Hillary's "Elitist" Attack on Obama May Backfire
Michelle Malkin
Hillary's "Elitist" Attack on Obama May Backfire
By Richard Whalen | April 14, 2008 5:00 AM
I'm sorry but just what exactly did Obama say that was a "mistake?" In a
closed meeting for Obama fundraisers in San Francisco April 6, Obama wrongly
assumed that he was among trustworthy friends when he spoke candidly about
what he has found in Pennsylvania while campaigning for the crucial April 22
primary.
"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small
towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for twenty-five years and
nothing has replaced them. As they fell through the Clinton administration
and the Bush administration, and each successful administration has said
that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And
it's not surprising when they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or
antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or
anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations," said Obama.
While Obama spoke sincerely, a hidden recorder was preparing a transcript
that was published on Friday, April 11 on the Huffington Post website. The
big media played up the seeming issue for the desperate Clinton - her
Pennsylvania margins continue to shrink - and she eagerly grabbed it to beat
Obama with.
Under pressure of approaching defeat and desperately trying to stop Obama,
Clinton reached into her bag of tricks and brought out this gem: "Obama's
remarks are elitist and out of touch. They are not reflective of the values
and the beliefs of Americans."
Another similar attack came from Senator Evan Bayh, a Democrat from Indiana
who inherited his father's seat. He told the New York Times reporters "Mr.
Obama's remarks should serve as a warning to superdelegates that he would be
a weak general election candidate. They're [the Republicans] going to say
that we are weak on national security, that we're a bunch of high taxers and
spenders and out here in the middle of the country we don't understand
people's values. The question is, have we given them some hook they hang
their hat on to make that argument."
The subtlety of Bayh's racism may escape the casual reader. But what I think
he is saying in effect is that the superdelegates most urgent concern -
protecting and re-electing their down ticket - incumbent Democratic
officeholders including themselves - will be extremely risky behind Obama.
Governor Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania, who is Mrs. Clinton's most prominent
supporters in that state, criticized Obama for implying that rural voters
were clinging to their guns as a way of dealing with their frustrations.
But, the Mayor of Lancaster, Pa., J. Richard Gray, an Obama supporter, said
Obama did not mean that at all. Gray said "the Republicans take emotional
issues like guns and religions and use them to divide people. He's saying
the use of those issues as wedge issues plays on the bitterness that people
have and diverts attention from the real economic issues, like the disparity
between the wage earner and the rich."
The Bureau of Labor Statistics announced on April 9, 2008 that U.S. 80,000
jobs vanished in March. Does Hillary Clinton think the nation, in general,
or Pennsylvanians, in particular, should not be bitter or frustrated?
Obama's staff understands what the Clinton Democrats are trying to do. Hari
Sevugn, a spokesman for Obama, replied to Clinton's statement: "We won't be
lectured on being out of touch by Senator Clinton who believes lobbyists
represent real people and [who is] awash in their money and who can't tell a
straight story about her lengthy record about supporting trade deals like
NAFTA and China that have devastated communities in Pennsylvania and
Indiana."
The superdelegates were not born yesterday. Senator Bayh's arguments against
Obama are unconvincing and show the sweaty apprehension of the Clinton camp.
She must score an unexpectedly large victory over Obama in Pennsylvania or
she is done. If she barely squeaks through, it will be because of anti-Obama
arguments by Bayh and others which will neither be forgiven or forgotten by
black voters who are crucial to the Democrats' national victory map.
JTEM
> Hillary's "Elitist" Attack on Obama May Backfire
Sort of like the way Hillary made Obama lie to the
voters about NAFTA, and then turn around and tell
the Canadian government he was merely blowing
smoke...
Or the way that Hillary forced Obama to fly back in
time to Arab-dominated north Africa & pose for
cameras in full Arab regalia.
And now, well, and now that bitch made the "Unity
Candidate" get off his pony and marginalize all the
Democratic voters who don't support him, denouncing
them as emotionally injured (i.e. "bitter").
How does she live with herself?
And, more importantly, how the fuck are you so
retarded that you can see any of this yourself?
The context was clear. Obama was asked about -- and
was talking about -- the white, working class voters that
prefer Hillary (and likely McCain) over him.
As much as Obama is spinning it -- and as stupid as
you are for failing to see it -- Obama honestly was
spewing elitists crap. He really was.
Here it is, the ugly truth you so "Fred"-like deny:
raven1
<hypa...@comcast.net> wrote:
>http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/whalen/2008/04/hillarys-elitist-attack-on-oba.html
>
>
>Hillary's "Elitist" Attack on Obama May Backfire
>By Richard Whalen | April 14, 2008 5:00 AM
>
>I'm sorry but just what exactly did Obama say that was a "mistake?" In a
>closed meeting for Obama fundraisers in San Francisco April 6, Obama wrongly
>assumed that he was among trustworthy friends when he spoke candidly about
>what he has found in Pennsylvania while campaigning for the crucial April 22
>primary.
So what would be a *major* gaffe if said in public is somehow OK if
said in private, and the Clinton campaign is playing dirty by making
it public? Is that seriously what Whalen is arguing?
>"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small
>towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for twenty-five years and
>nothing has replaced them. As they fell through the Clinton administration
>and the Bush administration, and each successful administration has said
>that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And
>it's not surprising when they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or
>antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or
>anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations," said Obama.
>
>While Obama spoke sincerely, a hidden recorder was preparing a transcript
>that was published on Friday, April 11 on the Huffington Post website. The
>big media played up the seeming issue for the desperate Clinton
The media to me has not seemed particularly pro-Clinton during this
race, so I rather doubt that they played it up with her benefit in
mind; it would have been equally newsworthy were Obama already the
nominee.
> - her
>Pennsylvania margins continue to shrink - and she eagerly grabbed it to beat
>Obama with.
Of course. What sane person running for office wouldn't?
>Under pressure of approaching defeat and desperately trying to stop Obama,
>Clinton reached into her bag of tricks and brought out this gem: "Obama's
>remarks are elitist and out of touch. They are not reflective of the values
>and the beliefs of Americans."
I have a strong feeling that the people Obama was speaking of might
agree. The last sentence basically apologizes for them being
reactionary redneck yokels. Is that how Obama privately feels about
them? If not, his choice of words was remarkably poor, and again, if
said in public, would constitute a major, maybe even terminal, gaffe
>
>Another similar attack came from Senator Evan Bayh, a Democrat from Indiana
>who inherited his father's seat. He told the New York Times reporters "Mr.
>Obama's remarks should serve as a warning to superdelegates that he would be
>a weak general election candidate. They're [the Republicans] going to say
>that we are weak on national security, that we're a bunch of high taxers and
>spenders and out here in the middle of the country we don't understand
>people's values. The question is, have we given them some hook they hang
>their hat on to make that argument."
>
>The subtlety of Bayh's racism may escape the casual reader.
I read his comment thoroughly several times, and must admit that the
"racism" is so subtle it entirely escapes me. Perhaps someone would
care to elaborate as to how Bayh was referring, even obliquely, to
Obama's race, rather than reacting to his remarks, and how the
Republicans would spin them should he be the candidate.
> But what I think
>he is saying in effect is that the superdelegates most urgent concern -
>protecting and re-electing their down ticket - incumbent Democratic
>officeholders including themselves - will be extremely risky behind Obama.
Why would it be surprising that a "weak general election candidate"
would have that effect, or that Bayh would be concerned about it?
>Governor Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania, who is Mrs. Clinton's most prominent
>supporters in that state, criticized Obama for implying that rural voters
>were clinging to their guns as a way of dealing with their frustrations.
>
>But, the Mayor of Lancaster, Pa., J. Richard Gray, an Obama supporter, said
>Obama did not mean that at all. Gray said "the Republicans take emotional
>issues like guns and religions and use them to divide people. He's saying
>the use of those issues as wedge issues plays on the bitterness that people
>have and diverts attention from the real economic issues, like the disparity
>between the wage earner and the rich."
If that's what Obama meant, he said it remarkably poorly for one of
the most eloquent speakers I have ever heard.
>The Bureau of Labor Statistics announced on April 9, 2008 that U.S. 80,000
>jobs vanished in March. Does Hillary Clinton think the nation, in general,
>or Pennsylvanians, in particular, should not be bitter or frustrated?
Of course not. It's what he stated their reaction to their frustration
was that she objects to.
