NationStates Jolt Archive

Depending on time, money and resources, one must ultimately maintain the base? I also think that you are downplaying the amount of time and effort that Hillary put into some of those states that she lost.



How does that have any relevance to his statement? His point was that democratic voters might be *slightly* ticked if you disregard the majority of them for the will of the democrats who happen to win in bigger states. I don't ee anything in his post about resources, nor does the amound of resources you spend somewhere equal how many people voted for you (Romney didn't win Iowa even though he spent what, $7,000,000 there?)

I don't much care for any of the three candidates that the media has chosen for us.

There is none whatsoever. If anyone seems to base primary/caucus wins as translating into potential wins in the general, it would be the Obama supporters?

Pardon? We've made the argument that he won them and that they matter. Nothing more. Nothing less. We've made the argument that we should not concede them to the general. Nothing more. Nothing less. No one has suggested that since Obama won Mississippi that he will necessarily win it in the general and Hillary won't. In fact, the only such arguments have come from you and the Hillary campaign suggesting that there are "states that matter". It's why her campaign mentions the electoral college, the red states and various other claims to discount his wins.

We don't have to discount her wins, because by any way of counting them, Obama is whooping her badly.

This type of point is exactly what I was alluding to. You just simply deny reality and make wild claims. You cannot reasonably think that Hillary is not referring to her wins translating to general election wins when she says, " As Ohio goes, so goes the country" and various other things about how winning Ohio, Pennsylvania and certain other states means only she can win the general.

[Reffering to Oakondra] Quite frankly if someone makes their decision for a candidate based only on what they see on TV, I don't want to see what candidate they'd elect. Please make an actual argument rather than pulling the good ol' "blame the [insert liberal/conservative/corporate/corrupt as best fits your argument] media"

I don't much care for any of the three candidates that the media has chosen for us.

Oh brother. Its the conspiracy nut.

Oh brother. Its the conspiracy nut.

Seriously, everyone knows it's teh [insert Liberal/Conservative/Russian/Chinese/Iranian/Al-Qaeda/Other] secret agents and the [insert derragatory adjective] media that pick our president. We must ubern00k them! :sniper: :mp5: :gundge:

Disclaimer: Some or all of this post may be sarcasm.

I don't much care for any of the three candidates that the media has chosen for us.

I'd have agreed with that little slice of cynicism in any year other than this.

Fact is, the voters are having more of a say in this election that they have in any other in reccent memory.

Look back to December - according to the media, it was going to be Clinton against Giuliani. Now, once all is said and done, its going to be Obama against McCain.

Since Obama's suprise win in Iowa and Bill's intervention in New Hampshire, the media's narrative hasn't really controlled this season. There are just way, way too many other factors. Thats why broadcasters and journalists are now being so cautious about what they report.

I'd have agreed with that little slice of cynicism in any year other than this.

Fact is, the voters are having more of a say in this election that they have in any other in reccent memory.

Look back to December - according to the media, it was going to be Clinton against Giuliani. Now, once all is said and done, its going to be Obama against McCain.

Since Obama's suprise win in Iowa and Bill's intervention in New Hampshire, the media's narrative hasn't really controlled this season. There are just way, way too many other factors. Thats why broadcasters and journalists are now being so cautious about what they report.

yeah the media has far less influence than it would like to have.

There is none whatsoever. If anyone seems to base primary/caucus wins as translating into potential wins in the general, it would be the Obama supporters?

After this there is no point in responding to the rest of your post. This is by far the most dishonest and ridiculous thing all day. I'm through, there is no point. This isn't honest debate, this is just talking to some kid who just goes "UH UH!" over and over again. Let me know when you're ready for an adult conversation.

After this there is no point in responding to the rest of your post. This is by far the most dishonest and ridiculous thing all day. I'm through, there is no point. This isn't honest debate, this is just talking to some kid who just goes "UH UH!" over and over again. Let me know when you're ready for an adult conversation.

It is, of course, Obama supporters talking about electoral college votes. It is, of course, Obama supporters who have talked about how their candidate won 'states that matter'. It is, of course, Obama supporters who have so often talked about who red states and blue states. It is, of course, Obama supporters who talked about where Ohio goes, so goes the nation. It is, of course, Obama supporters trying to say the same thing about PA.

It is, of course, Obama supporters talking about electoral college votes. It is, of course, Obama supporters who have talked about how their candidate won 'states that matter'. It is, of course, Obama supporters who have so often talked about who red states and blue states. It is, of course, Obama supporters who talked about where Ohio goes, so goes the nation. It is, of course, Obama supporters trying to say the same thing about PA.
Even without that, even without the 180-some pages of him essentially making that argument, my comment was a direct response to that insinuation, and then he goes on to make it later in the same post.

If we where to go through and highlight all the instances that he's staked his argument on this we'd be picking on him. It's ridiculous. This is a good topic for debate, there's a lot at stake and even with my frustrations at how Clinton is handling her campaign, these are strong candidates in a heated battle. I'm disappointed that the other side is represented so poorly. I'd love to have a real discussion about it.

obama campaign collapse update (http://www.gallup.com/poll/105841/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Now-52-Clintons-42.aspx):

http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/033008DailyUpdateGraph1_ponm_bf730lslmnvp2.gif
You know, this is the first time I've actually followed that link and it turned up something interesting (in the classical sense of the word interesting and not in that way we use 'interesting' to mean 'blows the shit out of argument x' way...)

http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/033008DailyUpdateGraph4toic83pfkonml.gif
and
http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/033008DailyUpdateGraph5_7yr49_nmlk.gif

What was interesting was the complete flat line of both Obama and Clinton in those tracking polls, but especially Obama.

I don't know what was going on necessarily day to day with McCain as he has his slow climb but I think it shows at least in part that the current party division might not be as unrecoverable as the doom and gloom might predict. Both, for all the hullabaloo, are close to McCain, both are doable. I think that this is another torpedo in the side of the electability argument. You can argue, and we have, what strategy is better. I still would argue that holding on to the keystate/big state strategy has sunk the two candidates who 6 short months ago were all but assured of the nomination.

However, both have the same starting point to work with and both have the chinks in their armor that the opposition will go after. It really is about who would better represent the presidency you want.

By June hers will have things like little pictures of sea serpents and "Here be Dragons!" on all the states Obama has won...now that's drama!

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3139/2374369765_6e63391fc5_o.jpg
A Mappe of Clintonia

The wild west:

North Dakota, Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, Kansas, Nebraska, and Colorado.
Colorado is a swing state. Kansas has the chance to become one.

The sleepy south:

Louisiana, Mississippi, Georgia, South Carolina and more than likely Virginia.
Virginia most certainly is a swing state. More Democrats voted in SC than Republicans. Bill Clinton won Louisiana and Georgia.

Remember Dark-skinned individuals finally have the chance to vote for the darkest-skinned president ever and will surely come out in droves for him. Young people as well are inspired by him and will also come out in droves. Also, please note that there are also down-ballot candidates that Obama can help way better than Hillary can. This isn't just the White House.

There is none whatsoever. If anyone seems to base primary/caucus wins as translating into potential wins in the general, it would be the Obama supporters?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
When should I stop laughing? Replace that with Hillary Clinton and it magically becomes fact.

Michigan is a traditionally blue state but it is close. Florida on the other hand can swing, and in every McCain head to head poll with either Obama or Clinton, the candidate with the best chance of beating him is Hillary.
These are just two of roughly twenty swing states. Good call.

Certainly not advocating that anyone concede those states, just making a prognosis on the eventual outcome. It would certainly be foolish to put too much effort into a state that you are unlikely to win versus a state that is necessary to hold on to.
DOWN. BALLOT. CANDIDATES. It was this policy that lost the Dems two elections in 2000 and 2004 by not caring about states outside their stronghold while Bush went all out and racked up Electoral Votes. Obama is clearly doing the same strategy of racking up votes all across the board while Hillary was just counting on her name and traditional Democratic states.

Depending on time, money and resources, one must ultimately maintain the base?
No. You don't need to maintain the base when you are basically guaranteed to get it. Any argument for not going after "traditional" Republican states can be used for maintaining "traditional" Democratic states.

That is exactly what I am asking the Obama supporters to do. I think most of you are using rose coloured glasses.
No, you absolutely are not.

There were many states according to SurveyUSA that reverse was opposite for Clinton. That survey also showed him losing PA, and New Jersey, and getting clobbered in some southern states, and yet in the general Clinton would fare better than Obama in all those areas.
Because polls 8 months ahead really matter. Look at primary polls 8 months ago: Clinton. Giuliani. Clinton. Giuliani. Clinton. Giuliani. McCain wasn't even really mentioned.

CH, I'm thinking you're just bitter like my dad that your lover Hillary lost.

Colorado is a swing state.
On what rationale do you base that tidbit on?

Kansas has the chance to become one.
How do you figure that?

Virginia most certainly is a swing state.
Huh? Virginia has been Democrat since 1968.

More Democrats voted in SC than Republicans.
Primary votes = votes in general election?

Bill Clinton won Louisiana and Georgia.
First, Obama is not Bill Clinton. Secondly, Ross Perot helped split the conservative vote, which helped Bill to win. Third, Bill is white.

My prediction is that Obama will not win either of those traditionally red states.

Remember Dark-skinned individuals finally have the chance to vote for the darkest-skinned president ever and will surely come out in droves for him.
Blacks came out in droves for Kerry in 2004, and what happened?

Young people as well are inspired by him and will also come out in droves.
Again, you base this on primary/caucus voting? Hmmmm.

Also, please note that there are also down-ballot candidates that Obama can help way better than Hillary can. This isn't just the White House.
Debatable. Hillary could pull off wins in Arkansas, Florida, Missouri, Ohio, New Mexico, and Tennessee.

The only one there that Obama might achieve is New Mexico.


HA! When should I stop laughing? Replace that with Hillary Clinton and it magically becomes fact.
With your post, you are doing exactly what I stated? And, when have I stated that any of my opinions/suggestions is actually fact?

These are just two of roughly twenty swing states. Good call.
Of the "roughly twenty swing states", list the ones you think Obama has a shot at and then list the ones that Clinton has a shot at and get back to me?

DOWN. BALLOT. CANDIDATES. It was this policy that lost the Dems two elections in 2000 and 2004 by not caring about states outside their stronghold while Bush went all out and racked up Electoral Votes. Obama is clearly doing the same strategy of racking up votes all across the board while Hillary was just counting on her name and traditional Democratic states.
Obama is racking up votes in states that won't figure in a Democratic win in November. At the same time, he is NOT racking up votes in areas that the Dems need to win to win the Presidency. Go figure.

Again, you are one of those Obama supporters who "base primary/caucus wins as translating into potential wins in the general?

No. You don't need to maintain the base when you are basically guaranteed to get it.
And where is the guarantee that Obama can hold on to states such as PA and New Jersey, while trying to win states such as Ohio, Florida, etc.? Ummm none.

Any argument for not going after "traditional" Republican states can be used for maintaining "traditional" Democratic states.
You have to walk before you can run. Making inroads into the Republican base has to be the goal or you don't win the election. To overdo the desire to accomplish such a goal whilst your own base crumbles is disasterous.

Because polls 8 months ahead really matter. Look at primary polls 8 months ago: Clinton. Giuliani. Clinton. Giuliani. Clinton. Giuliani. McCain wasn't even really mentioned.
Daily polls surely can be a distracting and useless tool for sure, which I have stated on numerous occaisions.

CH, I'm thinking you're just bitter like my dad that your lover Hillary lost.
Hillary has not lost and I think she should carry on!! :D

Obama is racking up votes in states that won't figure in a Democratic win in November. At the same time, he is NOT racking up votes in areas that the Dems need to win to win the Presidency. Go figure.

Again, you are one of those Obama supporters who "base primary/caucus wins as translating into potential wins in the general?


Wow.

Having been within 5 feet of Bill Clinton, I will now vote for Hilary.

Having been within 5 feet of Bill Clinton, I will now vote for Hilary.

How close does Michelle Obama have to get to you to switch?




Wait, don't answer...

How close does Michelle Obama have to get to you to switch?




Wait, don't answer...

http://generalitemafia.ipbfree.com/uploads/ipbfree.com/generalitemafia/emo-goumoticon0bk.gif

Wow.
Dude, seriously, he just actively contradicts himself like we won't notice. CH is quite capable of rational debate and there is no possibility that he doesn't recognize how obviously flawed his claims are.

A series of calls were made to Planned Parenthood and a racist donation was offered and accepted. First of all, this is somehow portrayed to prove Planned Parenthood is racist, instead of just greedy.

Worse, somehow it's an indictment of Obama.

This is a good topic for debate, there's a lot at stake and even with my frustrations at how Clinton is handling her campaign, these are strong candidates in a heated battle. I'm disappointed that the other side is represented so poorly. I'd love to have a real discussion about it.
No, you don't. Your "team" wants to shout down the opposition and ridicule my arguments, rather than address the points I have made. You suggest that you have "debunked" my arguments, when in fact you haven't.

Here is some examples:

yes, you most certainly do. but nobody cares, since you seem to have no grasp of, well, anything.

LMAO!!! :D

You just making the same flawed arguments over in over.


You know you've made it clear that you'll pick up your pieces and run around the room claiming we can't capture them. When you started it was embarrassing to you, but, at some point, if we don't acknowledge you're doing so and treat your "game" like it's no longer chess, then it's embarrassing to us. We've long since passed that point.

You make the same arguments, over and over, devoid of acknowledging their distinct and obvious fallacies, over and over, failing to address the arguments against them, over and over. I'm done trying to get you to return to chess.

The arguments you're holding up have long since been debunked.

Please, pretend like this is a debate forum and accept that your arguments need to incorporate ALL of the evidence. Doing otherwise is just a waste of everyone's time.

Edit: adding more:

Dude, seriously, he just actively contradicts himself like we won't notice. CH is quite capable of rational debate and there is no possibility that he doesn't recognize how obviously flawed his claims are.

This type of point is exactly what I was alluding to. You just simply deny reality and make wild claims.

After this there is no point in responding to the rest of your post. This is by far the most dishonest and ridiculous thing all day. I'm through, there is no point.

This isn't honest debate, this is just talking to some kid who just goes "UH UH!" over and over again. Let me know when you're ready for an adult conversation.
It all reminds me of the back and forth, way back at post # 1931 (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13526222&postcount=1931).


Some replies:

Pardon? We've made the argument that he won them and that they matter. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Not true. When you made a list of states that Obama could potentially swing, way back when, I asked you to list those states and you still haven't replied to this day. Or have you forgotten?

We don't have to discount her wins, because by any way of counting them, Obama is whooping her badly.
Certainly a matter of opinion?

A series of calls were made to Planned Parenthood and a racist donation was offered and accepted. First of all, this is somehow portrayed to prove Planned Parenthood is racist, instead of just greedy.

Worse, somehow it's an indictment of Obama.

Wha-huh?

Not true. When you made a list of states that Obama could potentially swing, way back when, I asked you to list those states and you still haven't replied to this day. Or have you forgotten?

See why I can't take you seriously. I showed exactly which states have gone one way or another in the last four elections. I demonstrated that one of YOUR links said there were 20 swing states. And now, amusingly, you tell me that when I made a list of swing states you asked me to list them and I never did. Is it any wonder no one considers you to be even remotely interested in rational debate?


Certainly a matter of opinion?

Um, no. Delegates are how they determine a winner. He's killing her in delegates. That's not a matter of opinion. He's beating her in states. Not a matter of opinion. He's beating her in popular vote. Not a matter of opinion.

The rest of what you quoted doesn't demonstrate we're ignoring your arguments. It demonstrates our recognition that you don't acknowledge the flaws in your arguments. Seriously, you're still claiming she won MI and FL.

In 180 pages, CTOAN and I have occasionally defended your candidate and complained about our own. In 180, pages you've never defended Obama nor have you pointed out problems in the arguments of Hillary. This is a clear and utter demonstration that this is about pretending to be right rather than actual being right.

Also, nice job dishonestly making two posts look like seven. Why change your style now?

Also, nice job dishonestly making two posts look like dozens. Why change your style now?

Holy crap, I didn't even notice that. My eyes kinda just glaze over when pulls this "why's everybody always pickin' on me" routine.

New low.

Um, could you explain or link the Planned Parenthood thing?

Dude, seriously, he just actively contradicts himself like we won't notice. CH is quite capable of rational debate and there is no possibility that he doesn't recognize how obviously flawed his claims are.
Didn't you also claim that I contradicted myself by saying that the Democratic candidates hadn't presented actual energy policies and then provided proof that all they proposed was cashapulting? That's not a real energy policy so I don't see the contradiction. If you were wrong about me then maybe you're wrong about the Canuckistani.

I understand that you don't like to lose, no one really does, and it can be hard to stand by silently while someone attacks your beliefs but falsly accusing someone of anything to distract them or deflect their statements is not the answer.

Holy crap, I didn't even notice that. My eyes kinda just glaze over when pulls this "why's everybody always pickin' on me" routine.

New low.

Um, could you explain or link the Planned Parenthood thing?

I saw it on the news. I don't have a link.

Didn't you also claim that I contradicted myself by saying that the Democratic candidates hadn't presented actual energy policies and then provided proof that all they proposed was cashapulting?

Actually, you claimed they hadn't presented ANY policies. You claimed they have not given anymore than promises for hope. It took some badgering before you got even remotely specific, at which point, you protested to specific points you claimed didn't exist.


That's not a real energy policy so I don't see the contradiction. If you were wrong about me then maybe you're wrong about the Canuckistani.

You didn't say it wasn't real. You said it wasn't specific. Nice job shifting the argument. You and CH have a lot in common.

I understand that you don't like to lose, no one really does, and it can be hard to stand by silently while someone attacks your beliefs but falsly accusing someone of anything to distract them or deflect their statements is not the answer.

Amusing. We've been discussing this with CH for months. After about a month of him refusing to address any argument that hurts his candidate, we gave up on him. All of it is present in this thread. You're welcome to do a little research rather than comment ignorantly on the subject.

