -we- have anything to say about it, it's going to be Senator Clinton.

Interesting. You know, people who "have enough money to trade broadsides" usually don't have to throw 5-10 million of their own dollars into the mix just to keep pace. Furthermore, if we go back over the record and see who is leveling more attacks...Hillary was attacking when she was ahead, and now she won't stop when she's behind. This is the politics of old that someone in the establishment, such as Clinton, are very good at. Barack Obama brings a new type of politics to the forefront. Barack has outdone her fundraising, on the ground in grassroots support, organization, and also raised more money from more donors. Barack can (and has) rack up more $25 pledges than Hillary could ever dream. For a candidate who had it "locked up" from the start she's sure taking a pounding. Did I tell you I despise her fake accents and lexicon based upon who she it talking to? She panders and wants to run her campaign by focus groups and polls. It's the same way she will run her administration and I want nothing of it. A vote for Hill and Bill is a vote for McCain.

Actually, I think on some level the Obamites are kind of afraid.What we're afraid of is that she's going to destroy the Democratic party by buying off the superdelegates and lose the general election in the process. At least there's a chance Bloomberg might run, but I'd rather have Obama.

Seriously though, we should be nice and congratulate Senator Clinton on winning a third of the states thus far, even if the victory margins weren't exactly huge.

/golfclap

Jesus Knights, you had to summon CH to this Hillary orgy? I shall hate you forever for this!!!! ;)

What ax?

Oh Christ...

Incidentally, I know the Republicans around here are laughing their asses off. They've got their candidate locked up, and they're enjoying watching the Clinton-Obama civil war.

Acutally, much like Ann Coulter and Karl Rove they are praying for her to win. They know it's their only hope of keeping the WH. Bleh, I hate Bush Republicans. Thank God I'm not one.

Hmmm... How about posting what was actually said (and directly quoted in your own source), instead of more Bush/Clinton fear-mongering?
He made the comment, not Bush/Cheney, although that is a Bush/Cheney type reaction.

Obama needs to brush up on foreign policy statements. If he truly thinks that way, then that makes him one scary mother.

In all honesty, that was the first thing that caught my attention about Obama. Until then, I really didn't know too much about him. I had heard mostly small talk here on NSG.

I believe everyone in the Obama 'camp' as you describe it should be doing a "Scoreboard! Scoreboard!" chant about now.

That was NOT her fault. The Democratic National Committee unfairly stripped those states of their delegates for the "crime" of moving their primaries forward on the calendar.

I do not think the delegation from Michigan should be seated, because Obama was not on that ballot and it would be unfair to Obama to seat them. I DO, however, think the Florida delegation should be seated, since he WAS on that ballot.

Your logic fails because he never got to campaign in Florida. Hillary has the most recognizable name and she won for this reason. Also, snowbirds are down there at this time and they are out in force. In November this will not the case. I think I've refuted this topic with you and CH on numerous occasions in multiple threads. *yawn* I'll be at drill this weekend all so I'll be missing from NSG. There's nothing like Psyops training and live fire drills to make you smile.

Hmm...

MeansToAnEnd! MeansToAnEnd! MeansToAnEnd!

AKA F.A.G. Thank God those hacks are gone.

It took nine days to tally up all the votes, but the results are finally in:

Hillary Rodham Clinton snaps the Obama winning streak by finally coming away with New Mexico in her column.

In addition, polls show Clinton still holding sizable leads in Ohio and Pennsylvania.

For those of you in Camp Clinton, this is all some encouraging news after the ruinous events of the Potomac Primaries. It shows Clinton is still very much in the game, and that she has an opportunity to counterpunch in the big states.

:)
I don't think you actually checked how Clinton won New Mexico - 49% to 48%. She had barely 1,100 more votes than Obama in a largely Hispanic state.

But she did in fact endorse it. In September. When she thought she wouldn't need them. She didn't change her mind about that until after she lost in South Carolina. The time to make this argument was September/October of last year, when she endorsed taking their delegates. Not after the fact because she's losing.