>Obama's staff understands what the Clinton Democrats are trying to do. Hari
>Sevugn, a spokesman for Obama, replied to Clinton's statement: "We won't be
>lectured on being out of touch by Senator Clinton who believes lobbyists
>represent real people and [who is] awash in their money and who can't tell a
>straight story about her lengthy record about supporting trade deals like
>NAFTA and China that have devastated communities in Pennsylvania and
>Indiana."
>
>The superdelegates were not born yesterday. Senator Bayh's arguments against
>Obama are unconvincing and show the sweaty apprehension of the Clinton camp.
Whalen's arguments in this article are so flimsy as to be made of
tissue paper. Obama gaffed, and the Clinton campaign ran with it, as
they should. Suck it up and get over it.
>She must score an unexpectedly large victory over Obama in Pennsylvania or
>she is done. If she barely squeaks through, it will be because of anti-Obama
>arguments by Bayh and others which will neither be forgiven or forgotten by
>black voters who are crucial to the Democrats' national victory map.
I'd really like to ask Whalen how he can write the above with a
straight face after accusing Bayh of "subtle racism" for his remarks
in the same article.
Lord Calvert
major candidate in the two major parties to avoid an accusation of
being an "elitist"?
Clinton: Former first lady. Graduate of Wellsley and Yale Law School.
Parlayed her family connections into a Senate seat. First entered
politics as a campaigner for Barry Goldwater.
Obama: Graduate of Columbia and Harvard Law School. Former professor
at the University of Chicago Law School. Represented the exceptionally
well-heeled Gold Coast neighborhood in the Illinois Senate.
McCain: Graduate of the US Naval Academy and is the son of a decorated
WWII submarine captain who later became a four-star admiral and is the
grandson of a decorated WWII four-star admiral. Used his strong
political connections to avoid prosecution in the Keating Five
scandal.
But, of course the most "elitist" politician is this one:
Bush: Grandson of a former US Senator and convicted Nazi collaborator.
Son of a former congressman, CIA chief, vice-president and president.
Used his family's political connections to enter Yale with substandard
grades and avoid desertion charges while in the Texas Air National
Guard. Only moneymaking business he ever ran was one where he had his
most valuable property paid for by big-government at no expense to
him.
You simply cannot get elected to major federal office in this country
without having some degree of "elitist" qualifications. All of the
four persons listed above have considerably "elitist" credentials and
have used family and political connections for personal political
gain. Indeed, it would seem that being an "elitist" is a de facto
requirement for major public office in today's political climate.
Clinton, Obama, McCain, Bush and all the rest are elitists. If they
were not, we would never have heard of them in the first place. If
they were not, we would not even consider them for the office of
President. Since they're all elitists anyway, why don't we just start
judging them all by their positions and not by their families and
their sheepskins.
Rich Goranson
Amherst, NY, USA
aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1
EAC Department of Cruel and Unusual Choreography
Douglas Berry
carved the following into the hard stone of alt.atheism
>
>> Hillary's "Elitist" Attack on Obama May Backfire
>
>Sort of like the way Hillary made Obama lie to the
>voters about NAFTA, and then turn around and tell
>the Canadian government he was merely blowing
>smoke...
Except he didn't lie. But you know that.
So, how did Saint Hillary vote on that again?
>Or the way that Hillary forced Obama to fly back in
>time to Arab-dominated north Africa & pose for
>cameras in full Arab regalia.
Yeah, because going to your family's homeland and accepting an honor
by posing in *tribal* regalia (only a true ignoramus like you could
think of that outfit as being Arabic.) is obviously a sign of being a
traitor.. like when Bill and Hiollary Clinton wnet ot Ireland.
>And now, well, and now that bitch made the "Unity
>Candidate" get off his pony and marginalize all the
>Democratic voters who don't support him, denouncing
>them as emotionally injured (i.e. "bitter").
Bitter is not emotional damage. It's a fact.
Even Fox News found this out.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/13/133215/180/386/494887
They actually went and talked to Pennsylvanians from small towns.
Guess what? They're bitter about what has ahppened to them, and the
lack of response from the federal government!
I'll now wait for you to claim that Fox News is an Obama mouthpiece.
>How does she live with herself?
We wonder. Of course, having supporters like you around doesn't help.
>And, more importantly, how the fuck are you so
>retarded that you can see any of this yourself?
Nice to see you keeping a firm grip there.
>The context was clear. Obama was asked about -- and
>was talking about -- the white, working class voters that
>prefer Hillary (and likely McCain) over him.
Now, he was talking about Pennsylvanians in the smaller towns. It's
called the Rust Belt, dude. It used to be an economic powerhouse. Now
it's dying.
>As much as Obama is spinning it -- and as stupid as
>you are for failing to see it -- Obama honestly was
>spewing elitists crap. He really was.
But did he take sniper fire?
He was telling the truth. ASn ugly truth, but the truth.
>Here it is, the ugly truth you so "Fred"-like deny:
>
>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/24094636#24094636
Gee, shall I run out the "he misspoke" excuse you use over and over to
cover for Hillary lying about taking sniper fire? Or does that only
cover people you like?
--
Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Jason Gastrich is praying for me on 8 January 2011
"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the
source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a
stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as
good as dead: his eyes are closed." - Albert Einstein
JTEM
Douglas Berry <penguin_...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
> JTEM <jte...@gmail.com>
> >Sort of like the way Hillary made Obama lie to the
> >voters about NAFTA, and then turn around and tell
> >the Canadian government he was merely blowing
> >smoke...
>
> Except he didn't lie.
But he did. No question about. He ran around the country
pretending he wanted to re-negotiate NAFTA, while his
campaign secretly contacted the Canadians and told them
that it was just a bunch of election posturing.... nothing to
worry about.
And then, after the Canadian government memo exposing
everything was leaked, they made up a story about it
being the Clinton campaign that was secretly telling the
Canadians something different....
Sorry, chump, but it really did happen:
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/03/05/news/Canada-Obama.php
> So, how did Saint Hillary vote on that again?
Vote on... what? Obama held a vote on whether or not he
should lie like a carpet?
When was that?
> >Or the way that Hillary forced Obama to fly back in
> >time to Arab-dominated north Africa & pose for
> >cameras in full Arab regalia.
>
> Yeah, because going to your family's homeland and
> accepting an honor by posing in *tribal* regalia
Wait a minute. So now you're pretending that the Obama
camp wasn't outraged by the release of the photo?
What the fuck planet do you live on? Seriously. You're
bankrupt. You're literally inventing your own reality as
you go along, all to justify your support for yet another
bible-thumping under achiever!
You're fucking "Fred Stone," fro crying out loud!
That should bother you. That should REALLY bother you.
> like when Bill and Hiollary Clinton wnet ot Ireland.
The British begged Obama in to support the Good Friday
Accords?
> >And now, well, and now that bitch made the "Unity
> >Candidate" get off his pony and marginalize all the
> >Democratic voters who don't support him, denouncing
> >them as emotionally injured (i.e. "bitter").
>
> Bitter is not emotional damage. It's a fact.
No, you latte lunk head. It is NOT a fact. Reasonable
people can reasonably find fault in your Bush...err...
Obama.
Seriously. Not following zombie-like behind the unity
pony doesn't automatically equate to emotional injury,
as his all holy prophet claims.
> Even Fox News found this out.
You're even agreeing with Fox news...
So, freak show, how long before you're blaming THAT
on Hillary?
Anyhow, we have to end this there. I mean, if you're
going to make fun of yourself like that... leaping on
the Faux "news" bandwagon like a good Bushbot...
Sheesh!
JTEM
Lord Calvert <CalvertdeG...@msn.com> wrote:
> Is it truly possible in the modern political arena in the
> US for any major candidate in the two major parties
> to avoid an accusation of being an "elitist"?
He said that the white, blue collar voters -- a group that
supports Hillary over him -- are bitter. He says that's
the reason they don't support him. The implication, of
course, is if they weren't bitter, they'd stop clinging to
guns, religions and economic protectionism and vote
for him.
No, forget what your TV tells you, READ THE FUCKING
TRANSCRIPT. That IS what Obama said. He was asked
about those white, blue collar voters, about his chances
of winning over those voters, and his answer is framed
entirely within THAT context.
Don't get it from Obama's mailing list, here it is:
Lord Calvert
> Lord Calvert <CalvertdeG...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > Is it truly possible in the modern political arena in the
> > US for any major candidate in the two major parties
> > to avoid an accusation of being an "elitist"?