I'll give you a couple of things he's said. When he can't address evidence, he claims that we won't know which one is electable until it happens so there is no need to analyze the evidence for claims about electability. He claims that if you say it's your opinion you don't need evidence in debate. He claims that gigantic posts filled with research can be addressed by simply saying you don't agree and they they should then be set aside. All of this can be found in the thread. And he admitted that no amount of evidence will change his "opinion" or change his argument in any way and then bragged that we couldn't capture his pieces in this chess game, thus the reference to the child running around the room with pieces in hand. You've jumped in after months. You, frankly, have no clue where these comments come from.

I'll give you a couple of things he's said. When he can't address evidence, he claims that we won't know which one is electable until it happens so there is no need to analyze the evidence for claims about electability. He claims that if you say it's your opinion you don't need evidence in debate. He claims that gigantic posts filled with research can be addressed by simply saying you don't agree and they they should then be set aside. All of this can be found in the thread. And he admitted that no amount of evidence will change his "opinion" or change his argument in any way and then bragged that we couldn't capture his pieces in this chess game, thus the reference to the child running around the room with pieces in hand. You've jumped in after months. You, frankly, have no clue where these comments come from.
More distortion and twisted bullshit my friend.

More distortion and twisted bullshit my friend.

Hehe.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13517344&postcount=1681
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13517339&postcount=1679

Among other quotes, here he says we can't know till November. To which our reply has always been "but we can examine the evidence". As shown your reply to that was that facts don't trump your "gut feeling".

Do I really need to present my evidence YET AGAIN. You've been bitching that I keep posting it, now you're going to pretend all I'm offering is an opinion. (Which IS all you're offering.)
Congratulations....you finally figured out that I offered an opinion, based on gut feelings, and a bit of past history. And no, your opinion or facts or whatever you want to call them, do not trump my opinion.

But, hey, I made it all up.

How about more examples?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13479825&postcount=452

Here you fully admit that you're not actually addressing very researched posts. Later you completely abandon this and just say "it's my opinion so you can't refute it."

But here's my favorite.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13512409&postcount=1522

See, he links to several posts he claims are replies. You'll note the one that says "especially here" is actuall a post full of hours of research to which he basically just said, nah, and left it at that. That's what qualifies as a response for CH. If he gives his opinion with no evidence, opinion based on a "gut feeling", then he's refuted our evidence.

http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13443083&postcount=527
Who the states went for the last 4 elections.

Obama States:
State(Electoral votes) - 2004-2000-1996-1992
Alabama(9)-RRRR staying Red
Alaska(3)-RRDR staying Red
Colorado(9)-RRRD staying Red
Connecticut(7)-DDDD staying Blue
Deleware(3)-DDDD staying Blue
Georgia(15)-RRRD staying Red
Idaho(4)-RRRR staying Red
Illinois(21)-DDDD staying Blue
Iowa(7)-RDDD possible to go either way
Kansas(6)-RRRR staying Red
Lousiana(9)-RRDD staying Red
Maine(4)-DDDD staying Blue
Minnesota(10)-DDDD staying Blue
Missouri(11)-RRDD staying Red
Nebraska(5)-RRRR staying Red
North Dakota(3)-RRRR staying Red
South Carolina(8)-RRRR staying Red
Utah(5)-RRRR staying Red
Washinton(11)-DDDD staying Blue

In other words he has a potential 150 electoral votes in the states he won.

Of them,
40 are virtually guaranteed Republican 87 are virtually guaranteed Republican
56 are virtually guaranteed Democrat agreed
54 are states he could swing 7 one possible swing State (Iowa)

Which gives Obama a grand potential of 63 electoral votes, not the 150 you claim. What "swing States" are you giving Obama?

Now, my 2nd premise was:


I think Hillary could easily win the Red States of Florida, Arkansas, New Mexico, and Nevada. I am only going by the States that have voted thus far.

Clinton States:
Arizona(10)-RRDR staying Red
Arkansas(6)-RRDD going Blue for the Clintons
California(55)-DDDD staying Blue
Massachussetts(12)-DDDD staying Blue
Nevada(5)-RRDD possible to go either way
New Hampshire(4)-DRDD staying Blue
New Jersey(15)-DDDD staying Blue
New Mexico(5)-RDDD going Blue with Latino votes
New York(31)-DDDD staying Blue
Oklahoma(7)-RRRR staying Red
Tennessee(11)-RRDD staying Red

In other words she has a potential 161 electoral votes in the states she won.

Of them,
7 are virtually guaranteed Republican 28 are virtually guaranteed Republican
113 are virtually guaranteed Democrat 117 are virtually guaranteed Democrat
41 are states she could swing. 16 are States she could swing

Which gives Hillary a grand potential of 133 electoral votes, not the 161 you claim.

Now it gets controversial in States that Clinton won but was not credited with:

I stated that Clinton could swing Florida (27 electoral votes) (again the Latino vote), and she would keep Michigan (17 electoral votes).

That is another 44 plus the 133 is 177 electoral votes so far, which is 114 electoral votes more than Obama has/could realistically win.

The colored text is from Canuck. All of the research is from me. In other words, I showed that which states have gone for both parties in the last four elections and which haven't and showed which went for who in the primaries (in response to the claim that Obama doesn't win states that matter) and the response was just statements with no support. None. Just claims.

I saw it on the news. I don't have a link.
Ah well, I did a google news search for "Planned Parenthood Obama" and got nothing, maybe it's sound and fury...


Um, no. Delegates are how they determine a winner. He's killing her in delegates. That's not a matter of opinion. He's beating her in states. Not a matter of opinion. He's beating her in popular vote. Not a matter of opinion.

Now, now, she's still ahead in Superdelegates (for the moment) and blind optimism...but- (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120692054573175525.html?mod=hpp_us_whats_news)
Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota is expected to endorse Sen. Obama Monday, according to a Democrat familiar with her plans. Meanwhile, North Carolina's seven Democratic House members are poised to endorse Sen. Obama as a group -- just one has so far -- before that state's May 6 primary, several Democrats say.
...
One North Carolinian confirmed that at least several of the state's House members would go public in favor of Sen. Obama before long. Meanwhile, elected officials in other states with upcoming contests, including Indiana, Montana and Oregon, are weighing whether to endorse Sen. Obama.
...
Since the "Super Tuesday" primaries on Feb. 5, Sen. Obama has won commitments from 64 superdelegates and Sen. Clinton has gotten nine. Sen. Obama has a total of 217 superdelegates in his camp while Sen. Clinton has 250, and her margin has been shrinking with each week.
...
"I think that says a lot about just where people are and what they're thinking," says former Senate Majority Leader Thomas Daschle, an Obama supporter. "And I think the numbers are just going to keep getting better" for Sen. Obama. Counting Sen. Klobuchar, Sen. Obama leads 13-11 among their Democratic colleagues in the Senate.
...
Even raising the prospect of a convention fight could backfire for Sen. Clinton by antagonizing the superdelegates she needs. Many superdelegates are on the ballot themselves this year, and the last thing they want is a chaotic convention that plays into the hands of Republicans.

In interviews, some House Democrats said Sen. Obama has the edge in the chamber. They noted that he has proved himself the stronger fund-raiser and has attracted more new voters to the party than anyone in recent memory -- both advantages that could benefit other Democrats. They worry that Sen. Clinton's high negative ratings in polls would incite more Republicans to mobilize against her and the Democratic ticket.

Not to say that they're saying it's over-
New York Sen. Clinton still hopes that by turning in strong performances in the final primaries, she can blunt the momentum of her rival from Illinois and make the case that she is best-positioned to take on Sen. McCain. With Mr. Dean, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, former Vice President Al Gore and other party leaders remaining neutral, the question is whether the trend of party figures endorsing Sen. Obama will build enough momentum to tip the race.
...
Mr. Dean, the party chairman, is urging uncommitted superdelegates to take sides no later than July 1, and effectively name the nominee. "If we go into the convention divided, it's pretty likely we'll come out of the convention divided," he said.

Democrats across the board, he said, "are haranguing me to show leadership." But they're often partisans for one candidate or the other, he added. Meanwhile, he said he is conferring with other party leaders, including Mrs. Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada; former Vice President Al Gore; civil-rights veteran and Clinton confidante Vernon Jordan; former New York Gov. Mario Cuomo; and Jesse Jackson and his son, Chicago Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr.

"Most of their advice is, 'Let this play out, let's get through the primaries,' " Mr. Dean said. "And I think that's right....Voters have to have their say. It's painful, because that means we've got another two months of this."
Two more months. And three weeks of a lot of talk and nothing concrete...yay...

And no doubt 'someone' will bring this up, I'll quote it ahead of time with the relevant part of the sentence still intact-
Sen. Clinton would have several more in her tally, but they're from Michigan, and delegates from Michigan and Florida won't be seated -- at least for now -- because both states defied party rules and held their primaries earlier than permitted.
It's possible that Obama will amass enough of a lead by the end of these last ten that Michigan and Florida will get a seat because they are no longer relevant. But as it is, Obama and Dean appointees make up too much of the credentials committee to give Clinton any hope of having them seated.

This is the story. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,338529,00.html

Hannity & Colmes tried to link it to Obama on their show.

This is the story. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,338529,00.html

Hannity & Colmes tried to link it to Obama on their show.

Wow, Autumn Kersey ain't the swiftest runner in the race...

But as it is, Obama and Dean appointees make up too much of the credentials committee to give Clinton any hope of having them seated.

yeah, though it turns out that like everything else about the dem's primary process, choosing people to be on the credentials committee is a needlessly complex headache-inducing kafkaesque nightmare.

if i understand the process right, as of this moment, obama has 67.5 votes (there are quarter delegates from american samoa, the virgin islands, guam, and dems abroad), dean's people have 25, clinton has 53.25, with 23.25 left to be determined. based on how things look right now, the split of those could be like 11 for obama and 12.25 for clinton - give or take two or three either way, say.

there are 183 votes on the committee, so you need 91.75 votes to win. so if obama winds up with 78.5, he'll only need 14 of dean's people to hang tough to prevent seating those delegates - which he will do until clinton learns how to add and withdraws from the race. though once she learns how to add, or figures out a way to bow out and save face, or generally solves whatever the problem is, she'll bow out and everybody will get a seat, and the fight won't actually have to be fought.

More distortion and twisted bullshit my friend.

Hehe.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13517344&postcount=1681
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13517339&postcount=1679

Among other quotes, here he says we can't know till November. To which our reply has always been "but we can examine the evidence". As shown your reply to that was that facts don't trump your "gut feeling".

But, hey, I made it all up.

How about more examples?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13479825&postcount=452

Here you fully admit that you're not actually addressing very researched posts. Later you completely abandon this and just say "it's my opinion so you can't refute it."

But here's my favorite.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13512409&postcount=1522

See, he links to several posts he claims are replies. You'll note the one that says "especially here" is actuall a post full of hours of research to which he basically just said, nah, and left it at that. That's what qualifies as a response for CH. If he gives his opinion with no evidence, opinion based on a "gut feeling", then he's refuted our evidence.

http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13443083&postcount=527


The colored text is from Canuck. All of the research is from me. In other words, I showed that which states have gone for both parties in the last four elections and which haven't and showed which went for who in the primaries (in response to the claim that Obama doesn't win states that matter) and the response was just statements with no support. None. Just claims.
Is that the best you have? You still haven't proved your case.....in other words, your "evidence" is just not there.

And in regards to this post below, I repeat:

I'll give you a couple of things he's said. When he can't address evidence, he claims that we won't know which one is electable until it happens so there is no need to analyze the evidence for claims about electability. He claims that if you say it's your opinion you don't need evidence in debate. He claims that gigantic posts filled with research can be addressed by simply saying you don't agree and they they should then be set aside. All of this can be found in the thread. And he admitted that no amount of evidence will change his "opinion" or change his argument in any way and then bragged that we couldn't capture his pieces in this chess game, thus the reference to the child running around the room with pieces in hand. You've jumped in after months. You, frankly, have no clue where these comments come from.
More distortion and twisted bullshit my friend.

I just love the way you "inclusive" "Democrats", or are you Obamacrats? are salivating over the possibility of forcing Clinton out of a democratic election.

I guess the voters of Pennsylvania, Indiana, West Virginia, North Carolina, Oregon, Kentucky, Montana, and South Dakota don't count?

Certainly does not bode well for the Democrats come November.

I just love the way you "inclusive" "Democrats", or are you Obamacrats? are salivating over the possibility of forcing Clinton out of a democratic election.

I guess the voters of Pennsylvania, Indiana, West Virginia, North Carolina, Oregon, Kentucky, Montana, and South Dakota don't count?

Certainly does not bode well for the Democrats come November.

Who is talking about forcing Hillary out of the race? No one. People are talking about her realizing she's lost. There's a huge difference, though the obviousness of this seems lost on you.

Is that the best you have? You still haven't proved your case.....in other words, your "evidence" is just not there.

And in regards to this post below, I repeat:


More distortion and twisted bullshit my friend.

See, this is just priceless. In response to a post where I point out that you believe you can refute evidence with a simple "nuh-uh" you refute evidence with a simple "nuh-uh".

What is distorted? What is twisted bullshit? What evidence am I missing? What counter evidence do you have no offer?

(They're rhetorical. After 186 pages of no one agreeing with you at an level... after 186 pages of no one accepting any of your arguments and their complete lack of support... after 186 pages of you complaining everytime someone lights your strawman and various other fallacies aflame, no one expects you to start making a proper debate and doing more than just saying no. But surpise me. Actually start being specific in your objections to our posts and providing evidence for your claims. Or are they "premises" today? Oh, wait, maybe they're "opinions" today? Whatever they are they have exactly the weight of the evidence behind them.)

As far as whether or not I've convinced you, no one is trying to convince you anymore. You've already said that nothing short of a time machine will convince you, so we're sticking to simply allowing more reasonable people to see the evidence.

As far as whether or not I've convinced you, no one is trying to convince you anymore. You've already said that nothing short of a time machine will convince you, so we're sticking to simply allowing more reasonable people to see the evidence.

I'm not sure why the lot of you haven't set him to ignore yet...

I'm not sure why the lot of you haven't set him to ignore yet...

Because it would fit in with Canuck's "Oh I'm so persecuted" spiel that he'd spin it into a "they ignore me because they can't face the truth!" accusations? I'd say that's what he'd do, given the last 50 odd pages I've gone through.

No, you don't. Your "team" wants to shout down the opposition and ridicule my arguments, rather than address the points I have made. You suggest that you have "debunked" my arguments, when in fact you haven't.

Oh brother :rolleyes:

I just love the way you "inclusive" "Democrats", or are you Obamacrats? are salivating over the possibility of forcing Clinton out of a democratic election.

I guess the voters of Pennsylvania, Indiana, West Virginia, North Carolina, Oregon, Kentucky, Montana, and South Dakota don't count?

Certainly does not bode well for the Democrats come November.

No Republican Race really matters now! All the nominees are out save for McCain who is the nominee. Our votes do not count here in this state in that race so that's disenfrancizing many Republican voters of a choice.

The other states mentioned are in the same boat. I guess that does not bode well for the Republicans come November.

And no. We do not want to force her out but we want her to realize that she cannot win this thing short of bringing down the party around her.

I just love the way you "inclusive" "Democrats", or are you Obamacrats? are salivating over the possibility of forcing Clinton out of a democratic election.

I guess the voters of Pennsylvania, Indiana, West Virginia, North Carolina, Oregon, Kentucky, Montana, and South Dakota don't count?

Certainly does not bode well for the Democrats come November.
We're doing no such thing. Please cite.

Is that the best you have? You still haven't proved your case.....in other words, your "evidence" is just not there.

And in regards to this post below, I repeat:


More distortion and twisted bullshit my friend.
So, what you're essentially saying is:
http://data.tumblr.com/DihuHpYM36s3piu4hDC9peAj_500.jpg

The colored text is from Canuck. All of the research is from me. In other words, I showed that which states have gone for both parties in the last four elections and which haven't and showed which went for who in the primaries (in response to the claim that Obama doesn't win states that matter) and the response was just statements with no support. None. Just claims.

They are just claims. After all, anyone following recent polls would see that a lot of the "staying blues" are actually a lot closer than one would think! McCain leads one candidate or the other in places like Oregon, Washington, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Ohio, Florida, and Missouri. In fact while his girl Clinton may be stronger in places such as PA or Ohio, she hasn't led a poll in Oregon or Washington for the entirety of this year!

Of course, polls this early are rather worthless in predicting eventual outcomes. But places like New Jersey or the Pacific Northwest are places where a Republican candidate should never come close to a Democrat, let alone lead one. In other words, please continue the civil war.

*is glad the contest will not be decided by bowling*

More distortion and twisted bullshit my friend.

Saying it over and again, unsupported by anything other than your need for repetition, does not make it true.

Saying it over and again, unsupported by anything other than your need for repetition, does not make it true.

Lies.


Apperantly,

The AP reports that the Clinton campaign has rolled out another tactic to justify continuing the primary her strategists "are warning of damage to the party's chances in November if women -- who make up the majority of Democratic voters nationwide, but especially the older, white working-class women who've long formed the former first lady's base -- sense a mostly male party establishment is unfairly muscling Clinton out of the race." Ann Lewis, "Clinton's director of women's outreach and a longtime Democratic activist," said, "My e-mail is bursting with women who are furious, and it's grown in the last week. ... They are very angry that people they've worked for so hard would be so dismissive of Hillary and, by extension, of them and what they value."


http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_080331.htm

Only in America could a rich, powerful white woman born with a silver spoon in her mouth claim she is being persecuted against :rolleyes:

Only in America could a rich, powerful white woman born with a silver spoon in her mouth claim she is being persecuted against :rolleyes:

to be fair, while we complain about those rich bastards in park ridge, it is no gold coast.

Lies.


Apperantly,



http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_080331.htm

Only in America could a rich, powerful white woman born with a silver spoon in her mouth claim she is being persecuted against :rolleyes:

Your anti-Clinton rhetoric is running away from you again.

1. On what do you base the assertion that Senator Clinton was "born with a silver spoon in her mouth"?

2. Although I don't agree that the political maneuverings against Senator Clinton are motivated by sexism, surely you don't deny that a woman in the United States can be, and often is, a victim of sexism?

3. Senator Obama is undeniably rich, powerful, and male. Does this mean he cannot be subject to discrimination?

This is the story. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,338529,00.html

Hannity & Colmes tried to link it to Obama on their show.

Because Obama wants to abort black babies?

Your anti-Clinton rhetoric is running away from you again.

