Obama Camp: Using Popular Vote Metric Just Ain't Gonna Work
you really are lame, thrower. posted 04/23/2008 at 13:54:44
That's the way it should be done. Pick the candidate who has the best chance of winning.
Otherwise you get, let's see...McGovern, Kerry, Dukakis...Obama! posted 04/23/2008 at 13:53:53
Otherwise you get, let's see...McGovern, Kerry, Dukakis...Obama! posted 04/23/2008 at 13:53:53
Yup. Dems da rules.
Of course, if you are an Omamaniac these rules should be changed. Just not the rules disenfranchising the voters of FL and MI.
See, that's the problem with the Clintonites. They want to change the WRONG rules. posted 04/23/2008 at 13:51:01
Of course, if you are an Omamaniac these rules should be changed. Just not the rules disenfranchising the voters of FL and MI.
See, that's the problem with the Clintonites. They want to change the WRONG rules. posted 04/23/2008 at 13:51:01
So, what's your point? He is, after all, "the anointed one." posted 04/23/2008 at 13:46:40
Yeah, and Obama had all the money in the world and six weeks, and he still couldn't close the deal. He hasn't won in any of the swing state he will need in November, except Illinois (his home state) and Mo. She is clearly the one who can take us to victory. posted 04/23/2008 at 13:45:12
I guess I'm one of those stupid sheep. I have to say I am dismayed and troubled by what has happened to our party. I am used to Republicans spewing swill and hatred, and for years have heard them demeaning and insulting our president and first lady, and practicing despicable behavior to win at all costs.
Now the dems are doing it to themselves. Both sides are guilty, and neither has the moral high ground in this one.
We've got to stop eating our young or we are going to be extinct. posted 04/23/2008 at 13:43:10
Now the dems are doing it to themselves. Both sides are guilty, and neither has the moral high ground in this one.
We've got to stop eating our young or we are going to be extinct. posted 04/23/2008 at 13:43:10
Clinton grinds out victory over Obama in Pennsylvania
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz posted 04/22/2008 at 23:09:19
Wow...yous guys are sure a bunch of sore losers. posted 04/22/2008 at 22:51:03
The Real Democrats voted Obama while the Elderly Duped, Feminists, and Corporate Democrats and Reagan Democrats voted for her.
--------
Feminists...elderly...Reagan Democrats... just who do you think the real democrats are? Oh...yeah...the elitist intelligentsia...the real democrats.
Give me a break. posted 04/22/2008 at 22:47:02
--------
Feminists...elderly...Reagan Democrats... just who do you think the real democrats are? Oh...yeah...the elitist intelligentsia...the real democrats.
Give me a break. posted 04/22/2008 at 22:47:02
oh, go on. open it. you know you want to. really. go ahead..... posted 04/22/2008 at 22:43:07
LOL posted 04/22/2008 at 22:40:48
give me a break posted 04/22/2008 at 22:40:24
Are you for real? Do you not read the personal attacks on all things Hillary, including her supporters, all over this post? posted 04/22/2008 at 22:39:49
Now there's a good, uniting, bring them together, well thought out statement. Well done. I am sure Obama is very proud of you.
It always amazes me how people who profess to admire and love a candidate so much can act and speak in a way that is so opposite of what he supposedly stands for.
"PA voters are just stupid!" No wonder the every day American thinks your candidate is elitist. No wonder he hasn't a prayer to win in November.
Say hi to President McCain. posted 04/22/2008 at 22:28:06
It always amazes me how people who profess to admire and love a candidate so much can act and speak in a way that is so opposite of what he supposedly stands for.
"PA voters are just stupid!" No wonder the every day American thinks your candidate is elitist. No wonder he hasn't a prayer to win in November.