>
> He said that the white, blue collar voters -- a group that
> supports Hillary over him -- are bitter. He says that's
> the reason they don't support him. The implication, of
> course, is if they weren't bitter, they'd stop clinging to
> guns, religions and economic protectionism and vote
> for him.
I didn't say that Obama wasn't an elitist. I clearly said that he was.
What I also said is that Clinton, McCain and Bush are also elitists
and that it is impossible in the current political arena for anyone to
reach high public office without having conduct, education or familial
and/or business relations that can justify a legitimate accusation of
elitism. Candidates who are not elitists simply cannot get on the
ticket in the first place (unless they're willing to do what Ventura
did) because both the Dems and the GOP find those sorts of
qualifications significant and desirable.
It seems that you are having difficulty understanding this concept, so
I will repeat. They're *all* elitists: Obama, Clinton, McCain,
Bush...the whole lousy, stinkin' lot of them. All have dabbled with
the elite in education. All have dabbled with the elite in politics.
All have dabbled with the elite in business. At that level you can't
not be an elitist and still be in the two major parties. Any
accusation of elitism by one candidate towards another are utterly
pointless.
That's why I'm not voting for any of them. In my opinion, Clinton,
Obama and McCain are all grossly unfit to sit in the White House.
JTEM
> I didn't say that Obama wasn't an elitist. I clearly said
> that he was. What I also said is that Clinton, McCain
> and Bush are also elitists and that it is impossible in
> the current political arena for anyone to reach high
> public office without having conduct, education or
> familial and/or business relations that can justify a
> legitimate accusation of elitism.
"Sponsorship," at the very least.
But what is really necessary is an ego. You have to have
a really large ego to stand up before tens of millions of
people and tell them why you -- amongst 300 million
people to choose from -- should be the one person elected
to the office of President.
But I disagree with you to a great extent.
It's pretty clear that the "Powers That Be" heavily favor
one candidate over the other. In 2000 for example, the
media was filled with a long list of "Al Gore Whoppers,"
lies that Al Gore never told. In 2004 it was the famous
swiftboating campaign. And, this year Hillary is responsible
for all of Obama's flaws. Why, according to Michelle Malkin
here, Hillary is even responsible for Obama dismissing
white blue collar voters as "bitter."
And it didn't start in 2000.
Remember Bill Clinton's haircut that held up air traffic
that never happened? Or how about Clinton allowing the
Chinese to steal all of our nuclear secrets that were
stolen in the 1980s?
You're right, you have to have the backing of some
elitist group in order to just become a serious contender
for the nomination. But it's pretty clear that the oligarchy
is NOT of one mind. And, if the best we can do is go for
the side that's down, so be it. At the very least it'll put a
little cramp in them for a while. Sure, they'll adapt soon
enough, but then so can we.
Lord Calvert
> And it didn't start in 2000.
You should read up on the mudslinging in the media that went on in the
1800 election between Adams and Jefferson. Legitimate mainstream
papers were calling Jefferson a Satanist and the anti-Christ for the
unforgivable sin of not being a Christian. The 1824 election is
another wondrous example of muck.
Ugly politics have *always* been with us. It is not a new phenomenon.
We've had this sort of political landscape since the formation of the
country. If this country still exists in 2200, we'll probably still
have it.
johac
"Michelle Malkin" <hypa...@comcast.net> wrote:
> http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/whalen/2008/04/hillarys-elitist-attack-on-oba.html
>
>
> Hillary's "Elitist" Attack on Obama May Backfire
> By Richard Whalen | April 14, 2008 5:00 AM
>
> I'm sorry but just what exactly did Obama say that was a "mistake?" In a
> closed meeting for Obama fundraisers in San Francisco April 6, Obama wrongly
> assumed that he was among trustworthy friends when he spoke candidly about
> what he has found in Pennsylvania while campaigning for the crucial April 22
> primary.
>
> "You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small
> towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for twenty-five years and
> nothing has replaced them. As they fell through the Clinton administration
> and the Bush administration, and each successful administration has said
> that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And
> it's not surprising when they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or
> antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or
> anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations," said Obama.
>
I think Obama is right. There are a many "bitter" people in this
country. After eight years of Bush, the corporate thieves, and the
neocons they are angry, neglected, frustrated, and yes, bitter. I such
situations, some people just give up and seek release in activities that
they might not do normally. Many mistakenly turn to religion in the vain
hope that it may solve their problems. Some turn to alcohol, drugs, or
other antisocial behavior.
Much of this is covered in "What's the Matter with Kansas?: How
Conservatives Won the Heart of America " by Thomas Frank . It's an
excellent book and I would recommend it.
--
John #1782
JTEM
> You should read up on the mudslinging in the media
> that went on in the 1800 election between Adams
> and Jefferson.
I wasn't talking about mudslinging, I was talking about
power... the kind of power that can steal an election,
and then convince millions of people that there was a
non-existing "media study" that concluded it was all
Al Gore's fault for asking for the wrong re-count.
That's power.
JTEM
> Much of this is covered in "What's the Matter with
> Kansas?: How Conservatives Won the Heart of
> America " by Thomas Frank .
No it wasn't. You've been fooled.
Obama wasn't airing his dissertation for a sociology
degree, as you apparently have been told. He was
answering a question. He was asked about the white,
blue collar voters that have thus far favored Hillary
or even McCain over him. He began with:
"Everyone just ascribes it to 'white working-class don't wanna
work -- don't want to vote for the black guy." ....
....and then went down hill from there.
Yes, I know, the Obama camp is actively spinning it
as something else -- Michelle Malkin here is even
trying to blame Hillary for Obama's stupidity -- but the
truth is that Obama really was dismissing a huge block
of voters as "bitter."
Here you go:
raven1
<Calver...@msn.com> wrote:
>On Apr 15, 12:53 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Lord Calvert <CalvertdeG...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>> And it didn't start in 2000.
>
>You should read up on the mudslinging in the media that went on in the
>1800 election between Adams and Jefferson. Legitimate mainstream
>papers were calling Jefferson a Satanist and the anti-Christ for the
>unforgivable sin of not being a Christian.
There were also rather bawdy songs in public circulation about his
alleged relationship with his slave (and purported mistress) Sally
Hemmings.
> The 1824 election is
>another wondrous example of muck.
My personal favorite is still Grover Cleveland, who had fathered a
child out of wedlock, being followed around on the campaign trail by a
band of paid hecklers chanting "Ma, ma, where's my pa? Gone to the
White House, ha ha ha!" at every public appearance. He won.
Lord Calvert
> On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 22:02:56 -0700 (PDT), Lord Calvert
>
> >On Apr 15, 12:53 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Lord Calvert <CalvertdeG...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> >> And it didn't start in 2000.
>
> >You should read up on the mudslinging in the media that went on in the
> >1800 election between Adams and Jefferson. Legitimate mainstream
> >papers were calling Jefferson a Satanist and the anti-Christ for the
> >unforgivable sin of not being a Christian.
>
> There were also rather bawdy songs in public circulation about his
> alleged relationship with his slave (and purported mistress) Sally
> Hemmings.
And Dick Johnson still kept getting elected to the Senate from what
many considered a southern state (Kentucky) while living openly with a
black woman who he could not legally marry. Ended up as Vice
President, too.
> > The 1824 election is
> >another wondrous example of muck.
>
> My personal favorite is still Grover Cleveland, who had fathered a
> child out of wedlock, being followed around on the campaign trail by a
> band of paid hecklers chanting "Ma, ma, where's my pa? Gone to the
> White House, ha ha ha!" at every public appearance. He won.
Former Mayor of Buffalo, too. Certainly was the ideological
predecessor for Jimmy Griffin.
ath...@home.com
Amen.
atheist@home#1554
raven1
<Calver...@msn.com> wrote:
>That's why I'm not voting for any of them. In my opinion, Clinton,
>Obama and McCain are all grossly unfit to sit in the White House.
Who would you suggest as an alternative?
Lord Calvert
> On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 21:40:20 -0700 (PDT), Lord Calvert
>
> >That's why I'm not voting for any of them. In my opinion, Clinton,
> >Obama and McCain are all grossly unfit to sit in the White House.
>
> Who would you suggest as an alternative?
