Fed up with Obama

I hope his PLEDGED delegates leave him. Invincibility cloak seems to have dropped recently. I wish Hillary would attack more, however. Enjoy the bloodbath at the debate, it's about time he got owned again.

Sorry--Don't expect a Hillary supporter to not feel some massive hatred at this site. Al Gore has proven that you can do more through direct action than politics. People are just haters, and so we end up with a candidate who get nominated on "I'm not Hillary Clinton, and who needs a resume to run for president?" That's pathetic. People point to his Harvard. Bush pointed to Yale. I shouldn't even be so upset, in the poll of polls on CNN @ cnnpolitics.com, she still has the Dem majority. But I expect more from progressives. The root word is progress, people. You don't go electing a neophyte if that's what you really want. I'm not happy with Obama, and I don't think he will win. Canada looks so nice right now.

Link?

So, given the implausibility of Clinton recovering to win the nomination, you'd rather tear down the frontrunner, or cause his pledged delegates to leave him, thus having the delegates decide the outcome at the convention...the very undemocratic predicament everyone fears?

(I don't have a link, this is copied from a post somewhere else, I can't recall where I found it.)

Senator Obama's record from the Library of Congress. I have to mention that Senator Obama's list is too substantive, one is coalesced to categorize. Since its alot, remember you can go to the Library of Congress website, and check it out yourself, but I am just summarizing his first 8 months.

During Senator Obama's first 8 eight months of elected service he sponsored (or co-sponsored?) over 820 bills.

He introduced 233 bills regarding healthcare reform,
125 bills on poverty and public assistance,
112 bills on crime fighting,
97 economic bills,
60 human rights and anti-discrimination bills,
21 ethics reform bills,
15 gun control,
6 veterans affairs and many others.
In his first year in the U.S. Senate, he authored 152 bills and co-sponsored another 427. These included:
(1)the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 that became LAW,
(2)The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act that became LAW, (3)The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act that passed the Senate,
(4)The 2007 Government Ethics Bill that became LAW,
(5)The Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill that is in committee just to name a few.

near-landslide numbers.

Do you like pizza?

She didn't lose a single state.

But that loan she gave herself was calculating interest yesterday...lol

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Very poor choice of words.

Ew.

:sarcasm: :thumbsdown:

Perhaps the OP may wish to reflect?

is no connotation to that statement, except on a broader level that might apply to anyone, regardless of race...

pimped? I thought that was just how young people talk.

Sheesh.

And subverting the will of the VOTERS. How very democratic of you.


:eyes:

Are not the will of the people. Get real, it's nothing more than a popularity contest. Admit it, you Obamites don't want to see anything knock Obama off of his pedestal because you see him as perfect. BO needs to prepare himself for the repug hate that will come his way.

I realize that he's a human being and a politician, and there are more than a few things that I don't like about him. Furthermore, I love, love, love seeing your gal fuck up her campaign. I want more of it. She's turning out to be spectaculary tone deaf. Any you HIllbots are blind to it in your adoration of St. Hilly.

Popularity contest?

These are ELECTIONS my friend, not popularity contests, and pledged delegates represent the votes of the people.

You really believe bush beat Kerry on the basis of competence? LOL. That's funny.

(Yes, he stole it but Kerry couldn't overcome the margin of error.)

It's always a popularity contest in America. Why do you think Axelrod has so relentlessly promoted the "rock star" image of Obama.

has been voted in solely on the basis of competence.

I think not only do voters need to LIKE a candidate, they need to like the substance behind him or her, and her message.

Hell america LOVED Guiliani,america's mayor remember? They rejected him for his presidential bid. Same with fred thompson.

If it was a straight up popularity contest then both Hillary and Rudy would have had the nod as they were both wildly ahead in national polls.

As soon as the MSM realized McCain would be a better candidate, they began releasing hit pieces on what a thug Guiliani truly is and he began to sink like a stone while McCain arose from near-oblivion back to the top. If Romney weren't a Mormon, he would be the leading candidate, flippety-flop or not.

I have never "liked" a candidate, except for Jimmy Carter, and that's because I was young and impressionable. He sure had his warts, as it turns out, personality-wise, but I still respect him immensely. Reagan was voted in on nothing but popularity and the disgusting manipulation of the hostages. Fred Thompson was supposed to be the next Reagan, but he really didn't give a damn.