How many times must we say the same thing? When will it sink it? Surprise, Hillary's an opportunist.

Jesus Knights, you had to summon CH to this Hillary orgy? I shall hate you forever for this!!!! ;)



I thought that saying his name three times thing was just a myth!

In case you hadn't noticed, we happen to get a LOT of our oil from this region. If Iran destabilizes the region politically, it could imperil those resources. That, too, would drive our economy into a slump. I'm not saying we should go around bombing everything in sight, but we cannot simply disengage from the region either.

Funny you would mention that. I think someone said, "good foreign policy is about talking with our enemies, as well as talking to our friends." What brilliant person was that who wanted to engage the region?

I thought that saying his name three times thing was just a myth!

Hmm...

MeansToAnEnd! MeansToAnEnd! MeansToAnEnd!

Hmm...

MeansToAnEnd! MeansToAnEnd! MeansToAnEnd!

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e142/leftyflecken/negative20bear.jpg

Oh. Please.

You'd have to be living under a rock to not know Senator Obama is. He's been all over the news since late last YEAR.

Wow, now I know you are naive. Putting the name recognition of the spouse of a former President against a Junior Senator from Illinois... Do you think more people know the name of a President or a Senator not even from their home state? Please be honest.

*yawn* I'll be at drill this weekend all so I'll be missing from NSG. There's nothing like Psyops training and live fire drills to make you smile.

:) Have fun!

I thought that saying his name three times thing was just a myth!
Hmm...

MeansToAnEnd! MeansToAnEnd! MeansToAnEnd!

mommymakethebadmengoaway...

How about skipping Iran and just invade Pakistan?

Obama warns Pakistan on al-Qaeda (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6926663.stm)

You just keep ringing that bell. It's totally making your point. Oh, wait...

Clinton said it's right to give the President the ability to declare war without the Congress provided its the right President. McCain too. Obama said it isn't. Yeah, you really wanna talk about which one is a more dangerous warmonger? Obama wins hands down. You'd think you'd try to argue from somewhere you can win. I guess you're just running out of places to do that from.

Oh. Please.

You'd have to be living under a rock to not know Senator Obama is. He's been all over the news since late last YEAR.

Dude, this has been mentioned already, but you cannot POSSIBLY think that the name recognition of Obama is ANYTHING like Clinton. That's why as Obama campaigned he closed the gap in every state so far. Except in those states he didn't get to campaign.

Dude, this has been mentioned already, but you cannot POSSIBLY think that the name recognition of Obama is ANYTHING like Clinton. That's why as Obama campaigned he closed the gap in every state so far. Except in those states he didn't get to campaign.

I can testify that Obama's name recognition isn't as great as you'd think. I've done a lot of volunteer work, and, while this is all anecdotal, I think it illustrates something.

The first time really surprised me. I was volunteering in Atlanta for Obama's Countdown to Change rally. I'm standing outside, holding a sign, and directing people on where to go, depending on if they've already got tickets or not.

One pair of people is passing buy, and one of them asks her friend "Who is Obama?" Her friend knew, at least, and told her, but...

Then when I did canvassing, I did run across quite a few people-- especially in poorer areas-- who'd look at me strangely. "Barack Obama? Who's that?" though quite a few of them, upon seeing my campaign lit, would suddenly realize, "Ooooh! He's that black guy! That black guy who's running for president! Yeah, yeah I'm voting for him!"

Hell, there was a video a while back-- I think it got posted here-- where an interviewer went and asked people "Is Barack Obama a threat to the United States?" and quite a few said something to the effect of "Yeah, he attacked us, uh... and we need to stop him and stuff."

I wish I could find that video, anybody got a link?

Clinton said it's right to give the President the ability to declare war without the Congress provided its the right President.
Source.

Obama said it isn't.
Source.

Yeah, you really wanna talk about which one is a more dangerous warmonger?
I think Obama's decision to violate Pakistan's sovereignity is extremely dangerous. That fact somehow makes him less dangerous?

Obama wins hands down.
I don't see that as a winning strategy at all.

