So it's to be HIllary - maybe that's not a bad thing after all

We might actually win in the general election.

vote and the women and a good chunk of the Indies, If not kiss the GE goodbye.
Be prepared for a tough race!

He'll be a shoo-in if the false flag operation works as planned.

McCain would not have invaded Iraq if he was president, I'm convinced. But he thinks like a crazy general---it's either victory or surrender, dishonor and all that crap. He's confusing Iraq with WWII and cavalierly allows more American military to die and be maimed for a victory that I don't think he can even define.

I do think, overall, he would be worse, with some minor improvements in eloquence and candor.

:shrug:

Duke

It won't change anything. The winner is always chosen in advance of the actual voting.

:tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat:

It's a bit early to be calling it for Hillary.

n/t

:woohoo:

were no delegates at stake, HRC got the most votes of any candidate running in either party. McCain came in second, Romney came in third, and Obama came on forth. Edwards, who came in seventh, was beaten by both Guliani and Mike Huckabee.

Although the pundits and obama supporters will write off the HRC win in Florida as a beauty contest,I can't help but to think that when a candidate who didn't campaign in the state at all comes in first ahead of all the Republicans who have been campaigning hard there, that is too significant to ignore. And it'an even bigger victory because the Democrats who voted for Hillary knew their vote didn't even count.

So if the Democrats don't blow it by electing Obama I think this is an indication that Hillary would win by a landslide in the general election.

that there was a very important tax issue on the ballot, and that was believed to have an effect on voters.

I agree with most of what you asid, but you don't help Senator Clinton at all by basing statements on misinformation, it actually hurts her with others who are informed.

But remember, the GOP's not going to sell McCain, but the Iraq war instead. You sell the Iraq War (we've already invested so much . . .), and you've sold McCain. Hill needs to work tirelessly to make voters aware just how much a continued American presence in Iraq will cost us, and what we'll have to give up.

So they'll point to another monster instead and that's why I think they need another false flag operation. At least Hillary has managed to navigate the way as somewhat of a hawk and therefore won't be completely demolished if a false flag operation is in fact played before the general election.

We do know, however, for sure, that the media will be selling FUD like it's ice cream in hell.

Fear
Uncertainty
Doubt

After all, if FUD can sell poison for household use, it can sell us an alien infected presidential candidate too.

Wikipedia describes it better than I would...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag

False flag operations are covert operations conducted by governments, corporations, or other organizations, which are designed to appear as if they are being carried out by other entities. The name is derived from the military concept of flying false colors; that is, flying the flag of a country other than one's own. False flag operations are not limited to war and counter-insurgency operations, and have been used in peace-time; for example, during Italy's strategy of tension.

For working people, not so good. She'll give us all the cold shoulder the day after inauguration while tripping over herself to kowtow to the robber barons. For Iraqis, it means more death and destruction.

And I could probably think of more, it's nasty, it sucks, but there's little we can do about it and the alternative is HORRENDOUS.

As a leftist, maybe I can apply for political asylum in Cuba.

My problem with Hillary was never that I thought she'd make a terrible president, it was that I thought Edwards would make a better one.

:applause:

Dennis should be president. Al Gore should have stepped up. Edwards should have lied about his anti-corporate ideals, merely hinting at them until elected. Now, given the choice available, it's Hillary or nothing. I don't believe that Obama can win in November, even with a strong VP.

the Repuke base gets fired up and the Independents will run to him.

It's going to be tough with either one as our nominee with McCain as the opponent.

In the GE we'll find out how badly Americans really want the occupation of Iraq to end.

Obama is closing a huge gap on her within 10 days.

10 days is a lifetime in presidential politics.

Bwaaahaaaa.........
First of all, have we not learned our lessons about polls? (N.H.)

Secondly, just about never will a politician hold a 15 point lead on another politician that is worth his weight in salt......Of course obama is tightening up as it gets closer. If it didnt get tighter I would think there was something fishy going on. No one ever said it was gonna be 10 to 12 point blowouts across the country. BUT, look at the states where she does still have the 5 to 10 point leads. New York, California, New Jersey, Texas, Mass, etc....We are talking most of the delegates. Anyway, who ever was a few posts up talking as if they knew something about the G.E. and lossing if it were McCain vs Clinton, well, sorry I dont buy you reasoning. Chris Matthews and Joe Scarborough were just saying how McCain would have a very hard time against Clinton because he looks to be so tired and worn out. Also he is not very well liked across the board. His war stance is not sitting well with the 'general' population. Etc, etc. They also said with obama its a toss up. It remains an unknown about him vs McCain. It is too unpredictable because we dont know how obama will hold up against the Rethugs.

Anyway, dont take my word for it. Go to the msnbc.com website and watch the video. to much talking outta your As* going on around here......