The MSM controls the message and the perception. It will only get worse, and worse, and worse. Obama needs to shake the image of being a teeny-bopper's dream date. It's really hard to cut through that kind of fluff and see him as a serious person, no matter what kind of record he has or doesn't have.

I thought you said it was a popularity contest? So now its MSMs fault?

The MSM wrote McCain off for dead until IO and NH...what are you talking about? The MSM didnt coronate him, the VOTERS did.

And the manufactured image of "america's mayor"? Maybe so, but he was winning the popularity contest big time and got crushed in the primarys.

Sorry, your popularity contest comparison doesnt hold much water.

Basic human psychology. It's all image-crafting. Would Guiliani have been popular if the MSM had crafted him from the beginning as a ghoul, feasting on the bones of the 9/11 dead, as they should have done with bush?

How about the media allowing the swift boaters every opportunity to state their false claims against Kerry, how about the images of the purple band-aids at the Convention and all? You don't think that hurt Kerry's popularity? He was a candidate who needed all the help he could get in appearing likable. Competence didn't matter, and Kerry couldn't shake the appearance of being aloof, because the media never showed him as a down to earth person. Then there was bush, with his blue shirt, sleeves rolled up to the elbow.

Radio listeners thought Nixon won the debate; TV watchers thought Kennedy won the debate.

See what you want to see, it doesn't matter anyway.

you are the one seeing what YOU want to see because you cant recognize that:

1. your candidate had very high negatives to begin with
2. did not plan any sort of campaign after feb 5
3. surrounded herself with a couple of really knuckleheaded advisers ruining her campaign
4. was not able to keep Bill in check
5. has essentially ran a pretty poor campaign (not her fault, her advisers fault)

None of those things have anything to do with popularity, they have to do with campaigning, getting your message out there and presenting yourself well. She wasnt up there talking about her favorite team to curry favor with sports fans, etc etc etc. That is a popularity contest.

Look, Hillary could have been a contender, she could have gotten this nomination. All her advisers needed to do was maintain the lead she HAD in your so called popularity contest.

Swiftboating doesnt go to "popularity" but goes back to issues and concerns voters have with their candidate.

You can try and dice this in your head any way you like but there is more to it then "Hey I like this guy/gal".

I support Hillary for reasons that have nothing to do with whether I like her or think she's popular, and I don't support Obama for reasons that have nothing to do with whether I dislike him or mistrust his popularity.

I didn't ask you for a list of your perceptions of why you're against Hillary. Why you posted them, I don't know. How about a list of your reasons for supporting Obama, without including you'll think he'll win against McCain. Look how they've rallied around him on a negative issue of lobbyist influence/potential affair.

It's still a popularity contest. If the media had treated Ms. Clinton with the respect she deserves, Obama's campaign wouldn't be fueled with "Hillary Hate." Even Al Gore said the media was turning it into a horse race.

What about Edwards? Squashed by the media. It was clear as day to me. I don't know how you saw it.

You can't slide a piece of paper in between Hillary and Obama on policy issues. The main difference is, she's willing to vote her commitment on the record. Business gives Hillary an 85% rating and Obama an 80% rating. Soros supports Obama, and he just bought two million shares in Halliburton. Take away the IWR, what have you got? No difference.

Maybe I simply find Hillary more believable, and that has nothing to do with whether I like her or not. I felt the same way about Carter and Gore. I didn't even vote for Bill Clinton, nor his opponents. Likability doesn't sway me.

I wrote a list of why her campaign isnt working, making the point that it has little to do with popularity but more to do with the disasterous way her campaign was run. I have a different list of why I dont support Hillary

The media follows polls, plain and simple...and I liked edwards, I liked his message. But the media didnt squash him anymore than they coronated McCain. Early on Hillary had almost all of the press until Barack became a candidate that might beat her. Edwards didnt carry his numbers over from 2004...he was way behind in the polls and eventually became irrelevant in the race.

As for why I like Barack:

I like the fact that he graduated off a law scholarship to harvard but chose to go back to the slums of Chicago to help people in those slums, when he COULD have gone straight to a law firm and made millions

I like that he not only inspires me but seems to inspire a lot of americans, I like the fact that that inspiration brings people together, not tear them apart which will make it easier to get things done in politics - as we all know, that is half the battle.

