 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Voting for Hillary?
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary? From: Riginslinger Date: 04 Mar 08 - 10:12 AM David Books, of course, is a die-hard Republican |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary? From: EBarnacle Date: 04 Mar 08 - 10:18 AM This past Sunday, I took part in a phone bank for Obama. I did it because I was asked to participate. In this entire election cycle, I have been bombarded by e-mail from all of the Democratic candidates and their proxies. The only one who did not ask me for money was Obama. When Move-On contacted me to take part, it was the first time that any of them or a PAC asked me to take part and not merely send money. Had Hillary asked me, I would have been equally happy to call for her. As others have said above, it's a coin toss. I looked at the scripts supplied to the callers and created my own. What I did was remind people that there was a primary this Tuesday [today], advise them how to vote [including caucusing], the fact that this year their vote in the primary and caucus could help determine the presidency of The United States and, at the end, mention that the call was in support of the Obama campaign. The point is that the process is as important as the person in this case. Afterward, in discussion, I found that I seemed to get fewer hangups than people who opened with mention of Sen. Obama or Move-On. One of the things I have learned as a sales and marketing person is that it is important to engage the client on a positive basis before discussing a product or candidate. It takes a little longer but gets better results. McCain is doing the Democrats a favor by attacking Obama. He is creating a "pre-debate" atmosphere and allowing Obama to look good by standing up to him. Obama is avoiding the mistake of earlier candidacies and responding immediately to attacks rather than ignoring them hoping that they will go away. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary? From: Riginslinger Date: 04 Mar 08 - 09:55 PM The reason the Obama people didn't ask for money is because they're swimming in money. In any event, Hillary won Rhode Island. It's a start. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary? From: catspaw49 Date: 04 Mar 08 - 10:47 PM Well, lotsa' folks in Ohio voted for Hillary. Matter of fact there are a number of counties where she got 75-80% of the vote. She held her own in the Cleveland/Akron area and lost in the Columbus and Cincy counties. She carried by a wide margin almost every rural county in the state. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary? From: Amos Date: 04 Mar 08 - 10:51 PM So far the reports are just a few points apart. FIngers crossed. I hate horse races. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary? From: catspaw49 Date: 04 Mar 08 - 11:04 PM In Ohio it ain't a horse race at all. His strength was almost strictly with African-Americans in urban areas but even in Cleveland and Akron Clinton did well. He carried Cincy and Columbus.........In the Appalachian counties she was up 7 to 3 and even 8 to 2. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary? From: Amos Date: 04 Mar 08 - 11:05 PM CNN is saying that Ohio has gone to Hill. Hmmmph. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary? From: catspaw49 Date: 04 Mar 08 - 11:14 PM Not reading my posts are you Amos? He got his clock cleaned here although his people are spinning like a top on it. He won't carry Ohio in the Fall with the performance level he had today. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary? From: Stilly River Sage Date: 05 Mar 08 - 12:03 AM At my caucus this evening (in a suburb of Fort Worth in Tarrant County, Texas) the dozen or so of us who turned up last time around were amazed at the turnout. Nearly 200 signed up for the caucus and they were tied down the middle until the last two came in to sign up, and tipped it to Hillary. But our precinct is split for the senate district convention--12 Obama and 12 Clinton. I'll go to the district as a delegate, but probably not beyond that, I don't have the time or the income. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary? From: Ron Davies Date: 05 Mar 08 - 12:26 AM "He won't carry Ohio in the fall...". Not a good assumption. The Democrat--Hillary or Obama-- will probably get Ohio--as a state in economic distress--when it becomes plain that McCain has basically no prescription against economic depression. The difference is that Obama--with his new voters, independents, and even some Republicans--- will put states into play that Democrats can rarely consider---and Hillary has no chance to do so. Since it is already being said that her negative ad "3 AM" helped her, she will likely indulge in more negative ads--and directed against Obama they will do nothing but further poison the well she plans to drink from in the fall. If she thinks the Obama enthusiasm can be seamlessly switched over to her, after the amazingly despicable campaign she has run, and continues to run, she is living in a fool's paradise. Unsurprisingly. Or perhaps Hillary supporters think it's just fine that, among many other delightful maneuvers, she let the last word on whether Obama is a Moslem be: No, "as far as I know". By far the best thing she could do for the Democratic party is what she's guaranteed--especially now-- not to do: drop out graciously, rather than cause a civil war. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary? From: Bill D Date: 05 Mar 08 - 12:38 AM She is sure doing a bit better than most predicted tonight, but he still seems to be holding a decent lead in delegates; and some of the final states to vote are expected to be heavy for him. It STILL may go as far as April or to the convention. Texas is pretty durn close, and Hillary needs more than 'close'. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary? From: Ron Davies Date: 05 Mar 08 - 01:02 AM People may think the happiest person today in the US is Hillary. Wrong. The happiest is probably Rush Limbaugh, with John McCain a close second. (Rush was after all the one who counseled his "dittoheads" to vote for Hillary--to prolong the Democrats' agony and wind up possibly with Hillary--by far the weaker opponent for McCain--in the fall.) The longer the bloodletting, wasting of financial resources, and heightened bitterness within the Democratic party goes on, the better they like it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary? From: Stilly River Sage Date: 05 Mar 08 - 01:12 AM Ron, Step away from the radio. Pull the plug on that airbag Rush. Don't let him inform your political leanings. Since it is already being said that her negative ad "3 AM" helped her, she will likely indulge in more negative ads You consider that ad "negative?" Not at all. You've picked up some political spin, someone trying to push the campaign into bloodletting territory. Negative is the Willie Horton ads and Swiftboat ads. The Karl Rove stuff. This has been a very civil race, and it can stay that way. There is room for the 3am ad. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary? From: Ron Davies Date: 05 Mar 08 - 07:51 AM SRS-- Take off your rose-colored glasses. She is stating clearly in that ad that Obama does not have the experience and maturity to be commander in chief--just what she also says in speeches. And exactly the tack McCain will take in the fall. She is doing his dirty work for him---and she--and you---obviously don't care, since for you both her winning the nomination justifies anything. So thanks to that attitude, the Democratic civil war, waste of resources, and bitterness goes on, and worsens. While McCain has a free hand to raise money---and doesn't even need to campaign, since Hillary is fighting his battle for him. And if you think Hillary's "experience"--supposedly-- is worth a plug nickel against that of McCain, you are living in a fool's paradise. By the way, would you like to tell us how the heightened bitterness---since Hillary has now learned that negative ads against fellow Democrats work---will help unify the party? Or perhaps you don't think Hillary will need Obama's legions in the fall. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary? From: Ron Davies Date: 05 Mar 08 - 08:05 AM And one more thing. Obama has not made one negative ad against Hillary. But the temptation---thanks to her tactics---to do so will now be growing. And I'm sorry to tell you that she sure as hell is vulnerable. Her tax returns, the little item of accepting money from a firm under suit for sexual harassment---over 100 women, Bill's dealings with various countries with wretched human rights and electoral freedom records--the list goes on. (not even including all the old ones, which could be dredged up. And if he does this, he will heighten bitterness on the part of her partisans---like your good self? And McCain can hardly wait to bring up the Woodstock museum---and the whole 60's and 90's list of problems. The contrast between Hillary--the perfect seamy politician--and McCain's selfless service will play rather well, to say the least. She already has close to half the country dead set against voting for her---and she's the best possible candidate to unite the fractious Republicans. While Obama has far smaller negatives--and huge, enthusiastic support across the country that Hillary can only dream about. Looking forward to hearing your specific answers to these points. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary? From: GUEST,Guest Date: 05 Mar 08 - 08:11 AM You aren't bitter or anything though, right Ron? He he. Certainly by recent standards (ie since Reagan beat Carter going negative), this has been an extremely clean and civil campaign. There is nothing negative about pointing out your opponent's weak spots, Ron. Nothing. Me thinks your koolaid just ain't as tasty today as it was yesterday. My understanding is there are still about 170 delegates up in the air from yesterday (we should hear how they split later today), and they are separated by less than 100 delegates. Clinton doesn't have to pull back into the delegate count lead now, because she'll clean Obama's clock in Pennsylvania next month. Then it should pretty much be over, because it will become clear to everyone that Obama can't win the big states the Dems need to take in the fall to win. Even Obama will have to wake up and smell that Sumatra java now. Sorry boys, but it looks like your boy wasn't quite as wildly popular as we (including me after Feb 5th) first assumed. So Amos and Ron, will either of you vote for Clinton in the fall? Or aren't you really about what you say you are about (unity, and getting Bush leaguers out)? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary? From: Ron Davies Date: 05 Mar 08 - 08:21 AM Janet-- You've made it quite clear that you'll be voting for Nader--if you vote at all. Since the entire political system is rotten to the core. If you don't think Obama will be a far stronger candidate than Hillary against McCain, you need to wake up. Finally. But obviously it's fine with you if McCain takes over--since the village must be destroyed in order to save it. The best part of being a sour cynic is that you never have to be disappointed--and you must be overjoyed with all your wonderful opportunities for schadenfreude. Let me congratulate you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary? From: Riginslinger Date: 05 Mar 08 - 08:27 AM The only one of the two of them who can beat McCain is finally gaining momentum. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary? From: Ron Davies Date: 05 Mar 08 - 08:34 AM With half the country already dead set against her before the campaign even starts. Anything you say, Rig. Could we have a bit of logic, please? Particularly in how she plans to have Obama's legions support her. And in answer to an earlier question--yes I am dead serious in desire for unity---but Hillary brings the opposite. And I am not alone--by a long shot--in feeling this way. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary? From: GUEST,Guest Date: 05 Mar 08 - 09:00 AM Ron, you keep saying 'half the country dead set against her' yet she has won, and pretty decisively for the most part, the states with the most voters. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me more people are voting for Clinton than Obama. You know, when you count the popular vote totals. Add 'em up, and you'll see. I have never thought Obama would be able to beat McCain. Clinton proved Obama's vulnerability w/the 3 am ad. That was a risky thing to do, because had Obama beat Clinton, she would have handed the McCain camp a well established ad campaign to run against Obama. At this point, there are two things it will prove nearly impossible for Obama to overcome: he hasn't won any of the big states, and he is already being perceived as weak on defense issues, and sadly, his stand on the war is probably hurting him with some militarist Dems. Like it or not, the next prez will inherit a war, and be a war time president. Which is why Clinton is most likely to win the nod. She is perceived as the stronger of the two when it comes to the commander in chief thing. The percentage of Repubs who despise Hilary isn't as large as you make it out to be Ron. There are plenty of moderate Repubs and lots of indies who will vote for her in the fall. I just don't see McCain winning a soap box derby by then. I really don't. Unless there is another attack on the US before then--that is really the only thing that could put him in the White House. If the war worsens, but no attacks on US soil, there isn't any chance he can beat Clinton. The recession will see to that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary? From: Amos Date: 05 Mar 08 - 09:07 AM I think you might expand your view -- the last eleven primaries went to Obama, before Tuesday. Remember? THere aren't any big sweeps. The wins are more like 6- to 50 or thereabouts. But it is a red-hot horserace. Obama still leads with the delegate count slightly at this point. But having let Hill grab back the momentum, he needs so explosive broken field running to steer things back. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary? From: Riginslinger Date: 05 Mar 08 - 10:13 AM "Could we have a bit of logic, please?" No, this is American politics, logic goes out the window. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary? From: Peace Date: 05 Mar 08 - 10:20 AM So, he's gettin' voted for in some places and she in others. The news commentaries are about as exciting as colour commentary in sports. Yippee. The one question I have regarding McCain, Obama and Hillary is this: What exactly is gonna change? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary? From: catspaw49 Date: 05 Mar 08 - 10:48 AM The people will fancy an appearance of freedom; Illusion will be their native land................Jacques Ellul, "The Political Illusion" While Janet and I disagree about many things, I think we might agree on what is really required in this country is a political revolution. Forty years ago I was introduced to the thoughts and writings of Jacques Ellul, a French Philosopher, Theologian, and Political Scientist. In the above quoted book as well as in his other works including things published in Katallagete. His well reasoned works stated that politics is a matter of methodology and once having established the method, it became self sustaining regardless of the characters playing the roles. The quick and easy translation is Tweedledum versus Tweedledee and feel free to switch them around at no cost or benefit. Elected officials are so co-opted (remember that word? Hackneyed and all but it fits here) by the time they reach certain levels, their rhetoric will always exceed their actions. The only fix for this is revolution. Sadly, it takes awhile.....but the movement is starting to grow as more and more see past the illusion. It won't happen simply by voting for a third party or Indie candidate. The system needs revamped and it will take numbers, not individuals to do it. I doubt it happens in my lifetime but maybe in my kids'............. That said, looking at things in the classic 2 party way at this point.......I have listened at length to Obama and tried like hell to get behind him but just can't. The Clinton campaign gave him a few basic lobs and he failed to play them. There is no way this guy has the horsepower at this point to beat McCain. "3AM" was just basic old time stuff and he couldn't answer the call. If the Republican Party plays it their usual way they will take him to the Cleaners and he'll fold like cheap suit. The Clinton folks have experienced the wrath of the GOP and this time around they will have no problem in playing the game. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary? From: Little Hawk Date: 05 Mar 08 - 12:08 PM Well said, Spaw. I specially concur with your first half about the Frenchman, Ellul. I think that is absolutely correct. There is an inertia in most political systems that is almost immovable, short of a genuine revolution...a radical change in basic structure and procedures. Neither you nor I will live to see that happen in the USA, but it will come eventually. As for your endless bleating about other people's lack of "logic", Ron...as if you and those who agree 100% with you about everything were its sole protectors in this world....(!)... Codswallop. People in a political debate all use logic, they use logic that supports their viewpoint, but very few of them ever have the slightest respect or time for anyone else's logic from an opposing viewpoint. They don't even hear it. They're too busy patting themselves on the back as they reread their last post and basking in their own supposed brilliance and sagacity...and you are about the most egregious example of that sort of hubris that I ever see on this forum. I wish there was an exact doppelganger of you out there...only with diametrically opposing political views, a rabid Clinton-backer...call him "Don Ravies"...and the two of you could keep each other busy, insulting carping and sneering at each other's pathetic lack of logic and demanding proof of the other's assertions all the livelong day. That would be damn funny, and it would give the rest of us a little bit of a rest. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary? From: PoppaGator Date: 05 Mar 08 - 12:23 PM Carrying a state in a party primary is NOT equivalent to winning that state in the general election. Hillary's 50-something to 40-something win in Ohio or Texas does NOT indicate that she'd take either state in November, nor even that she's be a better bet than Obama in a race against McCain. The converse, of course, is true for Obama in the states where he beat Clinton by the usual 5-15%. The primary voting will end up so close that the party pros ("superdelegates") will decide the outcome at the convention. They'll have a lot of conflicting opinions to ponder about relative electabiliity vs. McCain, which will be their overriding concern (and rightly so). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary? From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 05 Mar 08 - 12:55 PM Yep, may be an interesting convention. And Michigan and Florida shall rise again. The system needs a revamp to get rid of those stupid caucuses. Only secret ballots should be permitted in primaries and elections. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary? From: PoppaGator Date: 05 Mar 08 - 12:58 PM This just in (noonish, Wednesday): There were 370 Democratic delegates at stake in Tuesday's contests, and nearly complete returns showed Clinton outpaced Obama in Ohio, 74-65, in Rhode Island, 13-8, and in the Texas primary, 65-61. Obama won in Vermont, 9-6, and was ahead in the Texas caucuses, 30-27. Ten of the dozen that remained to be awarded were in Texas; the other two in Ohio. So, Obama did well enough in the evening caucuses in Texas to very nearly make up for his loss in the daytime primary vote. Combining the results of the two Texas contests results in 65+27=92 for Clinton vs 61+30=91 for Obama, with 10 still undecided. Hardly momentous either way. Overall delegate totals for the day: Clinton 74+13+61+6+27=181, Obama 65+8+61+9+30=173, 12 still undecided. Note that the undecided count is greater than the difference between the totals (12 vs 8). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary? From: Peace Date: 05 Mar 08 - 01:00 PM The one question I have regarding McCain, Obama and Hillary is this: What exactly is gonna change? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary? From: catspaw49 Date: 05 Mar 08 - 01:01 PM Sorry Poppa but in the case of Ohio I think you're wrong. Here's why. Ohio still remains the last bastion of Taft Republicanism even after we finally ditched his grandkid as Governor....arguably one of the worst we have had and we've had some losers! There is a real disconnect at times that seems odd as we go for serious conservatives in some cases while electing guys like Howard Metzenbaum repeatedly. Its kind of nutso to figure out. But look at the primary results. Obama took Dayton, Cincy, Columbus, and Toledo. He could not carry Cleveland and also failed in Akron and Youngstown. Many forget that Ohio has a large rural population which vote regularly and they went overwhelmingly for Hillary. She had the right message which was strong on the economy and the backing of John Glenn and the current governor, Ted Strickland, both very popular and respected folks. But if Hillary doesn't run, the rural vote will go to McCain if he has even a slightly good line. And much as I hate to say this about my home state, the black population in rural Ohio is virtually non-existent.............. At this time there is no way I can see Obama taking Ohio in the Fall. Things change and perhaps they will in this case. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary? From: catspaw49 Date: 05 Mar 08 - 01:05 PM BRUCE.....In answer to your question, read my 10:48 AM post.......What will change? Virtually nothing. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary? From: Peace Date: 05 Mar 08 - 01:08 PM Just now did. Thanks, Spaw. Sorry I hadn't before. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary? From: Little Hawk Date: 05 Mar 08 - 01:33 PM Spaw, yer givin' me the impression that Ohio might have a pretty high per capita rating when it comes to the national "dumbass" standings. Is that right? ;-) (facetious question) My concern is the same as the one Peace has voiced. Assuming that either Hillary, Obama, or McCain get elected....what exactly is going to change? The public gave the Democrats a majority in Congress in 2006, and it was primarily so the Democrats could end the war. They made no effort whatsoever to do so. I am very sceptical that that will change if a Democrat is elected president in 2008. (Mind you, I'd still prefer to see the Republicans out regardless. Boy, would I ever.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary? From: catspaw49 Date: 05 Mar 08 - 02:16 PM Describe for me all the significant changes and what would be different if we had elected George Wallace in 1968. For the same reason that the Dems did not end the war in Iraq, Wallace would have done very little as President. This system doesn't allow for the greatness we all seek. Bush is pathetic but we're still here.......barely. Clinton did a great job on many issues but we're still fighting the same ones today. Bush made it worse but it was never really fixed. The war in Iraq isn't the thing......What is? All the candidates in play voted either for or to renew the Patriot Act. Until there is a true representation of the people IN THIS DAY AND AGE and not by a method needed in the 18th Century, we're going to go along with less than we want and less than we need. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary? From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 05 Mar 08 - 02:38 PM Who wants change? Most people are hotsy-totsy with the status quo. A few wobblies from the past talk about power to the people but most of us know that would be a disaster. Even the so-called Communist regimes have learned that success depends on knowing how to obtain and increase property and capital. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary? From: Peace Date: 05 Mar 08 - 03:26 PM "Even the so-called Communist regimes have learned that success depends on knowing how to obtain and increase property and capital." Now, do the math on that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary? From: Peace Date: 05 Mar 08 - 03:28 PM Real 'victory' will come when we gain the wisdom to redefine 'success'. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary? From: Riginslinger Date: 05 Mar 08 - 03:53 PM "A few wobblies from the past talk about power to the people but..." That's what we need. Bring back the Wobblies! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary? From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 05 Mar 08 - 04:03 PM Is that post supposed to mean something? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary? From: Riginslinger Date: 05 Mar 08 - 04:58 PM Only if you're a fan of Big Bill Haywood and the IWW. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary? From: Peace Date: 05 Mar 08 - 05:00 PM I'm a fan of Big Bill AND the IWW. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary? From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 05 Mar 08 - 05:15 PM Rig..., my post was aimed at Peace, but- Shhhh... I think Peace is going to sing a verse or two of Joe Hill. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary? From: Peace Date: 05 Mar 08 - 05:23 PM Oh. Q, you seem confused. Let me help. "Do the math" was my way of saying look at what you said and think about it. It doesn't really hold up to scrutiny. You are repeating the same lines others have repeated for centuries--old wisdom that makes no damned sense. There is a finite amount of natural resource, finite amount of land and potentially an infinite number of people. Now. DO THE MATH. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary? From: Bill D Date: 05 Mar 08 - 05:38 PM "...potentially an infinite number of people." and, sadly, no particular control on the education, sanity or habits of all those people. Since this thread is ostensibly about voting, my math says that the more people you have, the greater the chance of "old wisdom that makes no damned sense" getting embedded in the political process. It seems to me that politics is becoming more & more a matter of how to get votes from the careless, ignorant and superstitious ....and those who are single issue voters... than of appeal to the folks who read, study and care. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary? From: Peace Date: 05 Mar 08 - 05:47 PM Q, I have the greatest respect for you as a researcher and folk historian. My apologies for yelling. And for getting snotty with you. B |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary? From: Peace Date: 05 Mar 08 - 05:58 PM I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night, Alive as you or me Says I, "But Joe, you're ten years dead," "I never died," says he. "I never died," says he. "In Salt Lake, Joe," says I to him, Him standing by my bed, "They framed you on a murder charge," Says Joe, "But I ain't dead," Says Joe, "But I ain't dead." "The copper bosses killed you, Joe, They shot you, Joe," says I. "Takes more than guns to kill a man," Says Joe, "I didn't die," Says Joe, "I didn't die." And standing there as big as life And smiling with his eyes Says Joe, "What they forgot to kill Went on to organize, Went on to organize." "Joe Hill ain't dead," he says to me, "Joe Hill ain't never died. Where working men are out on strike Joe Hill is at their side, Joe Hill is at their side." From San Diego up to Maine, In every mine and mill - Where working men defend their rights It's there you'll find Joe Hill. It's there you'll find Joe Hill. I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night, Alive as you or me Says I, "But Joe, you're ten years dead", "I never died," says he. "I never died," says he. (1930 by) Alfred Hayes |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary? From: Riginslinger Date: 05 Mar 08 - 09:21 PM Wonderful! The copper bosses probably weren't as sneaky as the oil bosses, but then, they didn't have unlimited resources. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary? From: Peace Date: 05 Mar 08 - 09:24 PM And that's just it. NO ONE has unlimited reserves. That includes this planet. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary? From: GUEST,Guest Date: 05 Mar 08 - 09:32 PM Obama sure seems to have unlimited reserves. I think I heard on the radio today he outspent Clinton 2 to 1 in Ohio & Texas, and still lost in both states. Has anyone noticed how news outlets seem to be avoiding saying 'Obama lost'? And it took my eyes awhile to adjust this morning as I kept reading down the list of Google News hits about the election before I sussed out Clinton had won in Texas & Ohio! I was like WTF? Who the hell won? I had already enjoyed a leisurely pot of tea and had a shower before I even sat down to read the news! Also, is anyone else getting really tired of the whining MSM wankers complaining about being bitch slapped on SNL for goin' all Obamagirl? Puhleez! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary? From: van lingle Date: 05 Mar 08 - 09:45 PM Same on NPR, GG. It seemed like Clinton's wins were downplayed early this morning. |