1. On what do you base the assertion that Senator Clinton was "born with a silver spoon in her mouth"?

While I don't speak for the poster in question, HRC certainly came from a sn upper middle class/lower upper class background. Daddy was a frat boy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Ellsworth_Rodham) back when that ment something. She certainly grew up with more $$$ than I did, and my up-bringing would be middle-class or upper-middle-class by most US standards...

Her father, a businessman in the textile industry, could afford to send his daughter to both Wellesley College and Yale Law School. Silver spoon? Check!

2. Although I don't agree that the political maneuverings against Senator Clinton are motivated by sexism, surely you don't deny that a woman in the United States can be, and often is, a victim of sexism?

Claiming that women in general in the US are subject to sexism, while true, does ADAMANTLY not equate to opposition to HRC=Sexism.

3. Senator Obama is undeniably rich, powerful, and male. Does this mean he cannot be subject to discrimination?

Again, agreeed. But compare and contrast. HRC=rich upper-MC background, Obama=international MC background. (I'll be very disappointed in you if you come down for HRC on the basis of gender!)

Your anti-Clinton rhetoric is running away from you again.

1. On what do you base the assertion that Senator Clinton was "born with a silver spoon in her mouth"?You know, when I looked this up on wiki I was sure that she would have been, but really she was upper middle class at best. Hillary Diane Rodham was born at Edgewater Hospital in Chicago, Illinois, and was raised in a United Methodist family, first in Chicago, and then, from the age of three, in suburban Park Ridge, Illinois, which is also located in Cook County. Her father, Hugh Ellsworth Rodham, was a child of Welsh and English immigrants and operated a small but successful business in the textile industry.
That's not quite silver spoon territory.

2. Although I don't agree that the political maneuverings against Senator Clinton are motivated by sexism, surely you don't deny that a woman in the United States can be, and often is, a victim of sexism?
Black people can be, and often are, victims of rascism, but to characterize all of Obama's opponents as rascists would be wrong.
3. Senator Obama is undeniably rich, powerful, and male. Does this mean he cannot be subject to discrimination?
no, and I'm sure that there are sexists campaigning against Clinton. But to accuse more than a tiny segment of Obama's supporters as Sexists would be just short of slander.

Among McCain's supporters, however, they might be more prevalent.

And I'll just say here, that, upon considering the previous comment, part of my viceral dislike of HRC comes from my own background. Realising that I see her as being the same as the "bowhead bitches" from HS and Uni, doesn't mean I'll respect her more. But at least I know where a large part of my antipathy comes from...

You know, when I looked this up on wiki I was sure that she would have been, but really she was upper middle class at best.
That's not quite silver spoon territory.

We seem to disagree on what constitutes "silver spoon".

My father was "poor white trash", til he earned his PhD. HRC's father was a frat boy. Big huge honking difference.

While I don't speak for the poster in question, HRC certainly came from a sn upper middle class/lower upper class background. Daddy was a frat boy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Ellsworth_Rodham) back when that ment something. She certainly grew up with more $$$ than I did, and my up-bringing would be middle-class or upper-middle-class by most US standards...

Her father, a businessman in the textile industry, could afford to send his daughter to both Wellesley College and Yale Law School. Silver spoon? Check!

1. Since when does upper middle class equal being born with a silver spoon in one's mouth?

2. I'm not sure what you think that link about Clinton's father tells us that is relevant.

3. Senator Clinton graduated from Wellesley College and Yale Law School. Senator Obama graduated from Columbia University and Harvard Law School. I fail to see how this is anything but a compliment to either of them. I certainly don't know how either paid for their education, and I doubt you do either.

Claiming that women in general in the US are subject to sexism, while true, does ADAMANTLY not equate to opposition to HRC=Sexism.

Which would be why I rather specifically denied that opposition to Clinton equals sexism. :rolleyes:

Again, agreeed. But compare and contrast. HRC=rich upper-MC background, Obama=international MC background. (I'll be very disappointed in you if you come down for HRC on the basis of gender!)

1. What exact contest am I supposed to be deciding? Who had the tougher upbringing?

2. I thought I'd made clear my support for Senator Obama. That doesn't mean I have to agree to any tripe that is said against Senator Clinton.

We seem to disagree on what constitutes "silver spoon".

Your definition seems to be "anyone who made money equal to or greater than my family." If your family made more money than mine, were you born with a "silver spoon"? Or does a "silver spoon" generally equate to the rich?

My father was "poor white trash", til he earned his PhD. HRC's father was a frat boy. Big huge honking difference.

You seem to have a visceral reaction to the fact that Clinton's father belonged to fraternity. I'm not sure why. He attended Pennsylvania State University on a football scholarship. It appears from the link you provided that he was a self-made man. I see no evidence that he didn't also earn his degree and then his money.

1. Since when does upper middle class equal being born with a silver spoon in one's mouth?

It's the very definition, at least in my books.

2. I'm not sure what you think that link about Clinton's father tells us that is relevant.

It tells us that she comes from a given background.

3. Senator Clinton graduated from Wellesley College and Yale Law School. Senator Obama graduated from Columbia University and Harvard Law School. I fail to see how this is anything but a compliment to either of them. I certainly don't know how either paid for their education, and I doubt you do either.

Daughter of a frat legacy who owns a business vs son of a single mother...

I don't have the time at the moment, but I'll be looking up their payment.

Which would be why I rather specifically denied that opposition to Clinton equals sexism. :rolleyes:

...

surely you don't deny that a woman in the United States can be, and often is, a victim of sexism?

That comment suggested to me that HRC was being thought of in gender terms.

1. What exact contest am I supposed to be deciding? Who had the tougher upbringing?

I wasn't the one who brought up HRC's silver spoon. That being said, I'll admit that the above have colored my perceptions. T'aint manyb in this thread who'll do the same...

2. I thought I'd made clear my support for Senator Obama. That doesn't mean I have to agree to any tripe that is said against Senator Clinton.

Your comments sounded like you were supporting HRC on a gender basis. I expectyed better from you. It seems I misread, to my pleasure. :)

Your definition seems to be "anyone who made money equal to or greater than my family." If your family made more money than mine, were you born with a "silver spoon"? Or does a "silver spoon" generally equate to the rich?

"Silver spoon" in my books is unearned wealth.

You seem to have a visceral reaction to the fact that Clinton's father belonged to fraternity. I'm not sure why. He attended Pennsylvania State University on a football scholarship. It appears from the link you provided that he was a self-made man. I see no evidence that he didn't also earn his degree and then his money.

Yep. Frat boys spells negative in my experience.

While I don't speak for the poster in question, HRC certainly came from a sn upper middle class/lower upper class background. Daddy was a frat boy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Ellsworth_Rodham) back when that ment something. She certainly grew up with more $$$ than I did, and my up-bringing would be middle-class or upper-middle-class by most US standards...

Her father, a businessman in the textile industry, could afford to send his daughter to both Wellesley College and Yale Law School. Silver spoon? Check!



Claiming that women in general in the US are subject to sexism, while true, does ADAMANTLY not equate to opposition to HRC=Sexism.



Again, agreeed. But compare and contrast. HRC=rich upper-MC background, Obama=international MC background. (I'll be very disappointed in you if you come down for HRC on the basis of gender!)


This.


Hillary is not being discriminated against. She has what is currently the most powerful and well oiled political machine backing her candicacy, Daddy made enough money to send her to Yale, and her family really never struggled.

Hillary is losing because she sucks. This glass ceiling arguement is absurd.

Like I said, she is a rich, powerful, white woman who comes from a well off family claiming discrimination. Its fucking absurd. When Obama was down, he wasnt out their screaming "America just cant handle a black president!" Had he been, I would not be voting for him.

We seem to disagree on what constitutes "silver spoon".

i tend to hold that anyone who went to public high school in the same school district as i did doesn't count.

http://publish.indymedia.org/en/2008/03/903628.shtml

By yours truly:

Dear people at whatever news outlet this e-mail reaches: First of all, I'd like to say that you have every freedom to publish or not to publish this e-mail. If you do, please include my e-mail address. Whether you publish it or not, though, I would like to ask you to see to it that Senator Hillary Clinton is made aware of its contents somehow. Since I do not have her e-mail, nor would her campaign answer me directly, I ask you to forward it or do whatever you need. And while my intended reader is Senator Hillary Clinton, D-NY, the point might be driven across to just about anyone in the United States of America. On to the text. It is your choice, also, whether or not to publish this small introduction in the letter space/op-ed space/internet space/etc.

-------------

Dear Senator Clinton: In this text, I'm taking upon myself a task that is probably far beyond me, that I have no right to perform, a task that is so far beyond the pale that it could only be claimed by someone very, very arrogant. And that, yet, must be done at one point or another, before it's too late. I am speaking for the world. Take a breather in order to absorb the sheer hubris of what you just read. But do keep on reading. Ready? Good. I am, indeed, speaking for the world, Senator Clinton. And the reasons I am daring to do this, even though it's just about what a person with megalomania would do, are that no one else will do it on the sheer account of it being such an arrogant proposition and that, yet, if it's not done, McCain might, and will likely, win the election.

And that is unacceptable.

It is unacceptable because it will mean more death in Iraq. It is unacceptable because the environment will suffer more and more. It is unacceptable because Church will interfere more and more with State. It is unacceptable because the US will see fit to attack more and more random countries. It is unacceptable because the civil liberties your forefathers struggled so much for will be under attack more and more. It is unacceptable because fear, sheer, abject, repulsive fear will continue to be the driving force behind the actions of America regarding foreign policy. It is unacceptable because gays will stay marginalized in the country that calls itself the leader of the free world. It is unacceptable for so many other reasons, each for every single organism living in this small planet.

It is unacceptable.

And that, Senator Clinton, is why I must beg of you to quit the race. The reasons for that are clear, but I will, nonetheless, and for the benefit of others who might read this text, point them out once more.

But first, let me make something clear, before your campaign aides call me sexist: I would say the same to you were you a man, a transsexual, a hermaphrodite or anything in-between. This has nothing to do with your gender. Zilch. Zero. Nada. Niente. Even because, while my personal gender may be male, in taking the task of speaking for the world, I'm representing a majorly female world.

Now. I'm assuming we are on the same page in that any Democrat in the White House is better than Republicans in general, and John McCain in particular, here.

Now let's take a look at the facts.

Your own aides have said you have about a 5% chance of winning the nomination. And you would have to do that by using the delegates and superdelegates to subvert the will of the people, something which, assuming you win, would result in you losing the election to McCain. As the infighting between Democrats gets worse, Republicans are getting stronger.

This will harm the Democratic candidate, no matter who they are. The vast majority of the polls so far has favored Obama over John McCain. These same polls, Senator Clinton, favored McCain over you. As the infighting gets worse, and the whole dirt-digging gets more severe, this will also give the Republicans the ammo they want so bad. It is highly unlikely for you to win the nomination. It is even less likely for you to, winning the nomination by subverting the will of the people, win the race.

I now ask of you what is your choice, Senator Clinton. And it is between two options.

You can quit the race and be remembered as someone who graciously helped get a Democrat in the White House when the world needed the most, all the while setting yourself up even for another election in 4 to 8 years.

Or you can bleed the Democratic Party up to the point in which John McCain gets elected, and, from them on, be seen as the person who, due to immediate ambitions, gave the Republicans the White House, and, from then on, fade into obscurity, all the while knowing that, whatever John McCain does, it will have been with your contribution to his becoming President.

You can pretend like there are more options, Senator Clinton. You can pretend like there are other choices.

There aren't. You know it, I know it, the world knows it.

In the name of the world, Senator Clinton, I beg of you: Make the right choice.

João Lucas Gontijo Fraga, 26 years old, Belo Horizonte, MG - Brazil - Vox Mundi.

I wrote this for several reasons, including the fact that the rest of the world also has a stake in this. If possible, I'd like to see this open letter as divulged throughout the Internet and other media as possible. The world cannot afford more Republicans.

Thanks.

http://publish.indymedia.org/en/2008/03/903628.shtml

By yours truly:



I wrote this for several reasons, including the fact that the rest of the world also has a stake in this. If possible, I'd like to see this open letter as divulged throughout the Internet and other media as possible. The world cannot afford more Republicans.

Thanks.

Its a brilliant letter. Too bad you will get one of two responses if any.

1. SEXIST OBAMA SUPPORTER!!!11!1!
2. Bill Clinton if he sees it will say that all this fighting is good for the party, which everyone but Bill Clinton knows ia absurd.

Its a brilliant letter. Too bad you will get one of two responses if any.

1. SEXIST OBAMA SUPPORTER!!!11!1!
2. Bill Clinton if he sees it will say that all this fighting is good for the party, which everyone but Bill Clinton knows is absurd.

If it gets on the Internet enough, people will not be able to ignore it any further.

If it gets on the Internet enough, people will not be able to ignore it any further.

Commence spamming then.

Commence spamming then.

Help me, won't you? ;)

Help me, won't you? ;)

But of course.

But of course.

Good. Let's turn this into a meme.

http://publish.indymedia.org/en/2008/03/903628.shtml

By yours truly:



I wrote this for several reasons, including the fact that the rest of the world also has a stake in this. If possible, I'd like to see this open letter as divulged throughout the Internet and other media as possible. The world cannot afford more Republicans.

Thanks.

Could you use more para breaks or something in the link? I was going to put it on stmubleupon.

Could you use more para breaks or something in the link? I was going to put it on stmubleupon.

I can't re-edit the link, I tried. But use the quote from here and so on. Just get it OUT THERE, people! ;)

I'm tempted to print that out and give it to the Lancaster County Obama HQ.

I'm tempted to print that out and give it to the Lancaster County Obama HQ.

You have my permission and my blessing. So do all of you.

For that matter, if ANY of you work with media, try and get it printed or something.

I can't re-edit the link, I tried. But use the quote from here and so on. Just get it OUT THERE, people! ;)

But I don't want to digg/stumble the actual post. Jolt will have a massive heart attack and die.

But I don't want to digg/stumble the actual post. Jolt will have a massive heart attack and die.

Then post the link.

Then post the link.

Submitted to stumbleupon. Someone should digg it.

I knew there was a purpose for the 3,000 thollars I had lying around in Thotmarket. I'ma go add this now.

Because Obama wants to abort black babies?

hannity linked obama to that guy who killed those college women in north carolina. he is one sleazy piece of shit.

I knew there was a purpose for the 3,000 thollars I had lying around in Thotmarket. I'ma go add this now.

Remember to ask people to divulge this.

See, this is just priceless. In response to a post where I point out that you believe you can refute evidence with a simple "nuh-uh" you refute evidence with a simple "nuh-uh".

What is distorted? What is twisted bullshit? What evidence am I missing? What counter evidence do you have no offer?

(They're rhetorical. After 186 pages of no one agreeing with you at an level... after 186 pages of no one accepting any of your arguments and their complete lack of support... after 186 pages of you complaining everytime someone lights your strawman and various other fallacies aflame, no one expects you to start making a proper debate and doing more than just saying no. But surpise me. Actually start being specific in your objections to our posts and providing evidence for your claims. Or are they "premises" today? Oh, wait, maybe they're "opinions" today? Whatever they are they have exactly the weight of the evidence behind them.)

As far as whether or not I've convinced you, no one is trying to convince you anymore. You've already said that nothing short of a time machine will convince you, so we're sticking to simply allowing more reasonable people to see the evidence.
You do ramble on about your apparent victory, and yet you have won nothing. You talk about evidence yet there is nothing compelling about your evidence that can come anywhere close to defeating my argument.

I made comments in red or blue based on your "researched" material (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13443083&postcount=527)(which wasn't deep enough to be honest) and you ignored them. You also ignored the direct question that I asked.

Your response was:

First of all, how sad that I put so much effort into a post you clearly didn't understand. The total "potential" votes was the sum total fo the elctoral votes for the states the won. Frankly, only the swing states matter. If there is no chance that a state will change, franlkly it doesn't matter who wins. I was just showing the numbers relative to the total number of delegates.

Second of all, after all that research, your answer is nuh-uh? Seriously? On what do you base your claims? How about an argument instead of this embarassament of poking your fingers in your ears? Please, please, please, pretend like you're interested in rational debate.
Again, you do your usual attack the poster, even though for some strange reason you believe that your research (inadequate as it was) somehow trumps my opinion which was based on past history and a gut feeling.

Your idea of swing states is based on the past 4 general elections. Try making that the past 7 general elections and you get a better picture of what a "red state" is. The only way that Clinton was able to swing some of those red states back in 1992 (http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/datagraph.php?year=1992&fips=0&f=1&off=0&elect=0) and 1996 (http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/datagraph.php?year=1996&fips=0&f=1&off=0&elect=0) was due to the fact that there were 3 strong candidates running and the fact that one of them, Ross Perot was able to siphon off enough right wing votes away from Dole, and Bush that enabled Clinton to win.

Kerry lost to a very weakened Bush, but he still lost. Kerry could not pick up those red states that he needed. I believe that Obama is in the same situation and perhaps worse.

These are the "red states" won by Obama. Bush's 2004 results in brackets. How many of these can Obama win?

Idaho (68.4%)
Wyoming (68.9%)
Utah (71%)
Colorado (51.9%)
North Dakota (62.8%)
Nebraska (66.6%)
Kansas (62.1%)
Iowa (50%)
Missouri (53.3%)
Louisiana (56.7%)
Mississippi (59.6%)
Alabama (62.5%)
Georgia (58%)
South Carolina (58%)
Virginia (53.9%)
Alaska (61.8%)

Can Obama win Ohio or Florida? Current polls say no. Clinton has a better shot?

Can Obama hold on to Pennsylvania? Perhaps not?

My premise as stated before:

Obama won mostly the Red States, and let's face facts, those Red states that Obama won are very unlikely to vote Democrat in the general election

The second part of that premise:

I believe that in a general election, Clinton could very well win Florida. I don't believe that Obama would.

And a 2nd premise that I threw out there:

If you would notice, I said the Red States won by Obama are very likely to stay Red.

I think Hillary could easily win the Red States of Florida, Arkansas, New Mexico, and Nevada. I am only going by the States that have voted thus far.
That is based on history, and my gut feelings. A lot of polls seem to be hinting that I am on the right track.

http://publish.indymedia.org/en/2008/03/903628.shtml

By yours truly:

I wrote this for several reasons, including the fact that the rest of the world also has a stake in this. If possible, I'd like to see this open letter as divulged throughout the Internet and other media as possible. The world cannot afford more Republicans.