Frankly, I don't have one as of yet. Usually when Dem or GOP nominees
are unsuitable, as they are this year, I would vote for the LP nominee
however I could not vote for either Root or Imperato should he win the
party's nomination because they both support policies to which I am
vigorously opposed (Root is pro-voucher and Imperato is in favor of
expanding US involvement in Iraq). At the time being, Jingozian would
seem to be my personal choice however that may change once he becomes
better known. Mary Ruwart would also be a good choice and one that is
more experienced in the political arena.
JTEM
Douglas Berry
carved the following into the hard stone of alt.atheism
>
>
>> Is it truly possible in the modern political arena in the
>> US for any major candidate in the two major parties
>> to avoid an accusation of being an "elitist"?
>
>He said that the white, blue collar voters -- a group that
>supports Hillary over him -- are bitter. He says that's
>the reason they don't support him. The implication, of
>course, is if they weren't bitter, they'd stop clinging to
>guns, religions and economic protectionism and vote
>for him.
>
>No, forget what your TV tells you, READ THE FUCKING
>TRANSCRIPT. That IS what Obama said. He was asked
>about those white, blue collar voters, about his chances
>of winning over those voters, and his answer is framed
>entirely within THAT context.
and in response Obama's numbers are surging in Indiana and gaining in
Pennsylvania.
http://www.gallup.com/tag/Election%2B2008.aspx
Seems that us blue-colar types are a bit bitter.
Oh, he never said a word about "this is why they don't support me."
Having fun lying?
JTEM
> >No, forget what your TV tells you, READ THE FUCKING
> >TRANSCRIPT. That IS what Obama said. He was asked
> >about those white, blue collar voters, about his chances
> >of winning over those voters, and his answer is framed
> >entirely within THAT context.
>
> and in response Obama's numbers are surging in Indiana
> and gaining in Pennsylvania.
He won New Hampshire, too. And he went from 18 points
behind in Rhode Island to too-close-too-call, eventually
losing by only 18 points.
OBEY YOUR TV!
Like any good Bushbot, you can't even tell it's happening,
can you?
It's all a mystery to you, isn't it?
johac
<e9c9dfc5-af75-4d6d...@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
So he happens to be right. Many people ARE bitter.
From Roget's Thesaurus
bitter
ADJECTIVE: 1. Causing sharp, often prolonged discomfort: brutal, hard,
harsh, rough, severe. See COMFORT. 2. Difficult to accept: distasteful,
indigestible, painful, unpalatable. See LIKE. 3. Having a noticeably
sharp pungent taste or smell: acerbic, acrid, harsh, sour. See TASTE. 4.
Bitingly hostile: acrimonious, embittered, hard, rancorous, resentful,
virulent.
--
John #1782
Yang, AthD (h.c)
This has to be one of the dumbest manufactured controversies ever.
Nothing like a bunch of Washington pundits telling us how those rural
folks *really think*, because apparently they're too much of a rube to
speak for themselves.
SOME THOUGHTS on the latest diversion of Campaign '08, a campaign
apparently hell-bent on keeping the nation mired in its own stupidity.
As a native-born, small-town Pennsylvanian, a son of native-born,
small-town Pennsylvania parents - one from the coal region, one from
Lancaster County - let me assure you that the so-called offensive,
condescending things Barack Obama said about the people I come from
are basically right on target.
"Bitter" perhaps best describes my late mother, an angry Irish
Catholic who absolutely clung to her religion.
Dad, also a journalist, wasn't really bitter as far as I know, but he
sure liked to hunt.
So, despite carping from Hillary Clinton and annoying yapping from her
surrogates (really, it's like turning on the lights at night in a
puppy farm), I take no offense.
What's offensive to me is suggesting that small-town, working-class,
gun-toting and/or religious Pennsylvanians are somehow injured by a
politician's words.
Are you kidding me?
They're injured all right, but the injury is long-term and from lots
more than "just words."
They've been injured from decades of neglect by political cultures in
Washington and Harrisburg driven by special interests.
They're injured by a system of isolated, insulated political
leadership that protects itself and the status quo above all else.
They've been harmed by a lack of political guts to fix a health-care
system that works against the poor and forces middle-class families to
pay more for less, while at the same time giving politicians the best
coverage taxpayer money can buy.
They've been taken for granted by political parties and candidates who
stay in power by - and this was the apparent gist of Obama's remarks -
forcing attention and debate on issues tied to guns, religion and race
(precisely because such issues resonate) rather than real problems
such as health care and the economy.
They've been consistently made fools of by their own elected
representatives who, year after year, pull fat salaries ($169,000 for
every member of Congress; $150,000 in salary, perks and benefits for
every state lawmaker) with automatic raises no matter how little gets
done.
A new Associated Press poll shows Congress' approval rating at 23
percent. And don't even get me started on the Pennsylvania
Legislature.
Insulting?
What's insulting are the sizes of salaries and perks of politicians in
a state where the median household income is $43,714.
What's insulting is the ongoing failure of elected "leaders" to deal
with long-term, working-class worries while insuring their own futures
with hefty, over-rich pensions.
And, look, what Obama said, given a charged atmosphere close to a
critical primary, was ill-advised - not because he's wrong, but
because it changes the discussion.
The 24-hour broadcast-news cycle will jabber on this for days - the
irony being that Obama's "words," which had positioned him so well,
now threaten to trip him up.
Another irony is that the candidate running to effect change where
change is needed, and to offer hope to those without it, is suddenly
tagged as somehow diminishing those he seeks to serve.
So the question is whether Obama effectively defuses this, as he did
the controversy surrounding his former minister. And that remains to
be seen.
Just don't tell me that he insulted a state or, given his background,
that he's an out-of-touch elitist.
And I especially don't want to hear such arguments from a candidate
who spent decades in the bubble of a governor's mansion, the White
House and the U.S. Senate, and under the blanket of $109 million
income during the last eight years.
Pennsylvanians might cling to religion and guns. I hope they don't
cling to stupidity.
--
Yang
a.a.#28
"I can hardly wait for your head to explode when the Repubs hold onto
both houses of Congress this November. And Yang can quote me on that."
-Fred Stone, 6/14/2006
"FRED STONE YOU GOT PWNED. "
-laleeloolelo <at> yahoo, 12/28/2007
"Face it, Fred, you've been pwn3d."
-Bill Baker, 12/21/2007
JTEM
> So he happens to be right. Many people ARE bitter.
Wrong. To be right, that would mean the only reason
they aren't voting for him is because they're bitter.
THAT is the context of his statement.
Obama says he clings to his "faith." I guess he really
is bitter... and that's why he hangs around with
ministers who curse America, and is married to a wife
that says that she's never once been proud of her
country... they're all bitter! Everybody is bitter!
But that has nothing to do with the question he was
asked, and the answer he gave.
He was dismissing the blue-collar voters who back
Hillary as "bitter." That's why they back Hillary and
not him, according to Obama, that is the context.
JTEM
> This has to be one of the dumbest manufactured
> controversies ever.
And to prove that the media is manufacturing an
anti-Obama smear, you're producing a cite showing
a distinctly pro-Obama media blasting anyone and
everyone who doesn't like Obama or what he said.
Sheesh!!!
raven1
Can't say I'm familiar with any of them. Any links you'd suggest?
(Full disclosure: on the political graph, I'm pretty far
"left-libertarian" in both directions).
ath...@home.com
Wanna know what's really funny?
Here is what the people of small town Pennsylvania and the rest of the
midwest <As well as people in other areas> heard:
"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and like a lot of small
towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for twenty-five
years and nothing has replaced them.
As they fell through, the Clinton administration and the Bush
administration, and each successful administration has said that
somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not."
Here is what the ever astute <Somewhat elitist> political pundits,
strategists, left and right, and the "In the know" journalists heard:
"And it's not surprising when they get bitter, they cling to guns or
religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant
sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their
frustrations."
The people are looking for a message of hope and that's what they
heard while the political types are looking for gaffes and mostly
hearing that.
Silly bunch..trying so very hard to make a mountain out of a mole
hill.
atheist@home#1554
JTEM
> Wanna know what's really funny?
> Here is what the people of small town Pennsylvania and
> the rest of [...]
Those people aren't Obama voters. So, while you're
busy deciding what they heard, they seem to have
decided for themselves.
Now THAT'S funny....
Bill Baker
in message
news:<57b90b98-2baa-4e88...@b64g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>...