Say hi to President McCain. posted 04/22/2008 at 22:28:06
that's right...give it to McCain...just like the Nader voters gave 2000 to Bush. How's that working out for you? posted 04/22/2008 at 22:14:59
Doesn't have to be nasty. If the Obama group will lower the temperature a bit, stop the personal and character attacks and stay on point with the issues, I believe Clinton would follow. I have been to a couple of her events, and she talks about the issues. posted 04/22/2008 at 22:03:56
Chris Matthews: The Media Created "Delusion" That Hillary Can Win (VIDEO)
It's because they are so turned off by the Obama camp. posted 04/22/2008 at 23:06:57
God, doesn't this guy ever shut up? posted 04/22/2008 at 23:04:44
I'm sure it had nothing to do with the fact that he's black. posted 04/22/2008 at 23:04:02
Clinton On Iran: Could "Totally Obliterate" Them If They Attacked Israel
ABC News' Chris Cuomo asked Clinton what she would do _if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons._
"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran," Clinton said. "In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."
-------------------
As I read through these comments I wonder what you all have been drinking? The question was what she would do if they attacked Israel...our main ally in the region...with a NUCLEAR WEAPON. What do you want her to say? Oh, please don't do that...It would hurt our relationship? We won't like you any more? We'll tell on you?
Folks, the only reason we were not attacked by the Soviets was because they knew...KNEW that that would be the end. There was no doubt about what our response would be. I WANT Iran to think that shooting off a nuke would spell the end. And North Korea. And China. And Pakistan. And anyone else who might be tempted. They have to understand there is a zero tolerance for nuclear engagement.
And before you go off on me...I was against this war from the start and was actively against and a conscientious objector during Viet Nam. posted 04/22/2008 at 21:25:14
"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran," Clinton said. "In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."
-------------------
As I read through these comments I wonder what you all have been drinking? The question was what she would do if they attacked Israel...our main ally in the region...with a NUCLEAR WEAPON. What do you want her to say? Oh, please don't do that...It would hurt our relationship? We won't like you any more? We'll tell on you?
Folks, the only reason we were not attacked by the Soviets was because they knew...KNEW that that would be the end. There was no doubt about what our response would be. I WANT Iran to think that shooting off a nuke would spell the end. And North Korea. And China. And Pakistan. And anyone else who might be tempted. They have to understand there is a zero tolerance for nuclear engagement.
And before you go off on me...I was against this war from the start and was actively against and a conscientious objector during Viet Nam. posted 04/22/2008 at 21:25:14
Hillary Clinton Ad Features Osama Bin Laden: Campaign AdWatch
I quite agree with you. Unfortunately, most of the Obama camp, at least on this post, regards Hillary as as bad or even worse than McCain. I understand that many of the Obama supporters are young and passionate. I remember my own young and passionate days (actually demonstrating against the VN war). However there is something to be said for experience and seasoning. Obama seems to understand the need to heal and bring people together. I hope is supporters will do that...otherwise I fear we will find out just how bad McCain will be. posted 04/22/2008 at 17:55:12
I would pit Hillary's balls of steel up against BO's any day. posted 04/21/2008 at 22:56:02
LOL posted 04/21/2008 at 22:38:57
LOL...me, too! It was when they started playing the race card that I switched. posted 04/21/2008 at 22:30:00
bye, bye. posted 04/21/2008 at 22:13:09
make that 2 posted 04/21/2008 at 22:09:20
Actually, no. In America, commas and periods go inside quotation marks, while semicolons and colons go outside, regardless of the punctuation in the original quotation. Question marks and exclamation points depend on whether the question or exclamation is part of the quotation, or part of the sentence containing the quotation. Some examples:
* See the chapter entitled "The Conclusion, in which Nothing is Concluded." (Periods always go inside.)
* The spokesman called it "shocking," and called immediately for a committee. (Commas always go inside.)
* Have you read "Araby"? (The question mark is part of the outer sentence, not the quoted part, so it goes outside.)
* He asked, "How are you?" (The question mark is part of the quoted material, so it goes inside.
Now, when you have two question marks implied, such as,
Did she ask, "May I go, too?" you use only the one, and put it inside the quotes. Also, if more than one punctuation mark is implied, such as the comma and question mark in the previous sentence, you use the stronger one only, and follow the general rules applying to that punctuation.