Thanks.
What a lot of crap. Dear Ms. Clinton....please drop out of the democratic process because it might upset the democratic process of electing a President. Sad!!

My response (http://www.observer.com/2008/why-hillary-carries):

But that doesn’t mean this is the time for Clinton to quit. She has won nearly as many votes and delegates as Obama, certainly enough to justify participating in the remaining nine primaries and caucuses. Maybe in that time she will catch him in popular votes. It’s not likely, but it could radically change the attitudes of superdelegates if it happened. Or maybe something else will happen. She and her supporters have earned the right to hang around and see.
And if Michigan and Florida were legitimately included in this process, the results would be a lot closer?

I'm tempted to print that out and give it to the Lancaster County Obama HQ.
Hey.....there is a great thing for the Obama team to be handing out?

Think man....THINK!!

Idaho (68.4%)
Wyoming (68.9%)
Utah (71%)
Colorado (51.9%)
North Dakota (62.8%)
Nebraska (66.6%)
Kansas (62.1%)
Iowa (50%)
Missouri (53.3%)
Louisiana (56.7%)
Mississippi (59.6%)
Alabama (62.5%)
Georgia (58%)
South Carolina (58%)
Virginia (53.9%)
Alaska (61.8%)



If African Americans continue to turn out as much as they have been, Obama could easily win the bolded. Especially in states like SC where blacks make up roughly 50% of the electorate.

What a lot of crap. Dear Ms. Clinton....please drop out of the democratic process because it might upset the democratic process of electing a President. Sad!!

My response (http://www.observer.com/2008/why-hillary-carries):


And if Michigan and Florida were legitimately included in this process, the results would be a lot closer?



We'll talk in November if Clinton hands this over to McCain.

What a lot of crap. Dear Ms. Clinton....please drop out of the democratic process because it might upset the democratic process of electing a President. Sad!!

My response (http://www.observer.com/2008/why-hillary-carries):


And if Michigan and Florida were legitimately included in this process, the results would be a lot closer?

No, because it might get another hellspawn Republican in the White House.

And if Obama had campaigned in Michigan and Florida, the results might just favor HIM. But he DIDN'T, because he was following the RULES.

Hey.....there is a great thing for the Obama team to be handing out?

Think man....THINK!!

Yes. Yes it would.

Its a brilliant letter. Too bad you will get one of two responses if any.

1. SEXIST OBAMA SUPPORTER!!!11!1!
2. Bill Clinton if he sees it will say that all this fighting is good for the party, which everyone but Bill Clinton knows ia absurd.
You think that is a brilliant letter? Sad.

You forgot the third possible response:

3. Arrogant, fear based propaganda that wants to stifle the democratic process.

You think that is a brilliant letter? Sad.

You forgot the third possible response:

3. Arrogant, fear based propaganda that wants to stifle the democratic process.

If Hillary gets a Republican in the White House there won't BE a democratic process for much longer.

You think that is a brilliant letter? Sad.


Youre one to talk about peoples opinions being sad.

You do ramble on about your apparent victory, and yet you have won nothing. You talk about evidence yet there is nothing compelling about your evidence that can come anywhere close to defeating my argument.

I made comments in red or blue based on your "researched" material (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13443083&postcount=527)(which wasn't deep enough to be honest) and you ignored them. You also ignored the direct question that I asked.

Ignored them? Dear God. I used research to show they by FACT do actually swing. Your response was to say they wouldn't and when challenged you said it was a "gut feeling".



Your response was:


Again, you do your usual attack the poster, even though for some strange reason you believe that your research (inadequate as it was) somehow trumps my opinion which was based on past history and a gut feeling.

Hehe. Your gut feeling trumps the evidence. Isn't this exactly what I said you said? Um, yes.


Your idea of swing states is based on the past 4 general elections. Try making that the past 7 general elections and you get a better picture of what a "red state" is. The only way that Clinton was able to swing some of those red states back in 1992 (http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/datagraph.php?year=1992&fips=0&f=1&off=0&elect=0) and 1996 (http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/datagraph.php?year=1996&fips=0&f=1&off=0&elect=0) was due to the fact that there were 3 strong candidates running and the fact that one of them, Ross Perot was able to siphon off enough right wing votes away from Dole, and Bush that enabled Clinton to win.

Again, this is just plain lunacy. So states that HAVE swung in the last four elections suddenly are going to be shown as not able to swing by looking at 7 elections? Somehow we can get a better picture of how things are now, but going back further? You'll notice I included an equal number of republican victories and democrat victories.

You want to include 3 more republican victories one of which was among the biggest landslides in history. How is that going to help anyone get a better idea for what states a dem has to win and can win for a victory? If we go by the states that Republicans have one 5 out of the last seven elections, and give up the states that typically go for them, by fact, they'll win, just like they did in those five elections. How devoid of logic your argument is becomes more apparent, the more you argue it.




Kerry lost to a very weakened Bush, but he still lost. Kerry could not pick up those red states that he needed. I believe that Obama is in the same situation and perhaps worse.

Yes, we know. Because you have a "gut feeling". Kerry was a boring candidate no one cared about. Show me ANY evidence that Obama and kerry are similar? Were the primaries similar? Nope. Were they similar in how they excited the electorate? Nope. Both Clinton and Obama turn Kerry on his ear. He's not fit to carry their books.



These are the "red states" won by Obama. Bush's 2004 results in brackets. How many of these can Obama win?

Idaho (68.4%)
Wyoming (68.9%)
Utah (71%)
Colorado (51.9%)
North Dakota (62.8%)
Nebraska (66.6%)
Kansas (62.1%)
Iowa (50%)
Missouri (53.3%)
Louisiana (56.7%)
Mississippi (59.6%)
Alabama (62.5%)
Georgia (58%)
South Carolina (58%)
Virginia (53.9%)
Alaska (61.8%)

So when I do it we should look at 7 elections but when you do it, we should look at one election where a terrible candidate lost? Hmmm... how about we try applying logic instead? Wouldn't that make more sense? How does one get a better picture by only considering one election?




Can Obama win Ohio or Florida? Current polls say no. Clinton has a better shot?

Current polls have Obama doing better overall. I know your argument requires us to only look at specific evidence, but a look at the evidence in total has Obama more popular country-wide than Hilary and widening the gap. But, hey, probably most of his supporters don't matter, right?



Can Obama hold on to Pennsylvania? Perhaps not?

My premise as stated before:



The second part of that premise:



And a 2nd premise that I threw out there:


That is based on history, and my gut feelings. A lot of polls seem to be hinting that I am on the right track.

Well, who can argue with your "gut"? I'll stick to people who base their opinions on facts, evidence and logic. You fail to see, I'm not actually arguing with you. I'm arguing with people who want to approach the subject rationally. You've admitted you're not using rational thought, but instead "feelings".

This stuff is classic. I claimed you thought these things and you said it was "twisted bullshit". Then you proved you actually are basing your arguments on "gut feelings" and they you believe they trump what you admitted was a lot of research. Thanks for making it clear to everyone here that you're not remotely interested in reason.

If African Americans continue to turn out as much as they have been, Obama could easily win the bolded. Especially in states like SC where blacks make up roughly 50% of the electorate.
Ummm polling doesn't support your assumptions.

In 2004, Kerry received 88% of the black vote and how many red states did he win????

If Hillary gets a Republican in the White House there won't BE a democratic process for much longer.
Hillary can do that all by herself? Perhaps she should be running for Supreme Being instead? :p

Thanks for making it clear to everyone here that you're not remotely interested in reason.

Only now has that become apperant to you?


SAN JOSE -- Former President Clinton urged Democratic Party superdelegates and activists Sunday to be patient in selecting a presidential nominee and let the primary election process play out over the coming months.

A vigorous campaign between his wife, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, and Illinois Sen. Barack Obama will not damage the party's prospects of beating the Republican nominee in the fall, Bill Clinton said in a speech to the California Democratic Party convention.

"Don't let anybody tell you that somehow we are weakening the Democratic Party," he told the 2,100 state delegates. "Chill out and let everybody have their say. We are going to win this election."

Before his speech, the former president met privately with about 16 superdelegates who will vote at the national Democratic Party convention in August on the party's nominee. The nomination is expected to be in the superdelegates' hands; neither Obama nor Hillary Clinton appear destined to win the 2,024 pledged delegates needed to secure the nod.

The former president also encouraged superdelegates not to decide prematurely on the nominee and deny voters in upcoming states the chance for their votes to count, several superdelegates said afterward.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-me-dems31mar31,1,7110377.story

Her hubby is freaking out, even if hes trying to hide it. Superdelegates have been flocking to Obama like flies to honey lately, so Billy goes out there and whines "Guys, dont decide before its overrrrrr!"

Hey Bill, where were you telling everyone to be patient when the SDs were pledging for your wife back in November and December, you know, back before Obama curb-stomped her and showed how weak of a candidate she really is? Oh, I get it. SDs can jump on your wife like you jump on interns all they want, but when deciding whether or not to pledge for Obama, you caution them to be patient and wait till its all over. I get ya.

Ummm polling doesn't support your assumptions.

In 2004, Kerry received 88% of the black vote and how many red states did he win????

You realize that is because more African Americans voted in these primaries for Obama than they did in the election in 04, right?


But, ya know, not to let the whole story interfere with your selective facts or anything.

Hillary can do that all by herself? Perhaps she should be running for Supreme Being instead? :p

No, but McCain will if Hillary:

1- Gets nominated against the will of most Democrats;

or

2- Bleeds the Democratic Party more and more.

I'm tempted to print that out and give it to the Lancaster County Obama HQ.

You were Lancaster County here on NSG. I KNEW it.

You were Lancaster County here on NSG. I KNEW it.

As long as he does print it and so on... ;)

You were Lancaster County here on NSG. I KNEW it.

There was a doubt?

Only now has that become apperant to you?

Many people are frequently unreasonable, including you. And I totally realize that he isn't being reasonable and hasn't been the entire time, but I'm not just arguing to him, I'm arguing to everyone who reads it and it's everyone's interest to get him to admit he's not being reasonable. And once again I've done just that. You'll notice I incite him to admit his opinions aren't based on reason every couple dozen pages or so.

There was a doubt?

He continued to deny it, even after fessing up about Allegheny Country. I always suspected, but this just confirmed it.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20080331/cm_huffpost/094207_200803310853

For you, Canuck. Nice little article about the myths that keep Clinton alive.

Weirdest compromise yet... (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5igrYLRrHG3P6lIbs2E7pSH0bxhvgD8VOKOK01)
— A Michigan congressman proposed an alternate plan Monday for seating the state's delegates at the Democratic National Convention, awarding delegates based partly on Michigan's Jan. 15 primary results and partly on the popular vote in all the nation's presidential primaries.
...
Under Stupak's formula, New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who received 55 percent of the primary vote, would receive 47 delegates.

Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, who pulled his name from Michigan's ballot, would receive 36 delegates. Many Obama supporters in Michigan voted for "uncommitted," which received 40 percent in the primary.

The remaining 73 delegates would be awarded based on the percentage of the popular vote garnered nationwide by Clinton and Obama after the last Democratic presidential primary is completed.
That's an odd one. Giving weight to the bullshit primary at all in Michigan doesn't really sit well with me. First of all, Edwards was also not on the ballot so some of those uncommitted votes were for him as well, and who knows how many of those votes were just "Look, I'm here because there are down ballot candidates and initiatives, but this primary is bullshit."

The popular vote percentage is the most interesting part. Perhaps there's a sign that Clinton isn't so confident about that margin closing-
Mo Elleithee, a Clinton spokesman, said many ideas have been floated "but we remain committed to the simplest one: Let democracy rule. Count the votes that were cast or hold new elections."
By contrast, a non-committal Obama campaign-
Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor said "we believe there should be a fair and equitable seating of the delegates, and have communicated directly with the Michigan Democratic Party that we would like to see a resolution soon."
Basing it on over all popular vote is interesting. It has fuck all to do with the voters in Michigan, though.

On a parity level, it's just a shade above arbitrary, which leads me to a 'why bother' feeling.

This.


Hillary is not being discriminated against. She has what is currently the most powerful and well oiled political machine backing her candicacy, Daddy made enough money to send her to Yale, and her family really never struggled.

Hillary is losing because she sucks. This glass ceiling arguement is absurd.

Like I said, she is a rich, powerful, white woman who comes from a well off family claiming discrimination. Its fucking absurd. When Obama was down, he wasnt out their screaming "America just cant handle a black president!" Had he been, I would not be voting for him.

Indeed.

i tend to hold that anyone who went to public high school in the same school district as i did doesn't count.

Where I grew up, even that wasn't the best yardstick. (One of my friends in HS (yes, public school) actually inherited over a million dollars from his grandmother.) A good yardstick might be

Submitted to stumbleupon. Someone should digg it.

http://publish.indymedia.org/en/2008/03/903628.shtml has been submitted to digg.

You realize that is because more African Americans voted in these primaries for Obama than they did in the election in 04, right?

But, ya know, not to let the whole story interfere with your selective facts or anything.
Yet polling from most of the states you selected suggest that your assumptions are wrong. As a matter of fact, in several red states where Obama crushed Hillary in the nomination run, she actually would fare better than him in a general election. So much for numbers from primaries meaning a whole lot?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20080331/cm_huffpost/094207_200803310853

For you, Canuck. Nice little article about the myths that keep Clinton alive.
And Chip Collis is entitled to his opinion. It is a democratic election and the participants should not be asked to step aside, especially since it would be good to hear from all the constituents.

It's the very definition, at least in my books.

Usually it refers to the very rich, not the middle-class or upper middle class.


It tells us that she comes from a given background.

And what about that background is relevant?


Daughter of a frat legacy who owns a business vs son of a single mother...

I don't have the time at the moment, but I'll be looking up their payment.

Um. Your "daughter of a frat legacy" crack isn't based on facts. And your "son of a single mother" only had a single mother for a short time -- a year or two.

I think the Obama was more poor than Clinton as a child argument is a rather tacky and tired argument to begin with and your lack of facts only makes it weaker.


surely you don't deny that a woman in the United States can be, and often is, a victim of sexism?
That comment suggested to me that HRC was being thought of in gender terms.

But inorder to draw such an inference you had to ignore and even crop off the first half of my sentence:
Although I don't agree that the political maneuverings against Senator Clinton are motivated by sexism, surely you don't deny that a woman in the United States can be, and often is, a victim of sexism?

I do think Senator Clinton's gender is a relevant factor -- both as a plus and as a minus--for her campaign. Similarly, Senator Obama's race is a relevant factor -- both as a plus and as a minus -- for his campaign.


Your comments sounded like you were supporting HRC on a gender basis. I expectyed better from you. It seems I misread, to my pleasure. :)

You did misread. :cool:

"Silver spoon" in my books is unearned wealth.

Well whatever wealth you are born to is unearned -- regardless of whether you are born poor, middle-class, or wealthy. So that definition doesn't get us very far. What then counts as wealth? Middle-class, upper middle class? I don't think so.

You seem to imply that Clinton's father didn't earn his money, when the record indicates otherwise.

The wealth of the Clinton's does not, to me, raise to the level of a "silver spoon."


Yep. Frat boys spells negative in my experience.

Your personal problems don't really translate well into comments about the candidates or their families.

This.
Hillary is not being discriminated against. She has what is currently the most powerful and well oiled political machine backing her candicacy, Daddy made enough money to send her to Yale, and her family really never struggled.

Hillary is losing because she sucks. This glass ceiling arguement is absurd.

Like I said, she is a rich, powerful, white woman who comes from a well off family claiming discrimination. Its fucking absurd. When Obama was down, he wasnt out their screaming "America just cant handle a black president!" Had he been, I would not be voting for him.

Now, you were the one whose over-the-top rhetoric started this little tiff and here you are stirring the pot some more. (Ignoring, in the process, the still-relevant comments I made about your post last time.)

I agree that Clinton is losing despite many advantages. I haven't seen the particular statements from the Clinton camp about "discrimination" and "glass ceiling" to which you seem to be responding. Perhaps if you shared those quotes, your rhetoric would seem more appropriate.

Anywhoodle, the argument that is somewhat found in the article you linked and somewhat made up by you as a strawman is that Clinton is being forced out of the race because of her gender. I agree with you that this isn't true

Do I think Clinton's gender impacts her campaign, however? Of course it does, just as Obama's race impacts his campaign.

But most of your rhetoric tries to smear Clinton with little regard for facts.
The article you linked did not have a "glass ceiling" argument being made. It did not quote the Clinton camp as saying anything other than concern that her base may resent attempts to shut down Clinton's campaign. I didn't see Clinton claiming she was a victim of discrimination.

And, btw, if you don't think the Obama camp has ever claimed that he was being picked on because of his race, you are wearing very selective blinders.

obama will win!

Ignored them? Dear God. I used research to show they by FACT do actually swing. Your response was to say they wouldn't and when challenged you said it was a "gut feeling".
Again, that is not true. I stated the reason that for the swing even being possible was due to Perot splitting the right wing votes allowing Clinton to capture the State. There is no third party running this time stealing right wing votes, which makes it more difficult for the Dems to swing those states.

BTW, I stated that my opinion was based on "past history and a gut feeling". It isn't totally devoid of reasoning.

Hehe. Your gut feeling trumps the evidence. Isn't this exactly what I said you said? Um, yes.
Again, your stunted research is not "evidence". And again, my opinion isn't just based on a gut feeling.

Again, this is just plain lunacy. So states that HAVE swung in the last four elections suddenly are going to be shown as not able to swing by looking at 7 elections?
Again you want to attack the messenger without looking at the relevance of the point. The greater the history of a states' voting pattern, the better chance of predicting the present possibilities of swinging a state?

Somehow we can get a better picture of how things are now, but going back further?
I disagree. If a state over the last 7 elections voted RRRDRRR, and the only time it went D was due to vote splitting, would you call that a true swing state in a two party election?

You'll notice I included an equal number of republican victories and democrat victories.
Irrelevant to say the least.