I like the fact that he can hope, he wants to hope, if he even gets 5% done of EVERYTHING he HOPES to get done, that will be 100% more than HRC can get done as she chose to look at all of these lofty things he wants to get done as false hopes.

I like the fact that he is ON RECORD in opposition to the Iraq war in Oct of 2002 when it was a very unpopular position to take, Hill was the LAST dem to admit she made a mistake - even Edwards admitted it was a mistake.

I like Baracks message, I like that he is far less polarizing than HRC which means it will be far easier for him to build a working coalition between the parties to get things done.

I LOVE the fact that Barack makes me believe we can make this country great again, that we can undo the damage done by GWB and co, I am sorry Hillary does not make me believe that.

I love that people are EXCITED for the first time in years to vote for Barack.

I dont like that Hillary voted that Iran's army be considered a terrorist organization giving GWB essentially authorization to bomb iran considering we are still in the "war on terror"

I like the fact he has worked low paying jobs and is worth less than the other candidates...and I like that as recent as the mid 90s he really wasnt making that much money I dont get the sense he takes it for granted. HRCs version of "the night shift" would have been working on the Nixon Impeachment, she went straight from law school to money.

Sorry, I believe in this candidate - he makes me and many many others believe that the future COULD be different and that he has a path to get us there. Hillary doesnt make me feel any of that.

If you want a list of all of the things I dont like about HRC let me know - I can provide that too.

I won't refute them with a rebuttal list. Instead, I will take them into account and look at them seriously. This is a subject of much discussion with my friends.

I get all the info of "why not to like Hillary" from plenty of Obama supporters, thanks, but no thanks. :hi:

No worries.

Seriously I have spent the last 2 days thinking about this and I am convinced it is not HRC, it's penn and ickes, and the crew around her that are responsible for the predicament she is in right now.

Thanks so much for being decent about it. :-)

I do try to be decent, although I grant myself temporary dispensations now and then to act recklessly and go off the deep end. :)

it's made a world of difference.

But seriously thanks again for being decent :-)

Penn should DEFININATELY go, HRC would be much better off without him.

I'm basically optimistic and expect to find a pony somewhere amongst the manure. Even if I don't like to read a lot of the posts, I keep an open mind that my "opponents" may make a good point and I want to read it.

You're being pretty decent yourself. When this is all over, let's have an Internet beer. :toast:

Senior citizens and Women with children are disenfranchised in them. Popular national vote for candidate among DEMOCRATS only. That's the way the DEMOCRATIC party should elect ITS nominee.

Senior citizens are actually the most overrepresented group--bar none--in caucuses.

Put it up. Show me that senior citizens showed up at caucuses this year. By the way, it favors the loudest most aggressive voices in many caucuses, I hear. Sounds like you'd like to see your grandma at a rough and tumble caucus. Mine wouldn't survive.

http://www.journalnow.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=WSJ%2FMGArticle%2FWSJ_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1173353980823&path=!news!today

We're talking historical advantage here. The elderly are traditionally way way way overrepresented in caucusing. The young are traditionally underrepresented.


And there has never been any evidence that the caucus process results in vote switching from entrance polling.

These are kids he's bringing to the caucuses. When I was young, I voted for Nader. Sad, but true. I am now about beating republicans. Their votes for Obama reflect the fact that Republican primaries were pointless to attend. It is about eliminating Hillary, not supporting Obama.

overcome huge systematic biases against his support base.

just like i did

Obama will win the nomination. That is as far from "tossing away" your vote as it gets.

but only read the handful of anecdotal testimonials of a few biased, bitter partisan Hillary supporters where she was voted down overwhelmingly. I wonder how their "reports" would be different if Hillary had won?

I have participated in both Caucuses and Primaries, and prefer Caucuses. I find them more democratic.

any campaign with any ground game can help women with children get there. and although it can be tough, i somehow raised 5 and never missed an election. we aren't helpless or nincompoops. we can figure it out.

OED: "deprive (someone) of the right to vote"

Senior citizens were deprived of their constitutional rights?
Link?