You'd think you'd try to argue from somewhere you can win.
This isn't about whether you or I win some silly argument. It is about the qualifications of a candidate for the Presidency of the US and his/her role as Commander in Chief.

Actually, even with New Mexico:

Obama: 1253
Clinton: 1211


So, shes still losing. Good try though. Also polls i have seen show shes down in Penn AND Ohio AND Wisconsin.

Obama's going to win Wisconsin by a landslide. He has little need to campaign in Milwaukee, and he's already working on the other two major population areas (Madison and the Green Bay/Fox Valley area).

Clinton, meanwhile, spent today in Ohio. :rolleyes:

Nice to know how much our votes mean to her before we vote...she's going to lose votes here based on that decision alone.

And you are naive. When last I checked, the delegate count was close. The popular vote was close. We have one of the best political minds in the Democratic Party on our side, and we have enough money to trade broadsides with you guys. If we win the upcoming contest, we will shatter Mr. Obama's momentum.

This isn't over until someone reaches 2,025 delegates, and if -we- have anything to say about it, it's going to be Senator Clinton.

Funny...that's not what I'm hearing on CNN, MSNBC, FOX, NPR, local radio, or any other news outlet.

That was NOT her fault. The Democratic National Committee unfairly stripped those states of their delegates for the "crime" of moving their primaries forward on the calendar.

I do not think the delegation from Michigan should be seated, because Obama was not on that ballot and it would be unfair to Obama to seat them. I DO, however, think the Florida delegation should be seated, since he WAS on that ballot.

Bullshit it was "unfair"...the states were told by the DNC not to move their primaries up, and Michigan and Florida went and did it anyways.

If I tell you not to kill someone or you'll go to jail, and you go kill someone, is it "unfair" when I send you to jail?

I might have saw it before the update or something, because when I looked it was 13-12. So one more assigned. I'd say she needs every one she can get, but she hasn't acted like that in regards to the Potomac states or next weeks primary (except some last minute begrudged campaigning in Wisconsin). Right now the only ones that count for her are Texas and Ohio...

Begrudged is right...and we're taking notice here. Maybe we won't decide things, but we're sure going to add our weight to the Obama landslide.

Source.


Source.


Balls.

Balls.

Actually I'm interested in a source for those statements too. I don't necessarily disbelieve they were said so much as I just want confirmation.

Actually I'm interested in a source for those statements too. I don't necessarily disbelieve they were said so much as I just want confirmation.

Well, they have been the major campaign point for Obama. Clinton has said that the vote to authorize the war was the right vote at the time and the problem wasn't with the authorization but with how Bush used it. Obama has said that the authorization should never have been given.

Here (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/01/clinton_vs_obama_on_iraq.html) is a good timeline of what's been said and done in relation to Iraq.

I said "Balls" because CH has been lacking in any sort of backing or sourcing for his claims and has carefully avoided any arguments that contain them prefering instead to trade barbs with people like Corny or make vague statements, so for him to now demand a source seems to me to take giant fucking balls.

EDIT: Here (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-debate1feb01,0,848568.story) is something that relates more directly, the other is just kind of less bullshit-
As she has before, Clinton refused to apologize for voting in the fall of 2002 to give President Bush the authority to use military force against Saddam Hussein. At the time, Obama came out strongly against the war, so it looms as one of the key distinctions between the two. Their Senate votes on war-related funding since Obama was elected in 2004 have been similar.

"I think I made a reasoned judgment," Clinton said in defending the vote. Then she tried to pin the blame for the war on Bush: "Unfortunately, the person who actually got to execute the policy did not."

Ah, I see. Thank you.

I really hate the way you treat an election like a sports event. And this attitude seems most common in America than anywhere else.

I really hate the way you treat an election like a sports event. And this attitude seems most common in America than anywhere else.

...what? I don't understand what you mean.

I really hate the way you treat an election like a sports event. And this attitude seems most common in America than anywhere else.I really hate the way you foreigners focus on the most superficial reasons to hate America rather than the important ones. And this attitude seems the most common in Europe than anywhere else.