Commas and periods were brought inside the quotation marks at all times during the hand typesetting age to protect them, as an exposed comma or period could easily be dropped. This did not apply to the stronger characters, and so the convention was never applied to them. posted 04/21/2008 at 21:59:34
* See the chapter entitled "The Conclusion, in which Nothing is Concluded." (Periods always go inside.)
* The spokesman called it "shocking," and called immediately for a committee. (Commas always go inside.)
* Have you read "Araby"? (The question mark is part of the outer sentence, not the quoted part, so it goes outside.)
* He asked, "How are you?" (The question mark is part of the quoted material, so it goes inside.
Now, when you have two question marks implied, such as,
Did she ask, "May I go, too?" you use only the one, and put it inside the quotes. Also, if more than one punctuation mark is implied, such as the comma and question mark in the previous sentence, you use the stronger one only, and follow the general rules applying to that punctuation.
Commas and periods were brought inside the quotation marks at all times during the hand typesetting age to protect them, as an exposed comma or period could easily be dropped. This did not apply to the stronger characters, and so the convention was never applied to them. posted 04/21/2008 at 21:59:34
Well said, but factually incorrect.
Clinton spent a great deal of time and resources trying to get Bin Laden, in the face of a hostile congress that tried to make it look like he was only interested in change the subject from Monicagate. Hillary's vote about Iraq had nothing to do with Bin Laden...it had to do with Saddam Hussein, who was a thorn in her husband's side for eight years, and who was credibly, though inaccurately, believed to be working on WMD. That vote was more about providing the president with the tools necessary to force Saddam to comply. She, along with the other senators (including Chuck Hagel, who recently stated this in an interview on NPR), was lied to by the Bush White House which assured the congress that war would be a last resort.
If anyone would remember back to those times, virtually everyone, including all of the MSM, and much of the country, supported the vote and her position. I remember my own misgivings at the time (I never supported going into the war), but believed the president had to have all the tools at his disposal and my unease over the Bushies, but my fervent hope they would do the right thing.
Was it wrong? In retrospect, clearly. Was it evil? I don't think so. Did she start the war? She did not...any more than John Edwards did (who cast the very same vote). posted 04/21/2008 at 21:32:48
Clinton spent a great deal of time and resources trying to get Bin Laden, in the face of a hostile congress that tried to make it look like he was only interested in change the subject from Monicagate. Hillary's vote about Iraq had nothing to do with Bin Laden...it had to do with Saddam Hussein, who was a thorn in her husband's side for eight years, and who was credibly, though inaccurately, believed to be working on WMD. That vote was more about providing the president with the tools necessary to force Saddam to comply. She, along with the other senators (including Chuck Hagel, who recently stated this in an interview on NPR), was lied to by the Bush White House which assured the congress that war would be a last resort.
If anyone would remember back to those times, virtually everyone, including all of the MSM, and much of the country, supported the vote and her position. I remember my own misgivings at the time (I never supported going into the war), but believed the president had to have all the tools at his disposal and my unease over the Bushies, but my fervent hope they would do the right thing.
Was it wrong? In retrospect, clearly. Was it evil? I don't think so. Did she start the war? She did not...any more than John Edwards did (who cast the very same vote). posted 04/21/2008 at 21:32:48
here, here. posted 04/21/2008 at 21:14:37
the punctuation goes inside the closing quotation mark
----
Actually, commas and periods go inside. Question marks, colons, semi colons, exclamations, etc. go outside....but "whose" counting?
:-) posted 04/21/2008 at 21:04:53
----
Actually, commas and periods go inside. Question marks, colons, semi colons, exclamations, etc. go outside....but "whose" counting?
:-) posted 04/21/2008 at 21:04:53
downgrading of Martin Luther King's contributions to the Civil Rights Act
===
There you go again. She did no such thing. She merely stated that while King's contributions were enormous (she was an avid supporter and admirer of King's as a young woman, by the way), it was a president, working in partnership with him that finally got the legislation passed.
Nobody understood this better than King himself. It was not until LBJ actually bought into the whole thing (a position he came to slowly, and mostly because of King's steadfastness, commitment and willingness to take on the president), that the legislation did get passed.