He's never been "owned" by Hilly. And I sure hope you're right and she attacks. She sucks the big one when it comes to attacking. Every time she flings shit the prevailing winds blow it right back in her lovely face. It'll be fun to see if she's tone deaf enough to try it tonight. Gotta admit, it's fun watching dear Hilly torpedo her own flailing, miserable campaign. And fun watching you Hillybots freak the hell out.

face it, if the media hadn't hyped him up, you wouldn't even know who he is, especially since he hasn't DONE anything. you do see it as fun. good. enjoy. I am a hillary supporter and a militant one. Obama's nomination, if it really has a chance of happening, will be one con.

I knew who he was from the time he made his speech in front of the dem convention 4 years ago. Don't assume that just because you're poorly informed that others are. And I went to see him speak 2 years ago when he was here in Vermont campaigning for Bernie. You do know who Bernie is, right? Probably not. And he's an accomplished man and I'm educated regarding his record, history and accomplishments. You don't seem to be educated about.... anything, militant Hilly supporter.

You're simply another bitter, petulant supporter of a losing candidate. Dime a dozen- or rather dime a hundred.

what exactly makes me wrong: do you say he has a superior resume? doubt it. you assume you know him, just like you assume me to be uneducated. you probably assumed BO wrote his own stuff. I'm just glad he won't be able to do so at a moment's notice in the debate. you think he'll win the debate? you're full of assumptions, you are.

comprehension problem. Obama has less experience than Hillary. He's 14 years younger than she is. But he does indeed have enough experience and he's demonstrated good judgment- something that's at least as important as experience. His resume is impressive, and anyone who isn't a hack should be able to acknowledge that.

I don't assume you're generally uneducated despite the poverty of your written language skills. I assume you're uneducated about Obama beause you've demonstrated that. No, militant Hilly supporter, I don't assume that Obama writes his own speeches- though he did write the speech he gave at the Convention 4 years ago. I actually know something about Presidential campaigns- present and past.

Obama has held his own in the debates. He's not as good a debater as she is, but he doesn't have to be- particularly at this point. All he has to do is hold his own, just as he did in the last debate.

As for being full of assumptions, take a look at your OP, pal. It's full of 'em. I'm writing things that are fact based. You aren't. Not even close.

Have fun going down with the S.S. Hilly. I'm enjoying watching it sink.

I'm not strung up. I'm probably much younger than you are, and despite my command of the English language, I feel no need to impress you. I could, of course, offer my academic history, but I "assume" that simply using appositives and correct grammar I will convince you that I can write a sentence. The real question you should ask yourself is: would it matter? You think Obama's resume is ENOUGH? It's about the BEST resume, Pal. Wake up.

I will support Obama, don't get me wrong. We're talking about people in the race now. And Bill Richardson wasn't as vocal about moving toward Universal Health Care. Let's face it--this should have been a race between Gore and McCain if we're going to the resume.

I agree if it were best resume and Gore were running, it would be Mac vs Gore. But Richardson was certainly the most qualified candidate of those running. Biden was a close second. Hillary, perhaps fourth behind Dodd.

You're just supporting the point. It's about who is running, and Hillary is. Richardson was.

You claim that "it's about the candidate with the best resume." Richardson had the best resume. If your premise holds, Richardson would have been the nominee.

However, of the eight, the person with the fourth-best resume and the person with the fifth-best resume (or fifth and sixth, depending on where you stick DK) are currently the two remaining. Therefore, it pretty clearly is not about the person with the best resume.

Unless, of course, you are suggesting that it became "about the person with the best resume" the instant it became Hillary v. Obama.

When we're talking about universal health care, Hillary's experiences, failures and triumphs put her over the top. That's the number one issue. You can talk about hope once you take care of your own citizens. All of them.

If that's the case, why didn't Kucinich win the nomination? He's had a real universal care plan from day one. His plan was single-payer, too, while Hillary's plan only has mandates that people purchase private for-profit insurance. John Edwards' plan was more progressive than Hillary's was, too; his was also universal, but he moved towards single-payer by allowing families making up to 2.5x the poverty line to be covered by medicare.

No, the only way that makes sense is if you think the race was about who had more experience attempting, but failing, to pass health-care reform from an unelected position in 1993. That's silly.

Single Payer must be achieved through evolution not revolution a la Kucinich. I voted for Nader once pal, no thanks on the unelectable choice there. Hillary's plan to use the congressional formula already in place is brilliant. I can't believe Obama hasn't ripped that one off yet.

it's not about the best resume, pal. It's about a combination of factors. Hilly, for instance, has demonstrated very poor judgment. She did so in voting for a blank check for bushy. And don't even begin to argue that it wasn't a blank check. It was and several Senators warned that it was prior to the vote.