Um...one editorial article means that the media is pro-Obama? All I've
seen is the media desperately trying to get Hillary nominated so that
their hero, teflon John McCain, will win the presidency.
--
Funny Lurlean quote #55:
"Some sinners get so much radiation on them that they just blow up and
leave a little pile of ashes behind. If you're a standing too close,
you might get burnt up too!"
Bill Baker
in message
news:<34926257-a7ca-4f9f...@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com>...
And that's exactly what the pro-McCain media wants people to believe.
--
<glome> Who stole the cookie from the cookie jar?!
<content> glome stole the cookie from the cookie jar!
<glome> Who me?!
<content> Yes you!
<glome> Couldn't be!
<content> Then WHO?!!
<glome> Woody stole the cookie from the cookie jar!
*** glome has been kicked by DrWoody (fuck you i didn't touch the
motherfucking cookie, bitch)
Yang, AthD (h.c)
wrote:
You are free to show that actual rural Pennsylvanians are truly
insulted by this "elitist" Obama gaffe.
raven1
<wba...@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
>On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 23:20:50 -0700 (PDT), JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote
>in message
>news:<57b90b98-2baa-4e88...@b64g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>...
>> "Yang, AthD (h.c)" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> This has to be one of the dumbest manufactured
>>> controversies ever.
>>
>> And to prove that the media is manufacturing an
>> anti-Obama smear, you're producing a cite showing
>> a distinctly pro-Obama media blasting anyone and
>> everyone who doesn't like Obama or what he said.
>>
>> Sheesh!!!
>
>Um...one editorial article means that the media is pro-Obama? All I've
>seen is the media desperately trying to get Hillary nominated
You're kidding, right? And I say that as a long-time supporter of
Senator Clinton's candidacy. it appears to me that they've tried to
sabotage her from Day One, and are far more sympathetic to Senator
Obama in their coverage.
>so that
>their hero, teflon John McCain, will win the presidency.
That's as may be, but I think you're completely mistaken on the rest
of your thesis.
JTEM
> You are free to show that actual rural Pennsylvanians
> are truly insulted by this "elitist" Obama gaffe.
What the fuck?!?!
Do you have any idea what Obama even said, or why he
said it?
He was talking about the blue-collar white voters who
DON'T vote for him... AND HE MENTIONS OHIO AND
PENNSYLVANIA SPECIFICALLY.
JTEM
> Um...one editorial article means that the media
> is pro-Obama?
Ironic, to say the least, that you never questioned the
intentions of the person posting the article.
Anyhow, to bring you up to date...
#1.
Yang posted this article, claiming that a pro-Obama
media piece demonstrated that the big blue meanie
media invented the whole issue.
#2.
I pointed out the stupidity of using a pro-Obama media
slant in an attempt to prove an anti-Obama media slant.
#3.
You shit in the palm of your hand and wipe it all over
your face.
Well, figuratively....
JTEM
> And that's exactly what the pro-McCain media wants
> people to believe.
Then I guess the fanatically anti-Clinton candidate who
hates blue-collar white people really is a Republican,
and it's not just an act. Because it really is what Obama
said:
DanielSan
I don't see any sort of hatred in that at all.
(Oh, and by the way, I've bought a new computer and I am finally able to
use it now. I'm back again!)
JTEM
> I don't see any sort of hatred in that at all.
I'm trying to be as over-the-top as the Obamanations.
Yang, AthD (h.c)
wrote:
> "Yang, AthD (h.c)" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote:
And as a result everyone except for the people he is referring to are
syaing that these blue-collar white voters are deeply insulted by
remark. Where is that evidence?
Bill Baker
wrote in message news:<60hb04h8njlksj5pn...@4ax.com>...
> On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 03:24:41 -0500, Bill Baker
><wba...@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 23:20:50 -0700 (PDT), JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote
>>in message
>>news:<57b90b98-2baa-4e88...@b64g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>...
>>> "Yang, AthD (h.c)" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> This has to be one of the dumbest manufactured
>>>> controversies ever.
>>>
>>> And to prove that the media is manufacturing an
>>> anti-Obama smear, you're producing a cite showing
>>> a distinctly pro-Obama media blasting anyone and
>>> everyone who doesn't like Obama or what he said.
>>>
>>> Sheesh!!!
>>
>>Um...one editorial article means that the media is pro-Obama? All I've
>>seen is the media desperately trying to get Hillary nominated
>
> You're kidding, right? And I say that as a long-time supporter of
> Senator Clinton's candidacy. it appears to me that they've tried to
> sabotage her from Day One, and are far more sympathetic to Senator
> Obama in their coverage.
Doesn't seem like it to me, especially recently. The media latches
onto everything negative (Rev. Wright, the "bitter" comments) and
chews them over for days wondering if these will make him unelectable.
They parrot Hillary and McCain, two Washington elites, who call
Obama an "elitist" (can you see the irony?) for days.
>>so that
>>their hero, teflon John McCain, will win the presidency.
>
> That's as may be, but I think you're completely mistaken on the rest
> of your thesis.
John McCain has a better chance of winning the presidency if Hillary
is the nominee.
--
Egger: Heres the history of our medicine.
"I have a sore throat."
2000 BC : "eat this root"
1200 AD : "That root is heathen, say this prayer."
1500 AD : "That prayer is superstition, drink this elixir."
1800 AD : "That elixir is snake oil, Take this pill."
1900 AD : "That pill is ineffective, Take this antibiotic."
2000 AD : "That antibiotic is artificial, Here why dont you eat this root."
Lord Calvert
I would like to thank all of you in this thread for reminding me so
effectively why I'm not voting for Obama, Clinton or McCain and why
all of them are bad for the country.
Rich Goranson
Amherst, NY, USA
aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1
Bill Baker
in message
news:<4aaebe4d-686f-4fc2...@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>...
Uh huh. It was still only one article which doesn't exactly mean that
there's a pro-Obama media slant. The media has a conservative slant,
but that doesn't stop right-wingers from pointing to a few articles
that appear to have somewhat of a leftist slant and crying, "liberal
media!"
--
Bushism 4-28:
"I am a person who recognizes the fallacy of humans."
--On the Oprah Winfrey Show; September 19, 2000
Bill Baker
in message
news:<d149357e-c771-4358...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>...
You're really pro-Obama, aren't you? You're masquerading as a
pro-Hillary voter and saying outrageous things just to make Hillary
supporters look bad, right?
--
Bushism 6-19:
"Do you have blacks, too?"
--To Brazilian president Fernando Cardoso; Washington, D.C.; November 8, 2001
ath...@home.com
<wba...@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
>On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 23:20:50 -0700 (PDT), JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote
>in message
>news:<57b90b98-2baa-4e88...@b64g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>...
>> "Yang, AthD (h.c)" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> This has to be one of the dumbest manufactured
>>> controversies ever.
>>
>> And to prove that the media is manufacturing an
>> anti-Obama smear, you're producing a cite showing
>> a distinctly pro-Obama media blasting anyone and
>> everyone who doesn't like Obama or what he said.
>>
>> Sheesh!!!
>
>Um...one editorial article means that the media is pro-Obama? All I've
>seen is the media desperately trying to get Hillary nominated so that
>their hero, teflon John McCain, will win the presidency.
I haven't seen that myself.
I do know that some feel they are biased in favor of Hillary and some
believe they are biased in favor of Obama.
Sometimes though we all see bias where there is none and if it's our
candidate who receives negative press we are more likely to believe
it's biased than if he or she receives positive reports.
In other words if we are for Hillary and she gets a glowing review of
her attributes we say "Well yeah, I already knew that, glad to see
they are making the public aware of it," and not feel that it is
biased; but if the negatives get reported we are more inclined to say
"That's total b.s," and see it as biased.
The problem is there is often a very real bias among op-ed writers
whether conscious or unconcious and that can serve to make us see bias
everywhere.
It's difficult to tell sometimes.
atheist@home#1554
ath...@home.com
wrote:
And that's what some are trying to point out.
>Now THAT'S funny....
It's all funny.
atheist@home#1554
JTEM
> You're really pro-Obama, aren't you?
Of course! I can't see the huge media spin job for
Obama, and I honestly believe that Obama's rich
cornucopia of flaws are all the fault of Hillary
Clinton... just like every other latte lapping lunk
head.
Here's the facts, twit: Obama is the wrong man,
cased closed.