You want to include 3 more republican victories one of which was among the biggest landslides in history. How is that going to help anyone get a better idea for what states a dem has to win and can win for a victory?
I guess that it is pretty obvious that when you get wiped out like Mondale did in 1984, you have to look at rebuilding the party platform and focus on the states that would be necessary to get back into the game?

If we go by the states that Republicans have one 5 out of the last seven elections, and give up the states that typically go for them, by fact, they'll win, just like they did in those five elections. How devoid of logic your argument is becomes more apparent, the more you argue it.
You know, it is great to have a no red state/blue state ideology, but reality dictates that that mentality does in fact exist. Obama isn't the transformative kind of candidate that he would like to portray. You can't change the world when your own backyard is not in order.

And never once did I say that you "give up the states that typically go for them". You need to ensure that the base is solid and then look at the areas that are feasible to win the election. Once you win the election and start to implement your platform, you can win re-election by making the product more saleable. That is what Nixon, Reagan, Clinton and Bush did.

Yes, we know. Because you have a "gut feeling". Kerry was a boring candidate no one cared about.
There are 59,028,111 American voters that disagree with you? Kerry finished with the second most votes ever for a candidate in history.

Show me ANY evidence that Obama and kerry are similar? Were the primaries similar? Nope. Were they similar in how they excited the electorate? Nope.
And because Obama is different than Kerry, he will be more successful?

Both Clinton and Obama turn Kerry on his ear. He's not fit to carry their books.
I don't think that is a fair assessment. Everyone is entitled to their opinions.

So when I do it we should look at 7 elections but when you do it, we should look at one election where a terrible candidate lost?
I just used the last election as an example....if you want to do more, be my guest.

Hmmm... how about we try applying logic instead? Wouldn't that make more sense? How does one get a better picture by only considering one election?
I didn't ask to to look at one election. I suggested the last 7 elections. Nice try though.

Current polls have Obama doing better overall. I know your argument requires us to only look at specific evidence, but a look at the evidence in total has Obama more popular country-wide than Hilary and widening the gap. But, hey, probably most of his supporters don't matter, right?
Polls are interesting features to any race. Unfortunately it appears that Americans are addicted to daily polls. Personally, and this is another gut feeling, I believe that Obama is peaking too soon.

Well, who can argue with your "gut"? I'll stick to people who base their opinions on facts, evidence and logic.
Like I said, much of my gut instinct is based on historical facts. I truly believe that Hillary will be better placed to beat McCain than Obama.

You fail to see, I'm not actually arguing with you. I'm arguing with people who want to approach the subject rationally. You've admitted you're not using rational thought, but instead "feelings".
I certainly have used rational thought in drawing my conclusions and so far you haven't been able to provide any compelling evidence that I in fact am barking up the wrong tree. If you start slapping down a whole bunch of poll numbers in front of me that suggests that my Obama is unlikely to win those red states theory is wrong, then I just might have to pay closer attention.

It certainly wouldn't mean that you have won the argument, which you have already claimed to have won, but it might make me a little less bold.

This stuff is classic. I claimed you thought these things and you said it was "twisted bullshit". Then you proved you actually are basing your arguments on "gut feelings" and they you believe they trump what you admitted was a lot of research. Thanks for making it clear to everyone here that you're not remotely interested in reason.
Again, you just want to attack the poster and I say again:

I'll give you a couple of things he's said. When he can't address evidence, he claims that we won't know which one is electable until it happens so there is no need to analyze the evidence for claims about electability. He claims that if you say it's your opinion you don't need evidence in debate. He claims that gigantic posts filled with research can be addressed by simply saying you don't agree and they they should then be set aside. All of this can be found in the thread. And he admitted that no amount of evidence will change his "opinion" or change his argument in any way and then bragged that we couldn't capture his pieces in this chess game, thus the reference to the child running around the room with pieces in hand. You've jumped in after months. You, frankly, have no clue where these comments come from.
Like I stated earlier:

More distortion and twisted bullshit my friend.

We do not want to force her out but we want her to realize that she cannot win this thing short of bringing down the party around her.
And it is sooo wonderful for you to make that determination. I am sure that her supporters, approximately equal to Obama's, share your sentiment?

Let the democratic process unfold like it should.

And it is sooo wonderful for you to make that determination. I am sure that her supporters, approximately equal to Obama's, share your sentiment?

Let the democratic process unfold like it should.

It's a common feature of primary elections that a nominee steps down when it becomes obvious they cannot win, in order to keep from drawing focus away from the party's candidate. Edwards has already done so, and it's time for Clinton to bow out as well.

Like I stated earlier:

More distortion and twisted bullshit my friend.

You've quoted the same damn line, and said the same damn thing three times now. Quit being a broken record. If you've got to troll, do it imaginatively.

Hey.....there is a great thing for the Obama team to be handing out?

Think man....THINK!!

I have and you know what I think? I think your full of shit.

If Hillary gets a Republican in the White House there won't BE a democratic process for much longer.

:headbang:

I do not know what is worse. Fools who do not listen to evidence presented to them or conspiracy theorists who know jack shit.

Ummm polling doesn't support your assumptions.

In 2004, Kerry received 88% of the black vote and how many red states did he win????

And the point is? Kerry was a bigger idiot than Bush was. On top of that, he was class A boring. I listened to him talk just so I can fall asleep thats how boring he was.

You were Lancaster County here on NSG. I KNEW it.

Um...no.

He continued to deny it, even after fessing up about Allegheny Country. I always suspected, but this just confirmed it.

That's because I was Allegheny County. I always state what my puppets were but I'll let you have your delusions.

And it is sooo wonderful for you to make that determination. I am sure that her supporters, approximately equal to Obama's, share your sentiment?

Let the democratic process unfold like it should.

Oh for God's sake. Look at the fucking numbers. Clinton needs full blown blow outs in ALL REMAINING CONTESTS!!! That is not going to happen at all. As such, she will not surpass him in Pledged Delegates nor in the Popular Vote. She's lost this primary and if she comes out of Denver with it, there will be rights in the streets.

On a different note, did anyone else see that Gravel is running as a libertarian?

What a lot of crap. Dear Ms. Clinton....please drop out of the democratic process because it might upset the democratic process of electing a President. Sad!!

My response (http://www.observer.com/2008/why-hillary-carries):


And if Michigan and Florida were legitimately included in this process, the results would be a lot closer?

At the current time Obama is nearly 10 points ahead in the gallup daily tracking poll. Hillary Clinton's negative numbers have gone up nationally and state wise. Her attempted attacks On Rev. Wright and her fallacy about Bosnia have made her look worse than ever. Superdelegates are declaring for Obama much quicker than before. Her hopes of the supers saving her seems to be fading.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/105907/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Keeps-Lead-Over-Clinton-51-43.aspx

Money running dry? (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9274.html)

Hill's negatives up http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000002694330

Obama racking up supers (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/03/obama_snags_mor.html)

Hillary is the best choice for McCain to win (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/29/politics/main3979266.shtml)

Obama lead largest this year (http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/03/gallup_obama_lead_over_clinton.html)

Obama possibly pulling even after PA in supers (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080331/ap_on_el_pr/obama_endorsement;_ylt=AqAdNKwrHzKeceU25DOdW9Os0NUE)

Obama does better against McCain in Virginia. (http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/polltracker/2008/03/mccain-builds-big-lead-in-virg.html) McCain is ahead of both but far ahead of Clinton.

Clinton not paying her bills to small and medium sized businesses around the country. (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9259.html)

Finally, Obama draws 20,000 at penn state really

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080331/ap_on_el_pr/obama;_ylt=AoAzo07H_Ntf9v5hyuMgaGCs0NUE

Edit: The negatives for Hillary are what mean the most. Voters might not go out to vote for someone they just like mildly, but they sure as hell go out and vote against someone they do not like. Hillary needs to blow out every single primary by at least 15 points. Not going to happen.

What a lot of crap. Dear Ms. Clinton....please drop out of the democratic process because it might upset the democratic process of electing a President. Sad!!

My response (http://www.observer.com/2008/why-hillary-carries):


And if Michigan and Florida were legitimately included in this process, the results would be a lot closer?

Enough with MI and FL, it's not going to happen. The primaries were not legitimate and cannot be used. If there's another alternative then maybe they can be seated.

I don't have the time at the moment, but I'll be looking up their payment.

I dunno if it really matters, but Obama mentions having to pay back student loans in Dreams From My Father.

I was reading it last night and because of the conversation here, it stood out.

He continued to deny it, even after fessing up about Allegheny Country. I always suspected, but this just confirmed it.
Corneliu = Alleghany County = Lancaster County

http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12908897&postcount=70

Corny went to Millersville:

http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12629141&postcount=35

Best one:

http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12671834&postcount=102

:D

http://publish.indymedia.org/en/2008/03/903628.shtml

By yours truly:

I wrote this for several reasons, including the fact that the rest of the world also has a stake in this. If possible, I'd like to see this open letter as divulged throughout the Internet and other media as possible. The world cannot afford more Republicans.

Thanks.

If you're gonna put that out on the interwebs a lot, you need a few spelling/grammar corrections.

*nodnod*

If you're gonna put that out on the interwebs a lot, you need a few spelling/grammar corrections.

*nodnod*

By all means, correct what you feel is needed.

Does irk me that I made these mistakes, though, having minored in English. :(

I dunno if it really matters, but Obama mentions having to pay back student loans in Dreams From My Father.

I was reading it last night and because of the conversation here, it stood out.

In a speech his wife gave while she was here, she said he paid off his and her student loans with the proceeds from his two bestsellers. Obama is, even now, by no means extraordinarily rich.

In a speech his wife gave while she was here, she said he paid off his and her student loans with the proceeds from his two bestsellers. Obama is, even now, by no means extraordinarily rich.

Obama has not had great wealth most of his life.

so, this may be misguided, but I'm going to attempt to bring us back to actual issues.

I like Obama's position on same sex marriage, and think it's the best one we're likely to get for the next few decades. For those not in the know, Obama proposed that marriage would be split in two, civil marriage and religious marriage, and civil marriage would be for everyone, while religious marriage would be granted by your church. This is a solution I have seen proposed here before, and think it's a good plan.

what do you think?

so, this may be misguided, but I'm going to attempt to bring us back to actual issues.

I like Obama's position on same sex marriage, and think it's the best one we're likely to get for the next few decades. For those not in the know, Obama proposed that marriage would be split in two, civil marriage and religious marriage, and civil marriage would be for everyone, while religious marriage would be granted by your church. This is a solution I have seen proposed here before, and think it's a good plan.

what do you think?

Still imperfect by my overall desire, but I'm not likely right now to get a candidate to give the religious right the finger and say, "Fucking get over it. You don't like gay marriage? Don't marry another dude. Otherwise, fuck off."

It does remove the 'separate but equal" problem of the 'civil union' compromise because every one is civil and if you want to call it marriage it's up to you, but that still will lead to a lot of squabble. I'll give it a second best.

so, this may be misguided, but I'm going to attempt to bring us back to actual issues.

I like Obama's position on same sex marriage, and think it's the best one we're likely to get for the next few decades. For those not in the know, Obama proposed that marriage would be split in two, civil marriage and religious marriage, and civil marriage would be for everyone, while religious marriage would be granted by your church. This is a solution I have seen proposed here before, and think it's a good plan.

what do you think?

Um....no, that's not what he proposed.

He proposed "separate but equal" civil unions for same-sex couples while opposite-sex couples would still get government-sponsored marriage.

Unless he has very, very recently changed his position?

Of course, that wouldn't be changing anything. We already have two separate types of marriage - civil and religious.

The close has begun. This shouldn't be a surprise, I don't think even the most ardent Clinton supporter couldn't have believed that the average 16 point lead would hold. RCP average is now it at 14.2 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/pa/pennsylvania_democratic_primary-240.html) down from the aforementioned 16. If you average the two new polls it's 8.5, down from the average those two of 14.5 (Rasmussen had it at 10% and SurveyUSA had it at 19% in their last surveys, Rasmussen has it now at 5% and SurveyUSA at 12%)

So far it doesn't contain many surprises. From Rasmussen- (http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/pennsylvania/pennsylvania_democratic_presidential_primary)
Support for Clinton slipped from 52% early in March, to 51% in mid-month, 49% a week ago, and 47% today. During that same time frame, support for Obama has increased from 37% to 42%.
...
Among voters who say the economy is the top voting issue, Clinton maintains a sixteen-point lead over Obama. Among those who view the War in Iraq as the top issue, Obama has a seventeen-point advantage. Among those who say health care is most important, 48% prefer Clinton and 40% choose Obama. Overall, 54% say the Economy is most important, 19% say it’s the War in Iraq, and 10% say Health Care.
Clinton still leads in economic issues, which gives her an edge in these states, and Obama still leads in the voters who consider the war the most important part.

From SurveyUSA- (http://www.nbc10.com/news/15759420/detail.html)
The movement in support came almost entirely from men, according to the survey results. Clinton had led by five points but now trails by seven -- a 12-point swing to Obama.
...
Among women, Clinton's lead remains largely unchanged. Among voters ages 50 and older, Clinton had led by 26 points and now leads by 22. Among voters under 50, Clinton had led by 12 points but now leads by two, a 10-point swing to Obama.

In southeast Pennsylvania, which includes Philadelphia and makes up 43 percent of likely Democratic voters, the candidates have traded places: Clinton had been up two points but is now down three. In southwest Pennsylvania, which includes Pittsburgh, Clinton had led by 31, but now is at 17, a 14-point swing to Obama.

In the northeastern part of the state, which includes Scranton, there is movement to Clinton.

The survey concluded that there is also movement to Obama from conservative and anti-abortion Democrats.

However, Clinton continues to dominate among voters focused on the economy, the No. 1 issue, and health care, considered the No. 3 issue, according to the survey.

Obama has gained ground but Clinton continues to lead among voters focused on Iraq, the No. 2 issue.
She leads on Iraq voters here but they didn't say by how much or how much that was closing.

This was odd-
The survey data was collected from March 29 to March 31 in Pennsylvania. Of the 1,600 Pennsylvania adults interviewed, 1,405 of them were registered to vote.
Why bother interviewing the 195 who can't vote?

Back to Rasmussen, despite posters handwringing that Obama supporters/Clintonhaters or whatever they want to call it are poisoning the party, it still seems it's the Clinton supporters most likely to take their ball and go home-
Tensions clearly remain in the contest. If Obama is nominated, just 56% of Clinton supporters say they are likely to vote for him against John McCain. Forty percent (40%) of Clinton voters in Pennsylvania say they are not likely to vote for Obama.

On the other hand, if Clinton is nominated, just 67% of Obama supporters say they are likely to vote for her against McCain. Twenty-nine percent (29%) are not.

With Clinton vowing to stay in all the way to Denver and the Supers moving towards making their decisions as soon as the last primary is done, she has set up a near impossible job of bringing unity should she not pull off her miracle come-back. At this point it's like she's covered the party in gasoline and is holding a match yelling, "Make me the nominee or I'll light this place on fire!"

By contrast, however-
In the Keystone State, Clinton is now viewed favorably by 74% of Likely Democratic Primary Voters, Obama by 73%.

Bosnia doesn't seem the big issue-
Forty-seven percent (47%) say they have followed news stories Very Closely about Clinton’s Bosnia misstatements. Another 27% have followed those stories Somewhat Closely. Overall, 19% consider that issue to be Very Important in their voting decision. That figure includes 6% of Clinton supporters and 36% of Obama voters. Sixty-eight percent (68%) of Pennsylvania voters say that most politicians lie or embellish the truth when discussing their own accomplishments. Only 12% disagree.

While the gap is closing, Rasmussen notes-
However, while an Obama victory could end the nomination battle, Clinton remains ahead in the state and recently demonstrated her ability to finish strong in the Ohio and Texas Primaries.


I don't know who has a better track record among the two surveys. From the last post on poll numbers to this one, one thing kind of sticks out-the 'big story' scandals that have driven punditry and posts here back and forth really didn't have a profound effect. It seems that plain old campaigning makes the difference, not what we can find to natter back and forth about.

The County board here is actually optimistic though they know that it is still a long hard battle. Speaking of which, I should get going and get back there.

Um....no, that's not what he proposed.

He proposed "separate but equal" civil unions for same-sex couples while opposite-sex couples would still get government-sponsored marriage.

Unless he has very, very recently changed his position?

Of course, that wouldn't be changing anything. We already have two separate types of marriage - civil and religious.

looking over it again, I guess he still calls them civil unions, but he's very clear that "it's my belief that it's up to the individual denominations to make a decision as to whether they want to recognize marriage or not. But in terms of, you know, the rights of people to transfer property, to have hospital visitation, all those critical civil rights that are conferred by our government, those should be equal."

I guess it's slightly less optimistic than I thought, but only due to the lack of word, "marriage."

looking over it again, I guess he still calls them civil unions, but he's very clear that "it's my belief that it's up to the individual denominations to make a decision as to whether they want to recognize marriage or not. But in terms of, you know, the rights of people to transfer property, to have hospital visitation, all those critical civil rights that are conferred by our government, those should be equal."

I guess it's slightly less optimistic than I thought, but only due to the lack of word, "marriage."
Separate but equal no good.

Separate but equal no good.

That's not "separate but equal": Churches get their right to marry whom they please and so does the State.

The County board here is actually optimistic though they know that it is still a long hard battle. Speaking of which, I should get going and get back there.

You actually printed out my letter and so on? :)

looking over it again, I guess he still calls them civil unions, but he's very clear that "it's my belief that it's up to the individual denominations to make a decision as to whether they want to recognize marriage or not. But in terms of, you know, the rights of people to transfer property, to have hospital visitation, all those critical civil rights that are conferred by our government, those should be equal."

I guess it's slightly less optimistic than I thought, but only due to the lack of word, "marriage."

If he were proposing it as a stepping stone on the way to true equality, I would disagree, but it wouldn't bother me much.

If it were, "Let's get the protections now, and use the same legal institution later once people are used to it," I'd disagree, but I'd see it as an implementation difference.

However, Obama's viewpoint is that same-sex unions should be civil unions and stay that way, while opposite-sex unions should be marriage but stay that way - a "separate but equal institution."

On the whole, I like Obama. I voted for him in the primaries. But that one policy is not one I can get behind. He does, at least, recognize the fact that he might be wrong - that history might end up placing him on the wrong side of the issue. I think that "might" is actually an "is".