Obama's going to win Wisconsin by a landslide. He has little need to campaign in Milwaukee, and he's already working on the other two major population areas (Madison and the Green Bay/Fox Valley area).
So Obama doesn't need to visit certain parts of Wisconsin, but Hillary does?

Nice to know how much our votes mean to her before we vote...she's going to lose votes here based on that decision alone.
So people are not going to vote for Clinton based on that decision alone? Rather shallow reasoning to say the least. Gotta love American politics. :rolleyes:

Perhaps it has more to do with the fact that you hate Hillary Clinton (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12039373&postcount=114)?

She will be coming to Wisconsin this weekend (http://www.nbc15.com/home/headlines/15501216.html).

So Obama doesn't need to visit certain parts of Wisconsin, but Hillary does?


So people are not going to vote for Clinton based on that decision alone? Rather shallow reasoning to say the least. Gotta love American politics. :rolleyes:

Perhaps it has more to do with the fact that you hate Hillary Clinton (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12039373&postcount=114)?
I love how you're able to find a year old comment by a poster to prove they just don't like Clinton but you can't even address the research of other posters much less come up with any of your own to back up your own shit.

She will be coming to Wisconsin this weekend (http://www.nbc15.com/home/headlines/15501216.html).
Oh, except for points that have already been established by other people...

So Obama doesn't need to visit certain parts of Wisconsin, but Hillary does?


So people are not going to vote for Clinton based on that decision alone? Rather shallow reasoning to say the least. Gotta love American politics. :rolleyes:

Perhaps it has more to do with the fact that you hate Hillary Clinton (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12039373&postcount=114)?

She will be coming to Wisconsin this weekend (http://www.nbc15.com/home/headlines/15501216.html).

Let's see. A candidate tries to support her campaign by telling you the voters in your state don't really matter. I'd say that's a DAMN good reason to not vote for her, actually. These decisions are going to hurt her badly in the general election. She either needs to get enough money together to treat voters in every state like they matter or quit. I still think she has a shot, but you can't keep talking about certain demographics and states don't matter and then go into a general election. It's political suicide.

I love how you're able to find a year old comment by a poster to prove they just don't like Clinton but you can't even address the research of other posters much less come up with any of your own to back up your own shit.

Oh, except for points that have already been established by other people...

We both know it's not about time. He's losing the debate and he's been trying to focus it away from points he cannot win by claiming he doesn't have time to research. Come on, how's he gonna support some of those claims? Magic buttons?

So Obama doesn't need to visit certain parts of Wisconsin, but Hillary does?

Obama already has widespread support in the most populated areas of the state, while Hillary has to work for every vote.

It's called politics.

So people are not going to vote for Clinton based on that decision alone? Rather shallow reasoning to say the least. Gotta love American politics. :rolleyes:

Wisconsin is tomorrow...Ohio is how many days away?

Jocabia already addressed this better than I would have. She decided Ohio votes were more important to her than Wisconsin votes. That very well may be the case, but it's foolish to expect that Wisconsin voters will appreciate being snubbed in such a manner when every other candidate found it wise to get here as soon as the Potomac primaries had wrapped up.

Perhaps it has more to do with the fact that you hate Hillary Clinton (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12039373&postcount=114)?

Wow...a 1.5 year old post where I rant about the general idiocy of the NY state voting public.

How's about THIS (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13461287&postcount=27) one?

She will be coming to Wisconsin this weekend (http://www.nbc15.com/home/headlines/15501216.html).[/QUOTE]

Of course she is now...but why was she in Ohio when Obama, McCain and Huckabee were all here in Wisconsin?

Jocabia already addressed this better than I would have. She decided Ohio votes were more important to her than Wisconsin votes. That very well may be the case, but it's foolish to expect that Wisconsin voters will appreciate being snubbed in such a manner when every other candidate found it wise to get here as soon as the Potomac primaries had wrapped up.

If I recall, he was in Wisconsin as the Potomac primary ended.