Even with all the big money behind him, all the
special interests... even with the mainstream
media -- all those huge corporations -- in lust with
him, putting the spin on everything for him... even
though the unique dynamics of the Democratic
primaries favored Obama heavily... even though they
took the delegates & POPULAR VOTE away from
Florida and Michigan -- two states Hillary won --
Obama hasn't even eeked out a 200 delegate lead.
LESS THAN 200 DELEGATES SEPERATE THEM,
even though the UNCOUNTED delegates from Florida
and Michigan -- BOTH STATES HILLARY WON --
amount to some 366 delegates.
Obama couldn't beat Hillary in a fair fight. He has to
cheat. He has to rob her of victories in Florida and
Michigan, plus find distinctly UNdemocratic loopholes
which allow him to gain more delegates even when
Hillary wins the popular vote... like in Texas.
Even doing all that, PLUS have all the millionaires on
his side AND the media lovefest ala Bush, and he
STILL hasn't taken the nomination.
HE HAS TO STEAL IT!
He's the wrong man, what's more, he's PROVEN to
be the wrong man!
With every advantage on his side, he still hasn't won
the nomination!
He can't beat McCain. He can't. He couldn't beat Hillary
in a fair fight, he's certainly not going to beat McCain.
Accept reality and move on.
JTEM
> Uh huh. It was still only one article
So you're saying it was doubley stupid of Yang, a fellow
Obamanation!
Get it? Even just a little?
Because, as you say, it's *Only* one article -- hey, that's
anecdotal nonsense... right? -- and even that *One*
article is an example of the EXACT OPPOSITE of what
he and the article was claiming!
But you still can't wrap that pea brain around it, can you?
JTEM
> And as a result everyone except for the people he
> is referring to are syaing [...]
Nope.
The media is spinning it huge, and they're spinning it in
Obama's favor. Everyone is stripping it from it's context,
and pretending that Obama was delivering his dissertation
for a sociology degree.
Instead, Obama was being insulting. He was literally
dismissing people who don't vote for him as bitter. He
was saying that if they weren't bitter they'd vote for him.
It's really is insulting. It's saying that they can't form
their own opinions. It's saying that they're ruled by
their emotions, don't think clearly.
Now get over it. For once, please, accept the fact that
Obama really is responsible for his own flaws.
JTEM
> JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Those people aren't Obama voters. So, while you're
> >busy deciding what they heard, they seem to have
> >decided for themselves.
>
> And that's what some are trying to point out.
No, honey. You're a moron, granted, but you were
trying to spin it as the exact opposite.
JTEM
> John McCain has a better chance of winning
> the presidency if Hillary is the nominee.
Bullshit.
Back when Hillary was the undisputed presumptive
winner, no poll anywhere had any Republican
coming close.
It's only after forcing Obama down the throats of the
Democratic primary voters that McCain's fortunes
have lifted.
....or are you going by polls which pretended to
be surprised at Obama's performance in states like
South Carolina and Georgia, while predicting doom &
gloom for Hillary in places like New Hampshire and
Rhode Island?
Get over it already. It's either Hillary or a third candidate.
Obama failed to pass muster. Accept this reality and
move on.
DanielSan
> On Apr 16, 8:56 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I don't see any sort of hatred in that at all.
>> I'm trying to be as over-the-top as the Obamanations.
>
> I would like to thank all of you in this thread for reminding me so
> effectively why I'm not voting for Obama, Clinton or McCain and why
> all of them are bad for the country.
So, you're voting for McCain?
DanielSan
> Bill Baker <wba...@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
>
>> You're really pro-Obama, aren't you?
>
> Of course! I can't see the huge media spin job for
> Obama, and I honestly believe that Obama's rich
> cornucopia of flaws are all the fault of Hillary
> Clinton... just like every other latte lapping lunk
> head.
>
> Here's the facts, twit: Obama is the wrong man,
> cased closed.
>
> Even with all the big money behind him, all the
> special interests... even with the mainstream
> media -- all those huge corporations -- in lust with
> him, putting the spin on everything for him... even
> though the unique dynamics of the Democratic
> primaries favored Obama heavily... even though they
> took the delegates & POPULAR VOTE away from
> Florida and Michigan -- two states Hillary won --
> Obama hasn't even eeked out a 200 delegate lead.
>
> LESS THAN 200 DELEGATES SEPERATE THEM,
> even though the UNCOUNTED delegates from Florida
> and Michigan -- BOTH STATES HILLARY WON --
...and Hillary said should not count...
> amount to some 366 delegates.
>
> Obama couldn't beat Hillary in a fair fight. He has to
> cheat. He has to rob her of victories in Florida and
> Michigan, plus find distinctly UNdemocratic loopholes
> which allow him to gain more delegates even when
> Hillary wins the popular vote... like in Texas.
...that was Obama?
>
> Even doing all that, PLUS have all the millionaires on
> his side AND the media lovefest ala Bush, and he
> STILL hasn't taken the nomination.
>
> HE HAS TO STEAL IT!
>
> He's the wrong man, what's more, he's PROVEN to
> be the wrong man!
>
> With every advantage on his side, he still hasn't won
> the nomination!
>
> He can't beat McCain. He can't. He couldn't beat Hillary
> in a fair fight, he's certainly not going to beat McCain.
>
> Accept reality and move on.
>
So, you have nothing but platitudes with no basis in fact?
Tell me: How is this Obama-bashing going to help gas prices, jobs, or
health care? How it is going to solve the Iraq debacle? How is it
going to rebuild our failing infrastructure? What is it going to do
about national security and the Bill of Rights?
Or is bashing Obama the only thing that is left?
Douglas Berry
carved the following into the hard stone of alt.atheism
> Douglas Berry <penguin_...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
>
>> >No, forget what your TV tells you, READ THE FUCKING
>> >TRANSCRIPT. That IS what Obama said. He was asked
>> >about those white, blue collar voters, about his chances
>> >of winning over those voters, and his answer is framed
>> >entirely within THAT context.
>>
>> and in response Obama's numbers are surging in Indiana
>> and gaining in Pennsylvania.
>
>He won New Hampshire, too. And he went from 18 points
>behind in Rhode Island to too-close-too-call, eventually
>losing by only 18 points.
Do those goalposts get heavy after a while? You were ranting about
the bitter remark. I pointed out that when Fox News went out and
actually asked some people in small town Pennsylvania, they agreed
that they felt left behind and angry.
You screamed about me watching Fox News and completely ignored the
point.
Then I pointed out that far from hirting Obama, his numbers are going
up in Indiana and Pennsylvania. You start bringing up primaries that
happened weeks ago.
Can't handle facts, eh? Don't worry, while you and Hillary are dodging
sniper fire she can explain them to you.
>OBEY YOUR TV!
And you quickly pass onto fundie-level nuts here.
>Like any good Bushbot, you can't even tell it's happening,
>can you?
So, I've gone from being an Obama supporter, to being Fred stone, to
being a Bush Republican?
Do you have any idea how stupid you are making yourself look here?
>It's all a mystery to you, isn't it?
You are a mystery. Out here in reality, all the pundits are saying
that Clinton needs to dominate tonight or its over. Obama is getting
support from major Democrats, and the pressure on Clinton to bow out
will get white-hot.
President Barack Obama. Get used to it.
--
Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Jason Gastrich is praying for me on 8 January 2011
"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the
source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a
stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as
good as dead: his eyes are closed." - Albert Einstein
johac
<34926257-a7ca-4f9f...@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> johac <jhachm...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > So he happens to be right. Many people ARE bitter.
>
> Wrong. To be right, that would mean the only reason
> they aren't voting for him is because they're bitter.
>
This topic has been done to deat. Please come back when you have a
serious issue.
--
John #1782
JTEM
> > LESS THAN 200 DELEGATES SEPERATE THEM,
> > even though the UNCOUNTED delegates from Florida
> > and Michigan -- BOTH STATES HILLARY WON --
>
> ...and Hillary said should not count...
Quotes, please.
Alternatively, you could do a little research... pull apart
Obama's numbers... see where his votes are and are
not coming from...
Like I said, Obama's results are NOT impressive. In fact,
given all, they're really rather pathetic.
Don't like me getting all Realpolitik on you? Fine. Get the
Obamanations to shut the fuck up.
Until then, you will earn the right to continue questioning
me sometime after you notice them.
Good luck with that.
JTEM
> This topic has been done to deat.
The topic is alive & kicking until AFTER next Tuesday.