You actually printed out my letter and so on? :)

haven't printed it yet but I believe I will do so and hand it in sometime tomorrow.

That's not "separate but equal": Churches get their right to marry whom they please and so does the State.

Not under Obama's policy. Under Obama's policy, churches could marry whomever they please (which they already can).

States could marry opposite sex-couples and "civil union" same-sex couples.

That is "separate but equal".

haven't printed it yet but I believe I will do so and hand it in sometime tomorrow.

Do me a favor though and make sure I (that is, the name signed in that letter, which is my real name) do get the credit, ok? ;)

haven't printed it yet but I believe I will do so and hand it in sometime tomorrow.

I wouldn't. Whether you agree with it or not, having that around an Obama campaign office could be very damaging to his campaign.

Not under Obama's policy. Under Obama's policy, churches could marry whomever they please (which they already can).

States could marry opposite sex-couples and "civil union" same-sex couples.

That is "separate but equal".

If churches are forced to marry gays it'd become a church/state separation issue. What he HAS to do is to make it as it is here: Marriages are civilly granted by the STATE, weddings may or not be performed by the churches.

I wouldn't. Whether you agree with it or not, having that around an Obama campaign office could be very damaging to his campaign.

Not if they published it or got SOMEONE ELSE to. Plus I also sent it to HILLARY'S office, as a way to make them unable to claim unawareness of the letter.

If churches are forced to marry gays it'd become a church/state separation issue.

No one is saying that churches should be forced to do anything.

Churches aren't forced to match the legal definition of marriage. For instance, my aunt and uncle were legally married but could not be married in a Catholic Church because they both had previous marriages.

What he HAS to do is to make it as it is here: Marriages are civilly granted by the STATE, weddings may or not be performed by the churches.

This is ALREADY true. The problem right now is that the state is doing the same thing the churches do - denying marriage to some people based on religious principles. The state should not be able to do this.

The only thing that is necessary to solve this problem is for the state to begin providing equal protection. Churches have always and will always be able to determine and apply their own definitions of marriage.

Not if they published it or got SOMEONE ELSE to. Plus I also sent it to HILLARY'S office, as a way to make them unable to claim unawareness of the letter.

Yes, it would. Having it at an Obama campaign office would give fodder to Clinton. On top of that, Obama has been clear in stating that he does not think Clinton should be pressured to drop out of the race. Having that letter around a campaign office would make him look like a liar.

Yes, it would. Having it at an Obama campaign office would give fodder to Clinton. On top of that, Obama has been clear in stating that he does not think Clinton should be pressured to drop out of the race. Having that letter around a campaign office would make him look like a liar.

The letter wouldn't need to STAY in the office, it could be sent to someone else, or a news outlet. That and while Obama HIMSELF states that she shouldn't leave, other people in his campaign have already made statements to the contrary. Plus I'd be glad to tell people who I am if need be.

Also, they have skilled PR professionals there, so, should they find it a bad move, they can simply throw it out.

Yet polling from most of the states you selected suggest that your assumptions are wrong. As a matter of fact, in several red states where Obama crushed Hillary in the nomination run, she actually would fare better than him in a general election. So much for numbers from primaries meaning a whole lot?

Oh well. My gut says Im right. And by your own omission a gut feeling outweighs facts. So :p


Oh, and this actually made me smile. Kuddos to Clinton for bringing a touch of humor to this increasingly tense race.

PHILADELPHIA (AP) It was quite an April Fools Day prank that Hillary Rodham Clinton pulled on reporters.

The Democratic candidate walked into a Philadelphia news conference, looking somber. Reporters anticipated a big announcement.

Clinton told them it's been a "hard fought race," and that she needs to "do something so that our party and our people can make the right decision." She then announced she's challenging Barack Obama to a bowling competition, calling attention to the Illinois senator's recent poor performance at a Pennsylvania bowling alley. Clinton said she wants it to be winner take all, and that she's willing to spot Obama two frames.

She continued that it was time for Obama's campaign "to get out of the gutter and allow pins to be counted." She says when the phone rings at 3 a.m., the nation needs "a president ready to bowl on day one." And she urged Obama to "strike a deal" because "we don't have a moment to spare."


http://www.kxmb.com/News/224446.asp

Oh well. My gut says Im right. And by your own omission a gut feeling outweighs facts. So :p


Oh, and this actually made me smile. Kuddos to Clinton for bringing a touch of humor to this increasingly tense race.



http://www.kxmb.com/News/224446.asp


LOL. Didn't I just say the other day that I think a bowling contest would be a horrible way to decide this?

LOL. Didn't I just say the other day that I think a bowling contest would be a horrible way to decide this?

One of her advisors clearly reads NSG. :eek:

It's a common feature of primary elections that a nominee steps down when it becomes obvious they cannot win, in order to keep from drawing focus away from the party's candidate. Edwards has already done so, and it's time for Clinton to bow out as well.


Dragging down the dems unless she gets her way.
Especially with commercials like this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1WWpKEPdT4&feature=related)

If churches are forced to marry gays it'd become a church/state separation issue. What he HAS to do is to make it as it is here: Marriages are civilly granted by the STATE, weddings may or not be performed by the churches.
That is already how it is here (and in every country that I know of). Obama proposes that the state not "marry" us, but give us the same substantive rights of marriage while calling it something else. This particular weasel-wording is popular among American politicians these days. It offends those who don't want to grant us the substantive rights, while still dissatisfying those of us who think calling it by a different name than "marriage" will erode the rights.

That is already how it is here (and in every country that I know of). Obama proposes that the state not "marry" us, but give us the same substantive rights of marriage while calling it something else. This particular weasel-wording is popular among American politicians these days. It offends those who don't want to grant us the substantive rights, while still dissatisfying those of us who think calling it by a different name than "marriage" will erode the rights.

I don't think it's "civil union", I think it's the STATE marrying people that can marry at the church if they want. Or am I wrong? o_O

I don't think it's "civil union", I think it's the STATE marrying people that can marry at the church if they want. Or am I wrong? o_O

You are wrong. Obama has been clear on this. He does not support the government actually marrying same-sex couples. He supports same-sex couples having a similar legal construct - civil unions.

From The Audacity of Hope:

For many practicing Christians, the inability to compromise may apply to gay marriage. I find such a position troublesome, particularly in a society in which Christian men and women have been known to engage in adultery or other violations of their faith without civil penalty. I believe that American society can choose to carve out a special place for the union of a man and a woman as the unit of child rearing most common to every culture. I am not willing to have the state deny American citizens a civil union that confers equivalent rights no such basic matters as hospital visitation or health insurance coverage simply because the people they love are of the same sex--nor am I willing to accept a reading of the Bible that considers an obscure line in Romans to be more defining of Christianity than the Sermon on the Mount.

The heightened focus on marriage is a distraction from other, attainable measures to prevent discrimination and gays and lesbians.

In other words, it's ok for the word "marriage" to only apply to the union of a man and a woman. But we have to do something for gay people, so we'll give them rights and call it a civil union.

You are wrong. Obama has been clear on this. He does not support the government actually marrying same-sex couples. He supports same-sex couples having a similar legal construct - civil unions.

Whoops.

Well, it DOES beat Hillary's and McCain's marriage proposals (pun intended), no?

Whoops.

Well, it DOES beat Hillary's and McCain's marriage proposals (pun intended), no?

McCain's, certainly. Hillary also supports civil unions. But she supports DOMA, while Obama does not.

So yeah. He's better on the issue than either of them. Still not where I'd like to see it, but better.

McCain's, certainly. Hillary also supports civil unions. But she supports DOMA, while Obama does not.

So yeah. He's better on the issue than either of them. Still not where I'd like to see it, but better.

It may be the case that he can't AFFORD to be where we'd like to see it.

It may be the case that he can't AFFORD to be where we'd like to see it.
I think that's precisely right.

Personally, I don't give a damn about the "m-word" fight, I care about the substance of the rights no matter what it is called, but I understand those who see it differently.

Respected electoral number-cruncher Michael Barone still thinks Hillary could grab the popular vote lead - without FL or MI. link (http://www.usnews.com/blogs/barone/2008/4/1/defending-my-projection-clinton-can-win-the-popular-vote.html)

It may be the case that he can't AFFORD to be where we'd like to see it.

I thought that at one point, that he was using civil unions as a stepping stone to eventually get to full equality.

But after reading The Audacity of Hope, I no longer think that's the case. It was one of the few things in the book that I truly disagreed with.


Personally, I don't give a damn about the "m-word" fight, I care about the substance of the rights no matter what it is called, but I understand those who see it differently.

It's not so much about the word. It seems silly to change it at this point, but if it was possible to provide all the protections of marriage under the term "civil union", that would be fine so long as the term applied to all civil marriage and not just same-sex unions.

As we have learned from the past "separate but equal" is never equal.

I thought that at one point, that he was using civil unions as a stepping stone to eventually get to full equality.

However, with civil unions, he WILL be providing this stepping stone, whether he wants it or not. And it'll be much easier sans DOMA than with DOMA.

You know, I've been reading this, when a thought popped into my head. How many of the people in this forum are old enough to vote?:confused:
Just for the record, I'm not.

Sorry to be off topic. Just to those wondering, I want Obama to beat Hilary, but I'm not sure about which I want as president, McCain or Obama.

You know, I've been reading this, when a thought popped into my head. How many of the people in this forum are old enough to vote?:confused:
Just for the record, I'm not.

most of the people on this thread are old enough to vote--i think canuckheaven is canadian though. on the forums in general there might be a majority who are able to vote in their own countries. we have many many members from other countries.

Okay, thanks. I just wanted to know what kind of age group this was. As you can tell by my number of posts, I'm kinda new.

Okay, thanks. I just wanted to know what kind of age group this was. As you can tell by my number of posts, I'm kinda new.

no problem. its a very diverse group. if you like debate you should enjoy your time here. never post stuff you arent sure of, you will be called on it.

Thanks. I'll keep it in mind. However, it seems most of the important issues have already been discussed here. I've been reading these forums for a few weeks now, but I haven't posted much.

I can settle this once and for all. I've got a gut feeling that only Nader can win this. You won't be able to prove me wrong until November.

Thanks. I'll keep it in mind. However, it seems most of the important issues have already been discussed here. I've been reading these forums for a few weeks now, but I haven't posted much.

So, can you tell us some of the reasons why you would vote for either Obama or McCain, and what you're looking for in a president? maybe we can help you decide.

So, can you tell us some of the reasons why you would vote for either Obama or McCain, and what you're looking for in a president? maybe we can help you decide.

Agreed.

I can settle this once and for all. I've got a gut feeling that only Nader can win this. You won't be able to prove me wrong until November.

My gut says Zappa.

nader supporters turned in enough signatures today to get on the ballot in new mexico.

it will be my great pleasure not to vote for him.

Respected electoral number-cruncher Michael Barone still thinks Hillary could grab the popular vote lead - without FL or MI. link (http://www.usnews.com/blogs/barone/2008/4/1/defending-my-projection-clinton-can-win-the-popular-vote.html)
I think it would be great for Hillary to win the popular vote, but I believe that Barone's numbers may be a tad high. I hope that his numbers are true and if they are, then it certainly should give Dems a reason to pause before making any hasty decisions.

Hang in there Hillary!! :)

I think it would be great for Hillary to win the popular vote, but I believe that Barone's numbers may be a tad high. I hope that his numbers are true and if they are, then it certainly should give Dems a reason to pause before making any hasty decisions.

Hang in there Hillary!! :)

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/pennsylvania/pennsylvania_democratic_presidential_primary

A 5 point Clinton lead. IF and notice the capital IF she loses Pennsylvania, this race will basically be over.

Respected electoral number-cruncher Michael Barone still thinks Hillary could grab the popular vote lead - without FL or MI. link (http://www.usnews.com/blogs/barone/2008/4/1/defending-my-projection-clinton-can-win-the-popular-vote.html)

You do notice that he has her winning by unprecedented margins in several states and makes the argument that she can do so because she got nearly sixty percent of the "two-candidate" vote in FL and MI. Don't drink that kool-aid.

You do notice that he has her winning by unprecedented margins in several states and makes the argument that she can do so because she got nearly sixty percent of the "two-candidate" vote in FL and MI. Don't drink that kool-aid.

Indeed. I just finish reading most of the comments and they are basically saying the samething. Condemning most of the numbers present. Well written most assuredly but the numbers? I have to question those.

Do you think he's been talking to CH? :D

Not under Obama's policy. Under Obama's policy, churches could marry whomever they please (which they already can).

States could marry opposite sex-couples and "civil union" same-sex couples.

That is "separate but equal".
It is not separate but equal. It's two different words for the same thing. In my opinion, the states should just make civil unions and people can call it personally whatever the hell they want. I also think marriage is a silly institution and am a hardline reactionary on homosexuality.

Cerean;13575048']Dragging down the dems unless she gets her way.
Especially with commercials like this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1WWpKEPdT4&feature=related)
DIE!

I can settle this once and for all. I've got a gut feeling that only Nader can win this. You won't be able to prove me wrong until November.
I think Bryan Moore has a better chance actually...

MOORE DEFEATS NADER

Indeed. I just finish reading most of the comments and they are basically saying the samething. Condemning most of the numbers present. Well written most assuredly but the numbers? I have to question those.

Do you think he's been talking to CH? :D

even CH didn't drink that cool-aid. The poison must really stink if even he can smell it.

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/pennsylvania/pennsylvania_democratic_presidential_primary

A 5 point Clinton lead. IF and notice the capital IF she loses Pennsylvania, this race will basically be over.
That is just one poll Corny. Hillary will win PA.

That is just one poll Corny. Hillary will win PA.

I agree that she probably will win PA but then again...one never knows when it comes to politics. Being involved in this campaign in this state, there are rumblings that Obama could very well take it. Its a long shot but not out of the realm of possibility and if he does, this race will be effectively over.

DIE!

If you thought that was bad... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jwj0gLriTnk&feature=related)

I think Hillary came under sniper fire right after she faced the Spanish Inquisition...

http://vuodatus-static.web-effect.net/g/9037/172467.jpg

...she claims she expected it.

If you thought that was bad... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jwj0gLriTnk&feature=related)

That should count as a crime against humanity.

You know, I haven't liked this Ickes cat since, pretty much when I became aware of him (when he was asked how he was supposed to balance his stance on Michigan and Florida as part of the Clinton campaign when he voted to remove their delegates back in September), but now a whole lot of this is making sense- (http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/04/ickes_confirms_hes_been_pushin.php)

Ickes pointed out that when he worked for Ted Kennedy's losing presidential primary run against Jimmy Carter in 1980,
He's like the OG of pulling down the cathedral. It was his campaign that stoked the creation of superdelegates in the first place. It's his bitter feud campaign that's used as the model of the weakened party. He's citing a precedent where not only did he not win, but after the bitter fight the party itself went on to a fairly big loss-

Kennedy aides brought a minority report calling for delegates to be able to vote their consciences, even though they "knew it was a foreordained conclusion" that it would lose.

"Look, there's always a possibility" that Hillary forces would produce a minority report, Ickes continued, but he added that it was not likely: "You don't do this lightly and only if you feel very very strongly...I think it will be resolved before then."
Suddenly this whole "we'll take it all the way to Denver" is a lot more ominous, and assurances about not pulling the cathedral down are a lot less assuring.

eep.

That is just one poll Corny. Hillary will win PA.

She has to win it and every other constest by 20%. The odds of that are like the odds you'll suddenly start defending Obama.

That is just one poll Corny. Hillary will win PA.

I'm not entirely sure - I think it will take a major blow to reverse the Senator Obama trend and when they really get going on campaigning in Pennsylvania, his money and teflon nature will simply eat away at her lead.

I'd thought that the Reverend Wright stuff would be pretty long-term damaging, I thought it would lead to a steady drop in male voters but it seems, with the help of Senator Clinton's Bosnia crap, to have dissipated.

We're in a slight lull where polls mean less than nothing to be honest since there's a few weeks of heavy campaigning leading up to the vote and, given the money and the focus, I suspect we'll see, if not a small win for Senator Obama, at least negligible equality.

It will take a major scandal to unseat Senator Obama's nomination.

I'm not entirely sure - I think it will take a major blow to reverse the Senator Obama trend and when they really get going on campaigning in Pennsylvania, his money and teflon nature will simply eat away at her lead.

I'd thought that the Reverend Wright stuff would be pretty long-term damaging, I thought it would lead to a steady drop in male voters but it seems, with the help of Senator Clinton's Bosnia crap, to have dissipated.

We're in a slight lull where polls mean less than nothing to be honest since there's a few weeks of heavy campaigning leading up to the vote and, given the money and the focus, I suspect we'll see, if not a small win for Senator Obama, at least negligible equality.

It will take a major scandal to unseat Senator Obama's nomination.

Well, thats the problem with expectations. Clinton was leading the state by as much as 20+ points over a week ago, she's expected to carry the state. Like Jocabia mentioned, she really needs to win by 20% or more in order to have a chance of winning the popular vote (but as we see in the article linked above, even if they lose the popular vote with Florida and Michigan they'll just be running around whispering "Rev. Wright" to all the super delegates) she needs an Ohio win to validate her continuance. As we approach, and Obama appears to be much stronger in the state, I'm sure we'll see Clinton's adjusted expectations-don't be surprised to hear, if the polls are close, Clinton campers saying it's Obama needs an Ohio style win to validate his campaign. After all, just as many Democrats say Obama should drop out of the race as those who say Clinton should (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/22_of_democrats_want_clinton_to_drop_out_22_say_obama_should_withdraw).

Even though CH dismisses it as 'one poll' I had already posted about two polls showing dramatic closing of the numbers above. While Rasmussen went from 10% to 5%, SurveyUSA went from 19% to 12%. Obama has adjusted his campaign style to fit the state and of course is dumping his warchest money in the state, he can do what he needs to and keep it close. Then it's the same story in Indiana and North Carolina (where the rolls are reversed and it's Obama's to lose)

That is just one poll Corny. Hillary will win PA.

Make that two polls. This one has Obama leading. It's a Public Policy Poll (PPP)

Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 07:14:01 AM PDT

The newest PPP poll shows Obama up by +2. While this is certainly divergent from every other poll, what is noticeable here is that the trend upward has been confirmed yet again.