That was the point of her remarks. That as important as the movement was, it took a president to lead the government to do the right thing. Did it take a movement to lead the president? Certainly. But what if you had a president that was ready to listen? See? See the difference? But it was the Obama folks who misinterpreted it from the start and called it racist. It wasn't. It was incisive an true. posted 04/21/2008 at 20:58:19
===
There you go again. She did no such thing. She merely stated that while King's contributions were enormous (she was an avid supporter and admirer of King's as a young woman, by the way), it was a president, working in partnership with him that finally got the legislation passed.
Nobody understood this better than King himself. It was not until LBJ actually bought into the whole thing (a position he came to slowly, and mostly because of King's steadfastness, commitment and willingness to take on the president), that the legislation did get passed.
That was the point of her remarks. That as important as the movement was, it took a president to lead the government to do the right thing. Did it take a movement to lead the president? Certainly. But what if you had a president that was ready to listen? See? See the difference? But it was the Obama folks who misinterpreted it from the start and called it racist. It wasn't. It was incisive an true. posted 04/21/2008 at 20:58:19
Your ignorance is showing. The reason she is a Senator is because she worked her ass off in upstate NY winning over a bunch of people who never in a million years thought they would vote for her. She spent a great deal of time going from town to town, listening to people and relating to them. Something she does brilliantly. It's why, when people actually get to know her, they become such fervent supporters. She has depth. She is not hollow like Obama. posted 04/21/2008 at 20:47:22
Precisely. That's why we need HRC.
:-) posted 04/21/2008 at 20:42:21
:-) posted 04/21/2008 at 20:42:21
Oh, get over yourself. posted 04/21/2008 at 20:40:55
ROFL posted 04/21/2008 at 20:39:38
Remember a few weeks ago the brouhaha when Hillary said McCain was a heavyweight and it would take another heavyweight (her) to defeat him? Remember how the Obama nation wanted to try her for treason? But I guess that was entirely different, wasn't it?
"Typical." posted 04/21/2008 at 20:00:33
"Typical." posted 04/21/2008 at 20:00:33
Further, it was Obama's campaign and his surrogates in the media that attributed Hillary's win in NH to "The Bradley Effect." But then, I guess I'm just a typical white person. posted 04/21/2008 at 19:55:30
She's actually quite brilliant, and anyone who knows her and works with her...on either side aisle will tell you so. When you make statements like this you reveal your ignorance and your prejudice.
Brilliant campaigns don't mean anything. GW ran two brilliant campaigns, and I wouldn't say his presidencies measured up...would you? posted 04/21/2008 at 19:50:17
Brilliant campaigns don't mean anything. GW ran two brilliant campaigns, and I wouldn't say his presidencies measured up...would you? posted 04/21/2008 at 19:50:17
Duck? He'd better run for his life! posted 04/21/2008 at 19:18:42
"Slash-And-Burn" Vs. "The Kitchen Sink"
Actually, I am and have been many times. Just because one or two comments gets through doesn't mean it's not happening. posted 04/21/2008 at 17:58:45
Gee, I thought Obama himself said people should get off her case on that...Or was he just saying that for effect...and then allowing his surrogates bring it up over and over and over. Who's the liar practicing the old-time politics? posted 04/21/2008 at 17:57:09
Wow...your post is dripping with hostility and hate. I just said I thought someone was drinking some kool-aid. Also, if I recall correctly, it was the Clintons who were the prime target of the right-wing hate machine tactics that the Obama camp has adopted as it's MO. For the Obama nation, it's all hate all the time where Hillary is concerned. posted 04/21/2008 at 17:32:04
You need to learn to consider the source. Dick Morris is a political whore who works both sides of the aisle. He's out for Dick Morris and no one else. posted 04/21/2008 at 17:22:57
Actually, I am old enough to remember the 8 years of peace and prosperity we had under Bill. What's wrong with you...you a Republican troll sent here to cause trouble? posted 04/20/2008 at 23:01:49
You really have been drinking the Kool-Aide, haven't you? posted 04/20/2008 at 22:59:30
I am with you. posted 04/20/2008 at 22:56:47
You clearly don't know much history. JFK was a military hawk and an economic conservative. He came from a wealthy, and corrupt, family whose patriarch was a Hitler appeaser and made his fortune as a crime lord. He was very slow to move on civil rights and did so only under intense pressure. In fact most of his agenda was only passed because he was assassinated and LBJ was able to use that capital to ram civil rights and voting rights legislation down the throats of a reluctant nation and congress. Don't confused Teddy Kennedy with Jack.