Get used to it.
raven1
<pengu...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 20:16:52 -0700 (PDT) JTEM <jte...@gmail.com>
>carved the following into the hard stone of alt.atheism
>>Like any good Bushbot, you can't even tell it's happening,
>>can you?
>
>So, I've gone from being an Obama supporter, to being Fred stone, to
>being a Bush Republican?
>
>Do you have any idea how stupid you are making yourself look here?
No, JTEM never does. And likely never will.
As much as I may disagree with my fellow atheists about matters
political and otherwise, and however hot and heavy the arguments get,
there are only three who have become permanent residents of my
killfile for outright impenetrable stupidity: JTEM, Fred Stone, and
Fester. (Don Kresch is the one other atheist in my killfile, but he
wound up there for dishonesty approaching the level of a Creationist,
and for being stark raving bonkers, rather than for stupidity).
Bill Baker
in message
news:<2c88e3ff-c4f4-4596...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>...
> Bill Baker <wba...@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
>
>> John McCain has a better chance of winning
>> the presidency if Hillary is the nominee.
>
> Bullshit.
No, it's quite true. A lot of right-wingers have an irrational hatred
for the name Clinton. Now I didn't say McCain would have won, but his
chances would be higher.
> Back when Hillary was the undisputed presumptive
> winner, no poll anywhere had any Republican
> coming close.
>
> It's only after forcing Obama down the throats of the
> Democratic primary voters that McCain's fortunes
> have lifted.
>
> ....or are you going by polls which pretended to
> be surprised at Obama's performance in states like
> South Carolina and Georgia, while predicting doom &
> gloom for Hillary in places like New Hampshire and
> Rhode Island?
>
> Get over it already. It's either Hillary or a third candidate.
> Obama failed to pass muster. Accept this reality and
> move on.
How exactly did he fail to pass muster? By not beating an opponent
who had fame and name recognition and all the inside connections by
a wide margin?
--
Bushism 11-24:
"Perhaps one way will be, if we use military force, in the post-Saddam
Iraq the UN will definitely need to have a role. And that way it can
begin to get its legs, legs of responsibility back."
--Azores, Portugal; March 16, 2003
Bill Baker
in message
news:<fd8e0151-d289-43bc...@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>...
So you think that in order for the media to be anti-Obama there can never
be any pro-Obama articles?
--
Bushism 12-1:
"The Bob Jones policy on interracial dating, I mean, I spoke out on
interracial dating. I spoke against that. I spoke out against
interracial dating. I support the policy of interracial dating."
--CBS News; February 25, 2000
Bill Baker
in message
news:<6f6e378d-a5a4-434c...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>...
Yep, you're definitely trying to make the pro-Hillary crowd look stupid.
--
Bushism 9-2/3:
"Think about that. Two hundred and eighty-five new or expanded programs,
$2 trillion more in new spending and not one bureaucrat to file out the
forms or answer the phones?"
--Minneapolis, Minnesota; November 1, 2000
JTEM
> As much as I may disagree with my fellow atheists
> about matters political and otherwise, and however
> hot and heavy the arguments get, there are only
> three who have become permanent residents of my
> killfile
You're always waving about your killfile like it's an
accomplishment or something, doing a rather
convincing immitation of a four y.o. girl with her fingers
in her ears, screaming "I CAN'T HEAR YOU."
And now, well, and now you're prostelytizing.
All the maturity of a pre-schooler with the brains of
a fundy?
Congratulations, I guess.
JTEM
> Do those goalposts get heavy after a while?
It would have to some relation to the exchange to
qualify as ad hominem, so I guess I can't accuse
you of that...
> You were ranting about the bitter remark.
So you don't even know who started the thread. Wow,
impressive...
> I pointed out that when Fox News went out and
> actually asked
Faux "news"?
That's not even funny. Seriously, dude, were you
thinking that they're "fair & balanced" or something?
You're mocking yourself.
JTEM
> No, it's quite true.
"No, it's quite true. We've always been at war with
Eastasia."
JTEM
> So you think that in order
Here's the deal, and NOBODY has to think about it:
The article I was responding to made a claim that
not only wasn't supported by the so-called
evidence presented within the article, but the
evidence supported the exact opposite conclusion
of the poster.
And, oh, you neither noticed nor cared.
Bill Baker
in message
news:<e2fff5e5-b63c-4ce7...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>...
If you say so.
--
Bushism 12-11:
"I must confess. It did confuse some of the folks at the Crawford, Texas,
coffee shop when I was traveling around the country with Theodore Kennedy."
--Chicago, Illinois; May 13, 2002
JTEM
> If you say so.
You wish. Instead, you must obey your TV.
JTEM
Bill Baker <wba...@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
> Yep, you're definitely trying to make the pro-Hillary
> crowd look stupid.
You definitely succeeded in making the pro-Obama
crowd look like neo-cons.
Can you see the WMDs yet?
Give it a little time... assuming nobody ever counts
the votes in Florida, that is. We wouldn't want anything
to upset your "victory."
Ah, democracy... Bush style.
Bill Baker
in message
news:<d6a55b2f-e59a-470a...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>...
So point out to this "pea brain" what claims were not supported and how
it came to the exact opposite conclusion because I didn't see that.
--
"[The] reason we didn't go after Saddam is that our forces could well have
bogged down in an urban guerrilla conflict in the streets of Baghdad...We
would have instantly handed Saddam a victory out of the jaws of a
humiliating defeat." --George H.W. Bush, January 1996
Bill Baker
in message
news:<7d0394f9-8baf-4d3e...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>...
Wow. Because I support Obama I must have supported Bush, huh? Yep,
you're definitely trying to make the pro-Hillary crowd look stupid.
--
<FM{FF1}> Rizen: I thought you didn't bang chicks, only me.
<FM{FF1}> ...men.
<FM{FF1}> GOD THAT WAS A BAD TYPO.
Bill Baker
in message
news:<d6e17c02-bd22-4ffd...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>...
> Bill Baker <wba...@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
>
>> If you say so.
>
> You wish. Instead, you must obey your TV.
Nice troll.
--
I read in the Gospels that Jesus forgave the men who nailed him to the
cross. He even promised "this day you shall be with me in paradise" to
a thief crucified next to him -- a thief who addressed Jesus simply as
a "man" rather than as "the son of God." Yet, today, this same Jesus
cannot forgive my kindly old aunt and allow her to dwell in paradise,
simply because her "beliefs" do not match Reverend So-and-So's? - Arthur Silver
raven1
Bill, in case you haven't noticed it, you're arguing with someone who
is as dumb as wheat, and I say this not just as someone who is
embarrassed to count JTEM among my fellow atheists, but as a Clinton
supporter.
JTEM
> Bill, in case you haven't noticed
You're prostelytizing again.
Will you grow the fuck up? Seriously? Just grow the
fuck up.
JTEM
> Nice troll.
You're in a Obama-rant thread complaining that I keep
responding to the Obama-rants of squirts like you.
"Troll" is a word you should shy away from using...
JTEM
> So point out to this "pea brain"
Why? Didn't you read it? I wouldn't be surprised if you
didn't. After all, you didn't even know who began this
thread.
Have you since figured that one out?
I'm not your case worker. Honest. If you want me to
work with you than you're going to have to demonstrate
some effort. What kind of effort? You can start with who
you think started this thread, and whether or not they
are biased against on candidate and highly supportive
of another.
After that, we can move on to what you find so offensive
about my posts here... besides the general dislike of
liberty these days...
Good luck.
JTEM
> Wow. Because I support Obama I must have supported
> Bush, huh?
Wow, you're retarded!
Sorry if you're uncomfortable with the very real parallels
between Bushbots & Obamanations. That discomfort
will start to wear off soon enough, as the memory of the
uncounted votes in Florida -- which you rely on to claim
a lead -- grows dimmer...
Go on, say something like... like... "But the party elite
decided to take away Florida's delegates!"
Go on, elitist. Pretend that it could change the fact that,
yes, without denying Hillary delegates from races she
won, Obama wouldn't even have a lead right now.
Next you can swear to us that, as a moron, you couldn't
imagine anyone uknowing & understanding the
demographics of those races in advance, and EXACTLY
who was and was not being hurt by the removal of all
those delegates.
It's a given that you're unaware of Obama's media lovefest,
and the huge advantage that represents. The Bushbots
didn't, either. They all believed that Al Gore really did say
he invented the internet... amongst a long list of lies he
never told.
