By about 8%. Honestly, I thought he’d be down further so I’m not too upset.
Yeesh. Now we know how Up With People will vote, I guess.
Next up to support Hillary - Shields and Yarnell! (Wikis provided for the under 35 set.)
Hillary is beginning to remind me of the guy from the Halloween movies. Just when you think she’s dead, she’s the most dangerous. Obama has a very slim lead in Wisconsin. Hillary has gone negative, and that so often works in campaigns. If she pulls off an upset in WI, then gets the doubleheader sweep in OH and TX, she may well still get the nomination.
In which case, say hello to President McCain and four more years of war in Iraq and economic recession.
Hillary ain’t Bill. I’ll vote for her over McCain, but I sure hope Obama gets the nomination.
It will still be a tough battle for McCain, and it may well depend on what happens between now and Nov with the economy, the situation in Iraq, and any potential terror attack on the US.
But let’s not write Hillary off too soon in the primary. She may be the underdog now, but not by much. A few more wins, and she starts looking like she has momentum. I would also not rule out some compromise over MI and FL that somehow favors her.
If she cheats her way to a primary victory that way, there’s no way she wins the general election. Obama supporters would be way too pissed to go vote for her.
Can you explain that “cheating” allegation?
Yeah, because you’ve demonstrated such intellectual honesty, integrity, and insight into debating tactics on the Obama/Clinton topic, I’m absolutely thrilled by the prospect of explaining why lawyering in delegates from states where Obama’s name wasn’t even on the ballot and strong-arming superdelegates to over-ride public sentiment is “cheating,” just so you can tell me it’s essential to the debate to call me a name and tell me that such name-calling is essential to any debate and part of the rules of any debate. You know what? No. Go ahead and root for the cheater and hope that she wins so the pundits can laugh at how the Democrats blew it when the support for Republicans was at an all-time low and they had a dynamic, charismatic candidate with enormous crossover appeal and tossed him aside for an unlikeable, unliked, relentlessly negative and divisive candidate who didn’t have a prayer.
IOW, no you can’t. Got it.
I’m pretty excited. Tomorrow morning I am going to the Austin HQ for Obama and will be receiving training to be a “precinct captain.” I have a suspicion that it’s just a fancy name for a volunteer, but I’ll be making phone calls and supposedly doing some sort of outreach to potential voters. It’s kind of exciting. If you are in Texas, there a lot of volunteer opportunities. Lots of get togethers. From the barackobama.com site, there’s a link for “Find Events.” I might try to entice my friends who run to join in the Walk/Run around Town Lake event.
I actually just did. Lawyering in the delegates from Michigan and Florida is cheating. We’ll call the lying attack ads as politics as usual. The question is, why would anyone support someone who plays by rules that she makes up as she goes along, lies through her teeth, and hasn’t a prayer of winning the presidency? A vote for Hillary is a vote for McCain, and a vote for McCain is a vote for a third Bush term. Good luck with that.
It would be playing Calvinball with the already agreed upon rules for nakedly self-serving motives It would absolutely be an unfair, post hoc manipulation of the machinery and don’t kid yourself that it wouldn’t be perceived as cheating by a numerical majority of the party.
If Hillary’s going to win this, she’s going to have to do it on the square. The ship has sailed for her having any opportunity to put her thumb on the scale without serious repurcussions from her own party. I think that, at this point, the party will accepts her as the nominee only if she wins a majority of the pledged delegates. That might be seen as a disappointment to many, but would be accepted as fair. Any attempt to wrest the nomination away from Obama if he wins a majority of the pledged delegates will fracture the party. I like Hillary. I wouldn’t mind seeing her become POTUS, but I don’t think I could vote for her in good conscience if she were to (in my mind and millions of others) steal a nomination from Obama if he’s won the majority of votes. We went through that in 2000. I would seriously consider voting for Mccain if Hillary takes this nomination unfairly.
Godspeed, my fair-bottomed friend.
Well she’s sure not going to do it if her idiot of a husband can’t keep his trap shut. His latest gem:
The arrogance is simply stunning.
The article goes on to say, “For the record, in the 1990s, Obama was a civil rights attorney, community organizer, and was in the Illinois state senate.”
I used to be really angry that he abandoned Al Gore and didn’t help him in his bid for the Presidency, thinking it might’ve been the thing that would’ve tipped the scales. Now I’m damn glad he had nothing to do with it – who knows how much worse he could’ve made it!
Someone has pointed out that whenever Clinton uses the word “literally,” “explicitly,” or “actually,” he’s lying about (or severely misrepresenting) whatever follows. Earlier this week he said something like, “Obama has explicitly said nothing good happened in the 90’s.” It would be a lie without “explicitly,” but with it, it is somehow over the top and almost funny or pitiful.
Given the fact that Bill Clinton was investigated for allegedly shady real estate dealings in the Whitewater scandal, shouldn’t he avoid the phrase “If you believe that, I got some land I want to sell you?”
I love that website. There’s a certain Radiohead-esque bizarreness to it.
Agreed, except for voting for McCain. Future Supreme Court nominees might – might – be enough to force me into nose-holding and Hillary-voting; more likely I’ll either write in Obama or just blank the ballot for President, for the first time since I came of age to vote.