Lieberman is a left wing radical compared to JFK. posted 04/20/2008 at 22:53:10
Lieberman is a left wing radical compared to JFK. posted 04/20/2008 at 22:53:10
So you would allow your emotions to rule you and give the supreme court fully to the republicans, allow another 4,000 boys to be killed in Iraq and another couple trillion dollars to be siphoned of to "W's Base"? Just because you're angry? No, you're not angry...you're mad (as in insane). posted 04/20/2008 at 22:43:40
Yeah, like the comment that she isn't morally fit to place a wreath at the tomb of the unknown soldier? What slur on her part brought that one on? Just askin. posted 04/20/2008 at 22:39:05
The Hillary supporters are routinely censored and banned from this site. posted 04/20/2008 at 22:33:35
Clinton And Obama Trade Insults As They Storm Through Pennsylvania
Could it be that any strong woman in this country is seen as shrill and bitchy? Just askin'. posted 04/20/2008 at 12:17:57
Over 4,000 soldiers dead. 100,000 other casualties, Families broken. People losing houses. $4.00/gallon gas. Trillions wasted. Most conservative court in decades.
There is nothing funny about it. We have to unite and defeat the repugs or we are screwed.
Let's unite. Regardless of who wins the primary, we have to support and elect them. posted 04/20/2008 at 12:10:27
There is nothing funny about it. We have to unite and defeat the repugs or we are screwed.
Let's unite. Regardless of who wins the primary, we have to support and elect them. posted 04/20/2008 at 12:10:27
"I know what side of the fence you are on. I am afraid that you will spin anything to suit your already made up mind."
Excuse me? What about this factual report tells you what side of the fence cramos is on? Well, after reading your profile, I certainly know which side of the divide you are on.
Wouldn't be better if we all lowered the temperature a bit and remembered the end game...to get a Dem in '08. Frankly, I am sorry Biden didn't win. I think we'd have a much better chance against McCain. posted 04/20/2008 at 11:28:23
Excuse me? What about this factual report tells you what side of the fence cramos is on? Well, after reading your profile, I certainly know which side of the divide you are on.
Wouldn't be better if we all lowered the temperature a bit and remembered the end game...to get a Dem in '08. Frankly, I am sorry Biden didn't win. I think we'd have a much better chance against McCain. posted 04/20/2008 at 11:28:23
Ed Randell. But Bob Casey was on, too, and didn't deny. He deflected by trying to point out things the Clinton camp said. Sorry, but this one just seems a little over the top to me. We are all supposed to be Americans, here. posted 04/20/2008 at 11:16:13
Just heard it on Face the Nation. posted 04/20/2008 at 10:52:27
Obama supporter maintains "Clinton is unfit to lay a wreath at the tomb of the unknown soldier." Wow! Now that's an uplifting campaign message. Not negative at all. Changing the tone of the campaign. Doesn't this bother anyone else? posted 04/20/2008 at 10:48:38
2 comments:
I was just banned on HuffPo. I never broke any of their rules. I never posted anything that disagreed with the authors. I have no explanation for why I was banned, but it has surely soured me on HuffPo, and now I am searching for a new place to find news. Banning posters who never used foul language, or attacked anyone personally, well, it's just so un-American. What happened to free speech?
I'm not even sure whether or not I've been banned on HuffPo! I had ONE message deleted, and now (days later, after being allowed to post over a dozen other comments) I suddenly find that I cannot log in to comment; but I've never been sent any message saying "Sorry, but you've been banned from commenting" or any other form of clear notification of a ban. It might just be a software bug on HuffPo - I've had problems with those as well. Repeated email to HuffPo tech support has been answered with a totally uninformative boilerplate message.
Post a Comment