RCP average down to 6 points. (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/pa/pennsylvania_democratic_primary-240.html) Obama has a tendency (see every other race CH will find the one or two times this didn't happen and claim victory, just you wait) of picking up as the primary date roles near. She needs a route to make it work in PA and other states. Winning by 6% or less will not do it for her. If she loses PA by any margin she should throw in the towel.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/01/clinton-backer-obama-will-win/

(CNN) — A key Hillary Clinton supporter appeared to be a bit off message during a recent interview with a Canadian radio station.

"If I had to make a prediction right now, I'd say Barack Obama is going to be the next president," Missouri Rep. Emanuel Cleaver said in a Canadian public radio interview this weekend. "I will be stunned if he's not the next president of the United States."


Ut oh. Someone needs to slap him. He said Obama and not Clinton (whom he supports) will be the next president.

That is just one poll Corny. Hillary will win PA.

Ahem, lookie lookie

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13573833&postcount=2867

Make that two polls. This one has Obama leading. It's a Public Policy Poll (PPP)

Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 07:14:01 AM PDT

The newest PPP poll shows Obama up by +2. While this is certainly divergent from every other poll, what is noticeable here is that the trend upward has been confirmed yet again.


RCP average down to 6 points. (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/pa/pennsylvania_democratic_primary-240.html) Obama has a tendency (see every other race CH will find the one or two times this didn't happen and claim victory, just you wait) of picking up as the primary date roles near. She needs a route to make it work in PA and other states. Winning by 6% or less will not do it for her. If she loses PA by any margin she should throw in the towel.

DAMN!!!

But to be fair, Clinton still has her bus tour coming up and I also expect her numbers to go up BUT Obama will jack up the pressure in the state. This is going to be a far more interesting 20 days than anticipated.

D'OH. Polls show feeling that Obama is a tougher candidate for McCain. This is confirmed by Dems and Reps.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/105904/Dems-Reps-Agree-Obama-Tougher-Opponent-McCain.aspx

I know it's "only one poll."

Lets just screw the elections and start the inevitable civil war already:p

The comments on the CNN Political Ticker just shows the stupidity of people.

Lets just screw the elections and start the inevitable civil war already:p

Agreed, we must make John Titor's dream of another Civil War in the US a Reality!

The comments on the CNN Political Ticker just shows the stupidity of people.

There is a reason CNN is called the Clinton News Network.:p

Snip.

BTW, do tell me when/if you pass the text to them, ok?

Their reaction too. Who knows, I might get some fame out of it. :p

Make that two polls. This one has Obama leading. It's a Public Policy Poll (PPP)

Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 07:14:01 AM PDT

The newest PPP poll shows Obama up by +2. While this is certainly divergent from every other poll, what is noticeable here is that the trend upward has been confirmed yet again.


RCP average down to 6 points. (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/pa/pennsylvania_democratic_primary-240.html) Obama has a tendency (see every other race CH will find the one or two times this didn't happen and claim victory, just you wait) of picking up as the primary date roles near. She needs a route to make it work in PA and other states. Winning by 6% or less will not do it for her. If she loses PA by any margin she should throw in the towel.

What am I, invisible? I did two posts about the two polls with analysis and everything. This one makes three. Acknowledge my geode, dammit!!!

The PPP poll has some extra interesting stuff in it (I won't give a link because it's a PDF...I have a Firefox extension that turns PDFs into HTML, which is totally awesome), but this is from the pdf you get if you click on PPP at Real Clear Politics.

It's a remarkable turn around from PPP's last Pennsylvania poll, conducted two and a
half weeks ago, that showed Clinton with a 26 point lead in the state.
Damn, PPP was one of the big outliers on the Clinton side that made the average so high, and now it has shifted quite a bit. They have a theory-
"In the last few weeks there has been increasing attention given to the fact that a
continuing divisive Democratic nomination fight could hurt the party's chances of
defeating John McCain this fall," said Dean Debnam, President of Public Policy Polling.
"The major movement in Obama's direction in Pennsylvania could be an indication that
Democrats in that state think it's time to wrap it up."
They don't give polling that would back that up, just that guy's feeling.
It's looking a lot more like Wisconsin than it is Ohio all of a sudden-
Obama is narrowing the gap with white voters, trailing just 49-38, while maintaining his
customary significant advantage with black voters. He leads that group 75-17.

Obama also leads among all age groups except senior citizens, with whom Clinton has a
50-34 advantage. The poll shows the standard gender gap with Obama leading by 15
points among men while trailing by 10 points with women.

The margin of error makes this a dead heat-
The survey's margin of errors is +/- 2.8%. Other factors, such as refusal to be interviewed
and weighting, may introduce additional error that is more difficult to quantify.
And a little bragging about their track record-
Public Policy Polling had the most accurate numbers of any company in the country for
the Democratic primaries in South Carolina and Wisconsin, as well as the closest
numbers for any organization that polled the contests in both Texas and Ohio.

She's already thrown the kitchen sink at him, what's she going to throw now that she gets desperate?

Even though she's part of the biggest establishment machine in the Democratic party this side of the Kennedys, and has been building her campaign on name recognition since 2000, and she was the favorite to win by 20 some odd points going into the election making her about as Apollo Creed as you can get, (she was even cocky and ignored the plucky challenger who was doing hard grassroots training), she's still billing herself as Rocky (http://www.observer.com/2008/gonna-fly-now-clinton-runs-rocky-philly)...

Also, yeesh-
“We need her,” Barbara Vizzini, a 46-year-old equipment operator from Middletown, said before Hillary Clinton took the stage at a rally in Fairless Hills Monday night. “If we don’t get her, we’re going to end up with John McCain.”

What about Barack Obama? Why couldn’t he beat the Republican nominee?

“The race thing,” interjected her colleague Daniel Kirner, 52, from Tullytown.

“I mean, a president named Barack?” agreed Ms. Vizzini.
And-
She frequently says, in an implicit contrast with Mr. Obama’s cosmopolitan heritage, “My father was from Scranton.”
Obama's father was a Kenyan goat herder...that's cosmopolitan?

In other news (just getting it out all at once...)

No go on the Super delegate gathering- (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-04-01-democrats_N.htm)
Dean said a plan pushed by Democratic Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen for a two-day gathering of super delegates in June won't work. "We can't have a convention of super delegates because it would look like 330 delegates are overriding the wishes of 30 million voters," Dean said in an interview with USA TODAY. He said Bredesen deserved credit for advancing the plan.

Obama's father was a Kenyan goat herder...that's cosmopolitan?

In other news (just getting it out all at once...)


Obama spent his entire childhood in Hawaii and Indonesia. So apparently "cosmopolitan" is a code word for "foreign".

Obama spent his entire childhood in Hawaii and Indonesia. So apparently "cosmopolitan" is a code word for "foreign".

That or Obama is a cocktail made with vodka, Triple Sec, cranberry juice, and fresh-squeezed lime juice or sweetened lime juice.

One or the other.

Man, she's obsessed with phones... (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video_log/2008/04/clinton_ringing.html)

Well, you go with what works I guess. It does show a change in tactic, she's running against McCain in this ad, something I think that both of them should be doing.

Well, thats the problem with expectations. Clinton was leading the state by as much as 20+ points over a week ago, she's expected to carry the state. Like Jocabia mentioned, she really needs to win by 20% or more in order to have a chance of winning the popular vote (but as we see in the article linked above, even if they lose the popular vote with Florida and Michigan they'll just be running around whispering "Rev. Wright" to all the super delegates) she needs an Ohio win to validate her continuance. As we approach, and Obama appears to be much stronger in the state, I'm sure we'll see Clinton's adjusted expectations-don't be surprised to hear, if the polls are close, Clinton campers saying it's Obama needs an Ohio style win to validate his campaign. After all, just as many Democrats say Obama should drop out of the race as those who say Clinton should (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/22_of_democrats_want_clinton_to_drop_out_22_say_obama_should_withdraw).

Even though CH dismisses it as 'one poll' I had already posted about two polls showing dramatic closing of the numbers above. While Rasmussen went from 10% to 5%, SurveyUSA went from 19% to 12%. Obama has adjusted his campaign style to fit the state and of course is dumping his warchest money in the state, he can do what he needs to and keep it close. Then it's the same story in Indiana and North Carolina (where the rolls are reversed and it's Obama's to lose)
It is interesting to see that 22% of Democrats nationwide want Obama to drop out, and an equal percentage want Clinton to drop out. However, the significant point is that a "solid majority of Democrats, 62%, aren’t ready for either candidate to leave the race."

Also, it is interesting to note that "forty-seven percent (47%) of Obama supporters think Clinton should drop out. Thirty-eight percent (38%) of Clinton supporters say Obama should drop out."

Now, the most interesting point of that whole article, is this tidbit:

Interestingly, Republicans are more eager to see Clinton drop out rather than Obama. Forty-one percent (41%) of GOP voters say the former First Lady should withdraw while just 24% say the same about the Senator from Illinois. Among unaffiliated voters, 30% say Clinton should drop out while 25% say the same about Obama.
Hmmmm. I wonder why more Republicans and independents would prefer to see Hillary drop out of the race???? Very interesting indeed.

From the Rasmussen Reports, after a week of sliding and being down as much as 6 points, Hillary is coming back, and now leads by a point:

Daily Presidential Tracking Polling History (http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/daily_presidential_tracking_polling_history)

Is Indiana Obama's to lose (http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportEmail.aspx?g=35417ff6-4985-47ce-8e1b-3fbe566d108d)?

SurveyUSA 03/29/2008 - 03/31/2008:

52% Clinton
43% Obama
4% Other
1% Undecided

Other polls from SurveyUSA 03/29/2008 - 03/31/2008:

Pennsylvania (http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportEmail.aspx?g=c33bbc21-2d16-4747-ae93-214709784559):

53% Clinton
41% Obama
4% Other
2% Undecided

Kentucky (http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportEmail.aspx?g=93b1b163-e67d-4e0b-b06f-174b4c7542b5):

58% Clinton
29% Obama
10% Other
4% Undecided

Hmmmm. I wonder why more Republicans and independents would prefer to see Hillary drop out of the race???? Very interesting indeed.

Because, and make no mistake about it, they HATE HER. They'd vote for Fred Phelps before voting for her.

Because, and make no mistake about it, they HATE HER. They'd vote for Fred Phelps before voting for her.

I think they'll sooner put Billy boy back into office before they put her in office.

Hmmmm. I wonder why more Republicans and independents would prefer to see Hillary drop out of the race???? Very interesting indeed.



Are you under the impression that a candidate doesn't need independents to win an election...?

Because, and make no mistake about it, they HATE HER.
If they do in fact "hate her", why?

They'd vote for Fred Phelps before voting for her.
I think you are being a tad over dramatic?

Perhaps they think that Hillary has a better chance at beating McCain???

At least that would be my take on it.

Are you under the impression that a candidate doesn't need independents to win an election...?
No.

Perhaps they think that Hillary has a better chance at beating McCain???

Why would Independents necessarily favor McCain over Clinton and/or Obama?

Even Republicans may not, given the number of Republican pundits who have said they favor Clinton over McCain.

It is interesting to see that 22% of Democrats nationwide want Obama to drop out, and an equal percentage want Clinton to drop out. However, the significant point is that a "solid majority of Democrats, 62%, aren’t ready for either candidate to leave the race."

of course, most people haven't actually done the math. the point, regardless of anything else, is that clinton lost even her outside chance at winning back when she lost texas. i mean, her loss was apparent back when she lost super duper tuesday and conceded all of febuary, but that did her in for sure. she has no legitimate way to win short of a catastrophic "obama caught in kiddie porn ring" collapse. and she cannot be in any way linked to the downfall either, because if she appears to have a hand in it, she most likely won't be the nominee either.

If they do in fact "hate her", why?


I think you are being a tad over dramatic?

Perhaps they think that Hillary has a better chance at beating McCain???

At least that would be my take on it.

1- Because they don't want her to have ANY SHOT at the presidency whatsoever.

2- I didn't claim to come here under sniper fire to make this post.

3- That would explain only Republicans, IF it weren't for the fact that many are voting FOR her to hurt the Democrats. As it is, it explains neither.

4- Sure it would.

Perhaps they think that Hillary has a better chance at beating McCain???

that's not what people say when we ask them

http://www.gallup.com/poll/105904/Dems-Reps-Agree-Obama-Tougher-Opponent-McCain.aspx

http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/080331Dems2j67yt.gif

in the words of tha dick to tha dawk to tha phd, your concerns are noted and stupid.

If African Americans continue to turn out as much as they have been, Obama could easily win the bolded. Especially in states like SC where blacks make up roughly 50% of the electorate.
Just a little update for ya on this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13572415&postcount=2832):

Remember how Obama creamed Hillary in Alabama? How about these latest polling numbers:

Alabama 03/14/2008 - 03/16/2008:

56% McCain
38% Clinton
6% Undecided

62% McCain
35% Obama (including 86% of the black voters)
4% Undecided

Another one you picked for Obama:

Missouri (http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportEmail.aspx?g=8d367ce2-f928-4f60-b2a1-ce2b97ad6144) 03/14/2008 - 03/16/2008:

48% McCain
46% Clinton
6% Undecided

53% McCain
39% Obama (including 85% of the black voters)
9% Undecided

Another interesting one here in the State where Kennedy and Kerry both back Obama:

Massachusetts (http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportEmail.aspx?g=692c0281-9ce4-4c71-8e4f-b970d4ea8193) 03/14/2008 - 03/16/2008:

42% McCain
55% Clinton
3% Undecided

47% McCain
47% Obama
6% Undecided

that's not what people say when we ask them

http://www.gallup.com/poll/105904/Dems-Reps-Agree-Obama-Tougher-Opponent-McCain.aspx

http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/080331Dems2j67yt.gif

in the words of tha dick to tha dawk to tha phd, your concerns are noted and stupid.

Damn!!

Sixty-four percent of those polled state that Hillary is an easier candidate to beat? Not surprised by it actually.

yeah but Obama isn't a championship bowler

That really hurts him with the idiot crowd.

that's not what people say when we ask them

in the words of tha dick to tha dawk to tha phd, your concerns are noted and stupid.
It would appear that Gallup is out of step with the other pollsters? Either that, or they only polled about 22% of Clinton supporters? :D

It would appear that Gallup is out of step with the other pollsters? Either that, or they only polled about 22% of Clinton supporters? :D

reading is hard!

An article I came across re CH praising HRC's insurance plan...
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=74213
The healthcare reform expert also notes that the average price of a family policy offered through the workplace is $12,000 a year. So she argues that to afford that type of coverage under Clinton, one would have to make a yearly wage of $120,000. Turner also questions if taxes would be raised to make up any shortfall -- should Clinton's plan require more than 10 percent of one's income.

reading is hard!

Indeed.

An article I came across re CH praising HRC's insurance plan...
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=74213

And people wonder why Congress rejected her Healthcare plan in the 90s :headbang:

Also, it would appear that the 10 point bulge that Obama had a few days ago has dissapated?

http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/040208DailyUpdateGraph1_clob_dkww08.gif

Also, it would appear that the 10 point bulge that Obama had a few days ago has dissapated?

yeah. unfortunately, you need those numbers to be about 80-20 clinton, rather than an extreme outside edge of the margin of error loss.

An article I came across re CH praising HRC's insurance plan...
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=74213
Nice right wing perspective from the Galen Institute (http://www.galen.org/component,8/action,show_content/id,18/). :p

The Galen Institute believes that:

Consumers and their physicians should have authority and responsibility over their own health care decisions.

A consumer-driven market will lower costs, promote innovation, expand choice, and increase access to better medical care.

The vibrant free market will encourage research and innovation and provide better access to new medical technologies.

Updating outmoded tax policy will facilitate greater access to more affordable health insurance.
Hurrah for healthcare for profit industries!! :rolleyes:

Nice right wing perspective from the Galen Institute (http://www.galen.org/component,8/action,show_content/id,18/). :p


Hurrah for healthcare for profit industries!! :rolleyes:

:confused:

:confused:
Why the confusion? To get quality healthcare for the average US citizen, then you need to cut down/eliminate the profits of the middlemen.

Why the confusion? To get quality healthcare for the average US citizen, then you need to cut down/eliminate the profits of the middlemen.

I'm :confused: about what your post had to do with mine...

especially this part:
Nice right wing perspective...

It is interesting to see that 22% of Democrats nationwide want Obama to drop out, and an equal percentage want Clinton to drop out. However, the significant point is that a "solid majority of Democrats, 62%, aren’t ready for either candidate to leave the race."

Also, it is interesting to note that "forty-seven percent (47%) of Obama supporters think Clinton should drop out. Thirty-eight percent (38%) of Clinton supporters say Obama should drop out."

Now, the most interesting point of that whole article, is this tidbit:


Hmmmm. I wonder why more Republicans and independents would prefer to see Hillary drop out of the race???? Very interesting indeed.

From the Rasmussen Reports, after a week of sliding and being down as much as 6 points, Hillary is coming back, and now leads by a point:

Daily Presidential Tracking Polling History (http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/daily_presidential_tracking_polling_history)

Is Indiana Obama's to lose (http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportEmail.aspx?g=35417ff6-4985-47ce-8e1b-3fbe566d108d)?

SurveyUSA 03/29/2008 - 03/31/2008:

52% Clinton
43% Obama
4% Other
1% Undecided

Other polls from SurveyUSA 03/29/2008 - 03/31/2008:

Pennsylvania (http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportEmail.aspx?g=c33bbc21-2d16-4747-ae93-214709784559):

53% Clinton
41% Obama
4% Other
2% Undecided

Kentucky (http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportEmail.aspx?g=93b1b163-e67d-4e0b-b06f-174b4c7542b5):

58% Clinton
29% Obama
10% Other
4% Undecided

You want to just hang on to one poll now? I've given you multiple polls, threads, and analysis, please go back and look. CTOAN and I both have. The latest polls show Hillary losing her grip in PA and actually the PPP poll shows him winning. Look at the RCP averages I showed you which don't paint as rosey as picture as you wish. I'm not going to repost, but please don't ignore the info we put forth just to stick to your story.

I'm :confused: about what your post had to do with mine...

especially this part:
Well, obviously you were dissing Clinton's healthcare plan based on the perspective of a right wing institute that wants to protect "for profit" US healthcare.