It's about experience and judgment and intelligence and leadership ability and organiztional ability and the ability to surround yourself with capable and ethical people. It's about the abilty to listen and to chart a clear course to realize your agenda. Hilly has shown through her miserable failure of a campaign that she is lacking in several of these critical attributes. Obama has demonstrated that he has them.

So no, pal, it's not just a about a resume. That's patently absurd. Anyone who's ever had to hire knows someone can look great on paper and can be a poor candidate- just like your gal.

You're disrespectful slander upon my writing style shows you are pretty damn strung up. You disrespect Hillary by calling her Hilly. I couldn't go around calling "Bussein" or something, could I?

And no, no one can fake 35 years of experience. I can't believe your self indulgent snobby attitude actually passes for intelligence.

Actually, I'm glad you repeatedly call her Hilly. You're right, I do need to be educated on the techniques of elitist blogging.

Oh, that's how you do it when someone is a jerk.
Congrats, you're the only DU'er on my ignore list.

Plenty of militant Hillary supporters there. If you don't like what DU has to offer, then by all means go away.

Always sniffing the ground Obama walks. Don't even dignify it.

obama is a dufus with slightly less intelligence. A cross between a no talent preacher teacher and Mr. McGoo. If they don't learn it now, they'll have it served to them on a platter in November.

I wish Hillary could ask him questions. He'd be slobbering all himself.

He's also the author of two bestselling books. You should check them out, but then, you're a "militant Hillary supporter", so I'm sure you want to remain ignorant about the winning candidate.

after Hillary concedes a week and a half after another string of losses, will you be willing to back Obama? Yes/no? Or just sit at home and sulk for 4 years while things improve other than what Chimp in Chief has already destroyed....

Hawkeye-X

When you think about it, it's been one big hyped-up affair from the very beginning, starting with all the "the rising star of the Democratic Party" hype that started taking place before the 2004 Democratic Convention. Obama has a great team of image makers behind him, choreographing him every step of the way. It's all an illusion.

Shoo...

:evilfrown:

long time and have never been mocked because of my profile?

someone show up on the site guns-a-blazin' about a particular candidate or issue and arouses suspicion -- then a quick look at their profile reveals a newbie who has been here for three days and has hundreds of posts, all about the one candidate or issue. It's just a quick and dirty way to play spot the troll, and DUers tend to call them on the bullshit.

Obama picked up after winning the majority of the votes, delegates, and states. His "invincibility cloak" is glued by the delegate mathamatics. Game over.

Thanks, Kansas! Hope you vote Dem in November!

And may have taken NJ too. He closed to within 15 in NY, whereas he won his state of IL by 30.
Remember, Hillary had her HUGE name recognition and organizational machine advantage especially in these big states that were so pushed up in the primary schedule. With more time, there is little doubt Obama would probably have taken CA and maybe NJ too (though that's so close to NY).
He would have certainly gotten closer in NY in NJ. He's the one who has had to play so much
catch-up here.

NY CA and NJ... we should the other's even bother. Gosh... Obama sure better hope he get's those three swing states in the GE. :sarcasm:

Only certain blue states matter, huh?

When was the first time? :shrug:

:hi: :patriot:

why is he winning?

Because you're too bitter to see that he's actually a better candidate and is running a better campaign than HRC.

asking for our vote...Clinton hasn't once and don't harass us at all"


this was a man and wife.

very interesting eh?

The delegate system was set up to prevent something like this: a 35 year resume so strong everyone frames her campaign as 'inevitability' get trounced by a fad that may or may not wear off by November. I seriously think this is a gender con-- who wants to look down and have to lie to their daughters: "Yes honey, if you have a superior resume, you'll be hired for the job regardless of your gender." That's why there are SO many female CEOs out there. Obama can't claim the same on the race issue--he isn't in the position of having the superior resume.

And that's a burning truth for all these Hillary hating Obamanauts.

Gender aside, the best person to campaign isn't always the best person to be president.

Even so, it was that inevitable meme that got me early on. Annoying as hell when no one had cast a vote. And you can't take away the mistakes she's made in her campaign. That has nothing to do with gender either. Perhaps she and her advisers shouldn't have been so quick to dismiss the 50 state strategy. Obama gets it, Hillary does not. Assume nothing. Every state is important.

and none from the Clinton campaign.