I believe the article is fear based propaganda designed to scare away those who want to embrace a more inclusive healthcare system.

You want to just hang on to one poll now? I've given you multiple polls, threads, and analysis, please go back and look. CTOAN and I both have. The latest polls show Hillary losing her grip in PA and actually the PPP poll shows him winning. Look at the RCP averages I showed you which don't paint as rosey as picture as you wish. I'm not going to repost, but please don't ignore the info we put forth just to stick to your story.
I certainly am not hanging on to one poll, especially when there are SO MANY to choose from. Let's have a daily poll party? I see your poll and raise you two. :p

Well, obviously you were dissing Clinton's healthcare plan based on the perspective of a right wing institute that wants to protect "for profit" US healthcare.

I believe the article is fear based propaganda designed to scare away those who want to embrace a more inclusive healthcare system.

Actually, I just happened across the article and thought it was interesting.

Actually, I just happened across the article and thought it was interesting.
What is so interesting about it that you thought it was worthwhile posting here?

Man, she's obsessed with phones... (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video_log/2008/04/clinton_ringing.html)

Well, you go with what works I guess. It does show a change in tactic, she's running against McCain in this ad, something I think that both of them should be doing.

I'm glad she's stopped playing the "I'm the bravest warrior who will protect your children" game, since that's a game that she will lose when playing against McCain.

however, this add seems recycled, and might be a good indication that her campaign is out of money and out of ideas.

What is so interesting about it that you thought it was worthwhile posting here?

The whole thing.

I certainly am not hanging on to one poll, especially when there are SO MANY to choose from. Let's have a daily poll party? I see your poll and raise you two. :p

Once again I point you to this post you may have missed. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt to say you didn't just ignore it.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13573833&postcount=2867


Edit: At this point I am to believe you are forcefully ignoring the post I linked above. I've placed it out there 3 times now and #crickets...#crickets... I don't hang on to one poll either. That's why I present multiple polls and perspectives. This is also the reason I find the RCP averages to be the best. Between them and pollingreport you can get a clearer picture.

Obama doing very well when it comes to superdelegates lately. 12-1 after March 4th.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/04/02/852607.aspx



April 2, 2008 1:58 PM
Events Prove Race Chasm Article Correct

Earlier this week, I published this In These Times piece about what I called the Race Chasm, and how it relates to the Clinton campaign's strategy. I made some fairly bold assertions in the article, which some readers questioned. So in the interest of fact-checking myself post facto, let's take a look at events of this week and whether they prove the major assertions of the article.

The Race Chasm - Still There?

The first assertion I made was that the Race Chasm does indeed exist, and that states whose populations are above 7 percent but below 17 percent black have been very difficult for Obama to win. Now, in a series of polls, we see that chasm again in advance of the upcoming primaries. Here's what I'm talking about, excerpting from Politicalwire and Bloomberg News:

SurveyUSA - Obama Not Competitive in Kentucky: A new SurveyUSA poll in Kentucky shows Sen. Hillary Clinton crushing Sen. Barack Obama, 58% to 29%, in the closed Democratic primary to be held on May 20.

PPP Poll - Obama Holds Huge Lead in North Carolina: The latest Public Policy Polling survey in North Carolina finds Sen. Barack Obama leading Sen. Hillary Clinton, 54% to 36%.

Bloomberg News: Interviews with dozens of Democrats in this overwhelmingly white region -- where voters will go to the polls in the May 6 primary -- suggest residual concerns over the controversy involving Obama's former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright.

Recall that Kentucky and Indiana is in the Race Chasm demographic (a new poll shows Clinton leading in Indiana, by the way), and North Carolina is outside the Race Chasm. The difference between Kentucky and North Carolina is especially striking considering their relative geographic proximity. That comparison alone suggests the Race Chasm is at work. More generally, these polls suggest that there's a solid chance the Race Chasm will continue affecting the primary campaign, especially with the Clinton campaign pushing the Jeremiah Wright story.

Race and "Electability" Arguments - Connected?

Let's just review what I wrote in my article on Monday:

Clinton has two reasons to try to highlight race and maximize the Race Chasm, both related to the second pillar of her firewall: the superdelegates...In trying to maximize the Race Chasm by focusing on race-tinged issues, Clinton is tacitly making an "electability" argument to superdelegates...Part of that "electability" argument hinges on portraying Obama as "unelectable"--and what better way to do that than stoke as many race-focused controversies as possible? It is a standard primary tactic: Launch a line of attack--in this case, the "Wright controversy"--and then claim the attack will be used by Republicans to defeat an opponent--in this case Obama--should he become the general election candidate.

This was no genius insight, of course. It's just an honest reading of what's going on. Yet some readers who emailed me took offense to this, saying that Clinton wouldn't meld the race issue into an "electability" argument with superdelegates. Yet, that is precisely what Clinton operative Harold Ickes said the Clinton campaign is now doing. In a story out on Tuesday - just a day after my article came out - TPM reported that Ickes acknowledged the race-tinged Wright "controversy" is "a key topic in discussions with uncommitted super-delegates over whether Obama is electable in a general election."

The rest of the campaign media has now jumped all over the story. I hate to say I told them so...but I told them so.

One final note - I'm not writing this follow-up post to gloat, but just to explore whether my assertions hold true with changing events (and let's be clear - things could change further and the trends I identified, while correct in the historical context, may certainly cease). That's something way too many commentators refuse to do - which is why political analysis in the media is so vapid. But, alas, that's a subject for another day.

Posted by David Sirota

Finally, Holy Shit on that new 3 am ad. It was bad enough the first time before she recycled it. Don't they handle economic issues during normal working hours? Like, what is waking her up at 3AM going to do to consumer confidence? If the economy could be solved with one phone call at 3AM, even Bush would have figured it out. Not only is the ad bad, but it proposes that the lot of us are too fucking stupid to see how it makes no sense. Absolute horseshit!

Nice right wing perspective from the Galen Institute (http://www.galen.org/component,8/action,show_content/id,18/). :p


Hurrah for healthcare for profit industries!! :rolleyes:

Wow, they sure make a lot of assertions. I couldn't help but notice, however, as I read through their site, that they didn't actually provide any of this "solid evidence" they claimed to have.

The whole thing.
So, you believe what was written in the article?

Wow, they sure make a lot of assertions. I couldn't help but notice, however, as I read through their site, that they didn't actually provide any of this "solid evidence" they claimed to have.
The US is paying almost double health expenditure per capita (http://hdrstats.undp.org/indicators/52.html)what Canada is for healthcare, yet Canada enjoys universal healthcare. The private sector "for profit" healthcare providers in the US certainly don't want give up the golden goose.

The US is paying almost triple in private healthcare per capita (http://hdrstats.undp.org/indicators/51.html)(8.5%) compared to Canada (3%):

In the nightmare I found myself nude in bed, and I was looking at a mirror on the ceiling, and I discovered that I am a Negro, and I'm circumcised!

Quickly I jumped up, found my pants and looked in the pockets to find my driver license photo and it was that same color. Black.

I felt myself being very depressed, downcast, sitting in a chair.

But it's a wheelchair!!

That means, of course, besides being black and Jewish, I'm also disabled!!!

I said to myself, aloud 'This is impossible. It's impossible that I should be black and Jewish and disabled.


'It's the pure and holy truth', whispers someone from behind me I turn around, and it's my Boyfriend, Jose.

Just what I needed!!!

I am a homosexual, and on top of that with a Mexican boyfriend.

Oh, my God..... Black, Jewish, disabled, gay, with a Mexican boyfriend, drug addict, and HIV-positive!!!

Desperate, I begin to shout, cry, pull my hair, and OH Noooooo...I'm Bald too!!!

The telephone rings. It's my brother.

He is saying, 'Since mom and dad died the only thing you do is hang out, take drugs, and laze around all day doing nothing. Get a job you worthless piece of crap... Any job.'

Mom?... Dad?... Nooooooooo... Now I'm also an unemployed orphan!

I try to explain to my brother how hard it is to find a job when you are black, Jewish, disabled, gay with a Mexican boyfriend, are a drug addict, HIV-positive, bald, and an orphan.

But he doesn't get it. Frustrated, I hang up.

It's then I realize I only have one hand!!!

With tears in my eyes I go to the window to look out.

I see I live in a shanty-town full of cardboard and tin houses! There is trash everywhere.

Suddenly I feel a sharp pain near my pacemaker....Pacemaker?

Besides being black, Jewish, disabled, a fairy with a Mexican boyfriend, a drug addict, HIV- positive, bald, orphaned, unemployed, an invalid with one hand, and having a bad heart, I live in a crappy neighborhood.

At that very moment my boyfriend approaches and says to me, 'Sweetiepie, my love, my little black heartthrob, have you decided who are you going to vote for in the Primary?

Clinton or O'Bama ???

Say it isn't so!!! I can handle being a black, disabled, one armed, drug addicted, Jewish queer on a Pacemaker who is HIV positive, bald, orphaned, unemployed, lives in a slum, and has a Mexican boyfriend, but please, oh dear God, please don't tell me I'm a Democrat....

Hmmm...

Even I have my doubts about this one, but it would not surprise me.

Watergate-Era Judiciary Chief of Staff: Hillary Clinton Fired For Lies, Unethical Behavior (http://www.northstarwriters.com/dc163.htm)

In the nightmare I found myself nude in bed, and I was looking at a mirror on the ceiling, and I discovered that I am a Negro, and I'm circumcised!

Quickly I jumped up, found my pants and looked in the pockets to find my driver license photo and it was that same color. Black.

I felt myself being very depressed, downcast, sitting in a chair.

But it's a wheelchair!!

That means, of course, besides being black and Jewish, I'm also disabled!!!

I said to myself, aloud 'This is impossible. It's impossible that I should be black and Jewish and disabled.


'It's the pure and holy truth', whispers someone from behind me I turn around, and it's my Boyfriend, Jose.

Just what I needed!!!

I am a homosexual, and on top of that with a Mexican boyfriend.

Oh, my God..... Black, Jewish, disabled, gay, with a Mexican boyfriend, drug addict, and HIV-positive!!!

Desperate, I begin to shout, cry, pull my hair, and OH Noooooo...I'm Bald too!!!

The telephone rings. It's my brother.

He is saying, 'Since mom and dad died the only thing you do is hang out, take drugs, and laze around all day doing nothing. Get a job you worthless piece of crap... Any job.'

Mom?... Dad?... Nooooooooo... Now I'm also an unemployed orphan!

I try to explain to my brother how hard it is to find a job when you are black, Jewish, disabled, gay with a Mexican boyfriend, are a drug addict, HIV-positive, bald, and an orphan.

But he doesn't get it. Frustrated, I hang up.

It's then I realize I only have one hand!!!

With tears in my eyes I go to the window to look out.

I see I live in a shanty-town full of cardboard and tin houses! There is trash everywhere.

Suddenly I feel a sharp pain near my pacemaker....Pacemaker?

Besides being black, Jewish, disabled, a fairy with a Mexican boyfriend, a drug addict, HIV- positive, bald, orphaned, unemployed, an invalid with one hand, and having a bad heart, I live in a crappy neighborhood.

At that very moment my boyfriend approaches and says to me, 'Sweetiepie, my love, my little black heartthrob, have you decided who are you going to vote for in the Primary?

Clinton or O'Bama ???

Say it isn't so!!! I can handle being a black, disabled, one armed, drug addicted, Jewish queer on a Pacemaker who is HIV positive, bald, orphaned, unemployed, lives in a slum, and has a Mexican boyfriend, but please, oh dear God, please don't tell me I'm a Democrat....

Please spare us your sexual fantasies.

Please spare us your sexual fantasies.
It's a joke....lighten up. :D

Hmmm...

Even I have my doubts about this one, but it would not surprise me.

Watergate-Era Judiciary Chief of Staff: Hillary Clinton Fired For Lies, Unethical Behavior (http://www.northstarwriters.com/dc163.htm)
Nice conservative article.

He loves Obama too (http://www.northstarwriters.com/dc160.htm):

If Obama were to tell poor blacks and whites alike that America abounds with opportunity, and that they would serve themselves well by learning how to access it, he would offer a hope that is not only audacious but potentially transformational to millions of lives.

But there is no reason to think a President Obama would do this. His track record and his rhetoric are those of a man who sees capital as something to confiscate, and achievers as people to berate as victimizers. He may be offering a less sympathetic scapegoat, but that’s not going to improve the lives of those who are looking for a reason to hope.

Good speech, but really bad ideas. Maybe the next super-dynamic political messiah figure will actually know something about how America creates wealth and opportunity, and will share that information with his supporters. Now that would be change we could believe in.
We need to be careful picking the roses?

The US is paying almost double health expenditure per capita (http://hdrstats.undp.org/indicators/52.html)what Canada is for healthcare, yet Canada enjoys universal healthcare. The private sector "for profit" healthcare providers in the US certainly don't want give up the golden goose.

The US is paying almost triple in private healthcare per capita (http://hdrstats.undp.org/indicators/51.html)(8.5%) compared to Canada (3%):

Oh, I know. 3x as much and we're the ones with about as many uninsured as Canada has people. I think that counts as f---ed up.

Nice conservative article.

He loves Obama too (http://www.northstarwriters.com/dc160.htm):


We need to be careful picking the roses?

Of course, Nixon’s resignation rendered the entire issue moot, ending Hillary’s career on the Judiciary Committee staff in a most undistinguished manner. Zeifman says he was urged by top committee members to keep a diary of everything that was happening. He did so, and still has the diary if anyone wants to check the veracity of his story. Certainly, he could not have known in 1974 that diary entries about a young lawyer named Hillary Rodham would be of interest to anyone 34 years later.

Yea maybe.

Yea maybe.

or if you are a christopher hitchens fan he has a diatribe against her on slate.

http://www.slate.com/id/2187780/

no one does angry like hitchens does angry.

Nice conservative article.

He loves Obama too (http://www.northstarwriters.com/dc160.htm):


We need to be careful picking the roses?

See, there is the problem. He says two things. One is an opinion. The other is supported by evidence. A lot of evidence. You treat them as exactly equal. They aren't. His opinion about Obama and why he doesn't like him, isn't the same as a factual story that can be corroborated by evidence. At all.

You need to learn the difference.

If I wrote on my blog that I witnessed Jimmy beating his son showing you pictures and that I don't like Kelly because I think she's unrealistic. They aren't equal. One is only my opinion. The other actually has substance. The problem this entire time is that you've treated your unsupported opinion as if it can trump actual substance, just as you have here.

Another interesting story about HRC...
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/02/clintons-new-ad-one-more-bell-to-answer/

Here’s the key line from the script of the 30-second spot, which is running statewide in Pennsylvania.

“John McCain just said the government shouldn’t take any real action on the housing crisis, he’d let the phone keep ringing,” the announcer says. “Hillary Clinton has a plan to protect our homes, create jobs.”

The interesting thing, of course, is why the Clinton campaign, mired in a Democratic contest with Mr. Obama, is spending money to go after the presumptive Republican nominee.

I realized something today which made me think that if God forbid McCain won, that maybe hed still be better than Bush in a few regards, one of which being the begining of new wars. His a military man. I think hed listen to his generals and we wouldnt have these situations:

Pres: I want to bomb Iran.
General: Sir, we dont have the man power for another war, especially with a country with an actual military
Pres: Out of my sight you anti-American coward! Guards, bring me a spineless sniviling boot-lick!

*Enter General Petraeus*

General Petraeus: Mr. President, we could easily afford, handle, and win a war with any country of ebil brown muslims you wish to whip the American public into a frenzy against. We will be greeted as liberators.
Pres: Bravo my pet! You shall have another star!

I realized something today which made me think that if God forbid McCain won, that maybe hed still be better than Bush in a few regards, one of which being the begining of new wars. His a military man. I think hed listen to his generals and we wouldnt have these situations:

Pres: I want to bomb Iran.
General: Sir, we dont have the man power for another war, especially with a country with an actual military
Pres: Out of my sight you anti-American coward! Guards, bring me a spineless sniviling boot-lick!

*Enter General Petraeus*

General Petraeus: Mr. President, we could easily afford, handle, and win a war with any country of ebil brown muslims you wish to whip the American public into a frenzy against. We will be greeted as liberators.
Pres: Bravo my pet! You shall have another star!

Um...yea! Whatever :rolleyes:

Um...yea! Whatever :rolleyes:

Thats essentially wht the Bush administration did recently...

Thats essentially wht the Bush administration did recently...

With what?

With what?

Im sure the admiral who was saying publically that we couldnt afford (money or manpower) another war, like with Iran and then was preassured to step down doesnt count at all.

EDIT: Adm. William J. Fallon was the guy.

Thats essentially wht the Bush administration did recently...

Please don't slight the General. It may be hard for you to understand, but people in the military serve civilian leadership. Sometimes that civilian leadership sends us off in error. We do not choose the time and place of the battle. It would be odd, and a certain end to his career, (maybe a court marshal as well) if the General got on tv and said, "damnit we're fucked." The Bush administration ignored seasoned military leaders who told them the truth about Iraq. General Eric Shinseki tried to do what you wish and lost his command and was forced out. Giving up your pension and benefits before your 20 is not what military personel have in mind. Just try to put yourself in the General's shoes.

Please don't slight the General. It may be hard for you to understand, but people in the military serve civilian leadership. Sometimes that civilian leadership sends us off in error. We do not choose the time and place of the battle. It would be odd, and a certain end to his career, (maybe a court marshal as well) if the General got on tv and said, "damnit we're fucked." The Bush administration ignored seasoned military leaders who told them the truth about Iraq. General Eric Shinseki tried to do what you wish and lost his command and was forced out. Giving up your pension and benefits before your 20 is not what military personel have in mind. Just try to put yourself in the General's shoes.

Im slightling no one but George Bush's pet General Patraeus.

Im slightling no one but George Bush's pet General Patraeus.

I think you're over-simplifying his experience due to your station in life and your understanding of how things work. This is not meant as disrespectful to you. Have you served your country in uniform? I'm not saying you have to in order to have an opinion. It just makes the understanding of why Patraeus does what he does more evident. You don't get that high in the ranks without knowing how to smooch some ass. That goes for everyone involved.

Edit: Bed time for me with an 0530 wake up call. I'll be back tomorrow to check the thread just so you know I'm not running from our discussion.