1. Clinton will try to use superdelegates to overturn the will of the people's elected delegates.
2. Clinton's campaign suggested they would try to actually buy off pledged delegates.

for weeks. I can't be expected to bring you up to speed on everything that's occurred this campaign. Anyway, your links:

Clinton targets pledged delegates:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8583.html

Clinton is considering using superdelegates to overturn the will of pledged delegates:
http://www.delegatehub.com/ (a propaganda site literally created and run by her campaign)

Neither link even suggests that she would try to "buy" delegates.

Sad, but that's what you said they suggested...

I especially like the last sentence from the first link:

"In other words, Clinton and Obama will have to go after every delegate who is alive and breathing."

Which is what I was calling for originally. Thanks for the link. Notice it says Clinton AND Obama will have to go after delegates. She seems to be ahead of the game.

There are two ways to convert delegates: buy them with influence, or buy them with contributions to their campaign. They don't just switch allegiance because they like your tie. And the first link is suggesting that Clinton and Obama will have to go after every pledge delegate, yes. Why? Because Clinton is--in an unprecedented move--going after pledged delegates, and Obama will have to play defense.

ElsewheresDaughter's comment below.

Clinton isn't even going after unpledged delegates in Texas, and you buy your own BS?

her own campaign site is wrong? That she isn't going to go after superdelegates?

Wow, you're naive.

:rofl:

I'm practically begging for her to. You've gone off on a tangent, Obamanaut

link to refute your bitter babblings.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5551035.html

Of course she's going after Texas superdelegates. Everyone is. The problem would be if Clinton were to use superdelegates to overturn the will of pledged, elected delegates. Obama has called for the SDs to vote along with the people. Clinton has taken the opposite stance (link already provided).

So was Jesse Jackson strong arming and threatening a Black Super Delegate for Obama based on their same color skin.


All of this is such a fucking joke.And the Obama people just laugh and make fun of you and ignore it just like the bushies do when Bush does something wrong.

IT'S SICK.

I'm not here to troll, I'm just late... Men are lazy, I am lazy I admit. However, I feel as if i were duped into laziness by the 'inevitable' word force-fed to us by the media. :) Hillary isn't lazy.

You're an idiot and nothing will change this fact.

...and the temperature outside my house this morning was -21 Celcius. There's 1.5m of snow on the ground and more expected tomorrow.

Still think Canada is "looking good?" The grass always seems greener, BELIEVE me.

right now--maybe banff :) I wish we could just give countires' executive power to the UN. There'd be no f'in wars if everyone lived without being treated like ants in invisible cages.

Calgary is the closest thing Canadians have to Dallas, TX. Banff is incredibly beautiful, but about as expensing as living in Aspen, CO.

As to the executive power going to the UN, talk to another Canadian - Chairman MO:

http://www.afn.org/~govern/strong.html

One of the scariest men in the world.

I understand if you are frustrated, but your rant is completely non-sensical. Cool down, and look at Obama with an unprejudiced eye. You will like what you see.

And I am allowed to totally disagree with it.

Your attitude could help give us all a 3rd W Bush term.

couldn't find anything racial to bitch about in the OP?

You're another obama ground sniffer. Canada might love your low class swamp trolling. Then again, maybe only in certain parts. Like near the North Pole.

You need to chill the eff out.

The US was just fine with you with Chimpy Mc Warmonger as prez, but you want to run to Canada for Obama?

ummm...yeah.

:eyes:

your post is a piece of garbage

moving to canada to escape an obama presidency? puhleze.

your post reeks of sour grapes and an absurd ability to confuse an internet message board with reality.

...oh, Obama will get my vote, but I don't think it will matter.

I can not for the life of me understand how Obama seduced the public with a second rate MLK impersonation and NO RESUME to speak of.

Hell,after seeing Deval saying the same words Obama has I think he is second rate to DEVAL himself! AND,Deval has accomplished absolutely nothing after being elected with this same campaign.But does the media pick up on that and run with it?Nooo.

The more Qualified candidate who is actually PROGRESSIVE and will fight those fuckers tooth and nail and has proven that for decades now is being annihilated on every front as she always has been.ANd for what!?WHat did this woman do to deserve that??

She voted to allow Bush to invade Iraq if necessary,she did NOT vote for him to do it just because he wanted to!BUSH IS A FUCKING CRIMINAL and NOBODY realized that at the time.Obama COULD NOT VOTE for or against allowing Bush to invade Iraq and so how fucking easy it was for him to make a fiery speech against it - What the fuck has he done since?VOTED TO FUND THE WAR.


The things I've read about the right being in a concerted effort to vote Hillary out in Obamas name at the polls is a very real to me.I just refuse to believe that PROGRESSIVES would be seduced so easily by this man who has capitulated to Republicans since day one.

And D.U. was SO IN LOVE with Kucinich just last year but now want this guy!???Give me a break.I think you all are blinded and dazzled and just plain fucking wrong and out of your mind.

We are at SUCH a crucial point and to allow this unqualified guy who disparages The Party and two of our Finest in order to get votes - well let me just say I am just praying that The Party Leaders see him for what he is and Gives the Nomination to the right Democrat,Hillary!

If she doesn't win the Nomination I am done with politics.It will have all been in vain and fuck it,I survived the Bush years and I can do volunteer work and take care of my god damned self.Fuck this nasty sham of a game called politics.just fuck it all if The Dems take this unqaulified preacher man over Hillary.

i'm reposting my reply to elsewhere to you:

The delegate system was set up to prevent something like this: a 35 year resume so strong everyone frames her campaign as 'inevitability' get trounced by a fad that may or may not wear off by November. I seriously think this is a gender con-- who wants to look down and have to lie to their daughters: "Yes honey, if you have a superior resume, you'll be hired for the job regardless of your gender." That's why there are SO many female CEOs out there. Obama can't claim the same on the race issue--he isn't in the position of having the superior resume.

And that's a burning truth for all these Hillary hating Obamanauts.

:applause: :rofl: I LOVE THAT PIC

More non-sensical ranting from the LOSERS. Obama didn't just "go to Harvard"; he went to Harvard Law and became the editor of the best Law Journal in the country, "The Harvard Law Review."

That's a big difference with Li'l Georgie coasting through Yale on Grandpa Bush's legacy . . .

he got it on his own.

you would be best debating some policy difference between the candidates rather than an attack for the sake of attacking.

Hahahahahah.....

i did. i just quit talking to you. content of your above post is "hahahaha". that's why you aren't worth any more replies. I WISH the feeling was mutual. Quit stalking me.

.

The doorbell is ringing, a pizza for you.

While I am not that fond of Hillary Clinton, I find it difficult to support Senator Obama. There is little doubt that Obama is an inspiring speaker and extremely charismatic, but what does he say? The media while always rough on Clinton has given Obama a free pass and when Obama is confronted or attacked in any way somehow the race card gets played. The Republicans have a well oiled attack machine and will use it well come November, and regardless of anything another Republican in the White House will be a disaster for America. The Democrats are placing their cards on a balloon filled with hope and change, I hope it doesn't blow up in their faces like so much hot air.

you need to put the crack pipe down and smoke a fucking joint...

:smoke: :smoke: :smoke: :smoke: :smoke: :smoke: :smoke: :smoke: :smoke: :smoke: :smoke:

Oh, and I almost forgot...

:nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity:



go back to hillaryis44.org

90% of that came from individual, online donations. 40% of those donations were $25.00 or less.

I hear Canada is lovely. Of, course, they're not really into hate and attacking and stuff. Maybe you should try another country.

but it's the 3rd one I've read since logging on 8 minutes ago.

and still dumb.

Have fun in Canada, eh? We won't be missing you.

Please post when you move to Canada!

What kind of fool statement is that? :spank:

and assume that it was simply a gaffe, with no racial implications. But man, would that be a media firestorm if this poster worked for Clinton's campaign.

And if she really goes hard negative like you're suggesting, it will be very bad for her. Going negative hurt her in Wisconsin.

I'm sorry things look bleak.

But I don't see how people can continue to complain about what jerks Obama supporters are and ignore the Clinton supporters who are jerks.

"It's about time he got owned again."

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't mean that the way it sounds.

But if you were a Clinton spokesperson and said that, her campaign would be over.

I have gotten to the point of being disgusted by him.

and don't let the door hit ya...

Clinton vs McCain is not what I'm looking for in a Presidential race. A "neophyte" is just fine. Hate away if that's what you like.