Bill Baker
in message
news:<0972a594-5e3d-4552...@a22g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>...
So obviously you cannot. I thought so.
--
Bushism 1-31:
"My administration has been calling upon all the leaders in the--in the
Middle East to do everything they can to stop the violence, to tell the
different parties involved that peace will never happen."
--Crawford, Texas; August 13, 2001
Bill Baker
in message
news:<5b8cff87-6f50-47ce...@24g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>...
Yep, you're definitely trying to make the Hillary supporters look stupid.
--
<Batty> Euch, rap is just missing one letter. c.
<zeep> rapc?
<Batty> ...
<Batty> Crap you idiot. you put the c on the other end
<zeep> oic
<Batty> Though you could also say it's missing an e
<zeep> wtf is erap?
* Batty bangs his head repeatedly against a wall
Bill Baker
in message
news:<42249de7-6bcb-481e...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com>...
> Bill Baker <wba...@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
>
>> Nice troll.
>
> You're in a Obama-rant thread complaining
Name one complaint I have ever made in this thread.
> that I keep responding to the Obama-rants of squirts like you.
>
> "Troll" is a word you should shy away from using...
Yep, you sure are going a long way to make Hillary supporters look stupid.
--
Bushism 7-11:
"Our priorities is our faith."
--Greensboro, North Carolina; October 10, 2000
Bill Baker
wrote in message news:<apqd04hieebcsm2pe...@4ax.com>...
Yep, I figured that out a while ago. I just like feeding trolls for
my own amusement.
--
*** Now talking in #christian
-Word_of_God- Welcome Abstruse to #christian I am a Bible Bot. For more
info type: /msg Word_of_God !info
<Abstruse> !kjv numbers 22:21
<Word_of_God> Numbers 22:21 -- And Balaam rose up in the morning, and
saddled his ass, and went with the princes of Moab. - (KJV)
*** SageRider sets mode: +b *!*@c211-30-208-111.rivrw3.nsw.optusnet.com.au
*** Word_of_God was kicked from #christian by SageRider (Please dont Swear)
<Abstruse> I know I'm never going to be able to come back in this channel
again after this, but damn was it worth it to see that...
DanielSan
> DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> LESS THAN 200 DELEGATES SEPERATE THEM,
>>> even though the UNCOUNTED delegates from Florida
>>> and Michigan -- BOTH STATES HILLARY WON --
>> ...and Hillary said should not count...
>
> Quotes, please.
"I personally did not think it made any difference whether my name was
on the ballot. You know, it's clear this election they are having is not
going to count for anything."
Michigan and Florida voters were disenfranchised when the Republicans
moved the date in defiance of the DNC's rules.
Names on the ballot in Michigan:
Clinton, Kucinich, Dodd, Gravel.
Why should Michigan count now?
I agree that Clinton won Florida's zero delegates. You can't change the
rules in the middle of the game.
>
> Alternatively, you could do a little research... pull apart
> Obama's numbers... see where his votes are and are
> not coming from...
>
> Like I said, Obama's results are NOT impressive. In fact,
> given all, they're really rather pathetic.
That's why he's holding his own against Clinton?
>
> Don't like me getting all Realpolitik on you? Fine. Get the
> Obamanations to shut the fuck up.
>
Sorry, but I'm not an "Obamanation".
> Until then, you will earn the right to continue questioning
> me sometime after you notice them.
>
> Good luck with that.
>
Yawn. Please chill out with your Clintonation.
Douglas Berry
carved the following into the hard stone of alt.atheism
>> I pointed out that when Fox News went out and
>> actually asked
>
>Faux "news"?
>
>That's not even funny. Seriously, dude, were you
>thinking that they're "fair & balanced" or something?
>
>You're mocking yourself.
And you are evading the facts. The link I posted (and that you
ignored) was not of talking heads in the studio, but actual interviews
with people in Pennsylvanian small towns who agreed with Sen. Obama.
Polls taken after the remarks show that rural Americans agree with his
ideas.
And nowhere in those remarks does he say "and that's why they're not
voting for me." Nowhere.
It is really becomning evident that you have some serious issues going
on here.
--
Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Jason Gastrich is praying for me on 8 January 2011
"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the
source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a
stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as
good as dead: his eyes are closed." - Albert Einstein
Douglas Berry
carved the following into the hard stone of alt.atheism
This from you? Pot, Kettle, Black.
JTEM
> And you are evading the facts.
Okay, here's a fact: Neither one of us accepts YOUR cite.
Get it? Neither one of us accepts Faux "news."
You're mocking yourself, and I am laughing.
JTEM
> Name one complaint I have ever made in this thread.
That's it. You're done. Coward.
Grow some balls.
JTEM
> >You're prostelytizing again.
>
> >Will you grow the fuck up? Seriously? Just grow the
> >fuck up.
> This from you? Pot, Kettle, Black.
Um, okay. Can you point to any post where I'm doing what
they retard is doing?
Or is "Pot. Kettle. Black." something else you don't understand?
Go on. I'm calling you on it. Explain what you mean, and support
your claims with URLs.
Can't, can you? And we both know that you're not mature
enough to admit your error... Oops!
That implies that the ploblem is entirely one of your lack of
maturity, and that your lack of ethics isn't weighing in...
JTEM
> So obviously you cannot.
Cannot.... what?
Figure out who you think you're fooling?
You're trying to pretend you have a point here about...
What?
Whose post? Go on. Whose post are you asking about?
Do you even know?
You're saying that I can't... what? What can't I do? And
I'm suppost to be doing this because... because... why?
Tell us.
According to you, it's a very big deal. It really drives home
some kind of point.
So tell us.
JTEM
[---retarded rant---]
Yep, you're definitely trying to make the Obama supporters
look stupid.
Have you at least figured out who started this thread yet?
Bill Baker
in message
news:<ac90753e-b22a-477e...@u69g2000hse.googlegroups.com>...
I thought so.
--
Bushism 2-28:
"One of the most meaningful things that's happened to me since I've been
the governor--the president--governor--president. Oops. Ex-governor. I
went to Bethesda Naval Hospital to give a fellow a Purple Heart, and at
the same moment I watched him--get a Purple Heart for action in Iraq--and
at that same--right after I gave him the Purple Heart, he was sworn in as
a citizen of the United States--a Mexican citizen, now a United States
citizen."
--Washington, D.C.; January 9, 2004
Bill Baker
in message
news:<3e356abb-918a-4879...@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>...
Your own?
> Yep, you're definitely trying to make the Obama supporters
> look stupid.
>
> Have you at least figured out who started this thread yet?
Nice troll.
--
Funny Thurgood quote #2:
"The True People of God -- including Lurlean and me -- are NOT obsessed
with sex OR sexually frustrated. Now please stop beating around the bush
and tell me how firm your buns are so I can determine whether they're
worth caning or not."
Bill Baker
in message
news:<4262e07e-5100-4816...@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>...
So you cannot. I thought not.
--
<green> We vegetarians love the environment. carnivores are sick freaks.
<Frank> How can vegetarians possibly love the environment.. you keep
eating all the fucking plants
JTEM
> So you cannot.
.....what? Cannot... what?
For whom? Where? Why?
Do you even know what you're asking for, moron?
You don't. And you don't have the guts to admit it.
JTEM
Bill Baker <wba...@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
> Nice troll.
Yep, you're definitely trying to make the Obama supporters
look stupid, and you're succeeding.
Fine. Let's not argue. You break it down for us. I contend that
Obama has a large money advantage, and that the media is
and has been giving him a sweet ride. I also contend that these
advantages have resulted in a less than 200 delegate lead, and
only then after they refused to seat the delegates from two
important states (Florida & Michigan).... both of which Hillary
has won.
On top of this is the ugly racial divide amongst a number of
states, especially states that Obama has won. His oh so
"remarkable" victories on South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama
and Mississippi, for example, were entirely racial.
So, we have a candidate that only did well because of the
unique racial oddities of the Democratic primaries -- primaries
in many states -- and even then he couldn't beat Hillary without
a cash advantage, a media advantage and the robbing of two
large states of their delegates.
Why is this good?
Can you remember back in 2000 when you thought all the
votes in Florida should count? How electable is Obama,
if the biggest advantage in cash & media isn't enough, and
they litterally have to not count 366 delegates from two
extremely important states?
JTEM
> I thought so.
You really are proving that Obama supporters are morons.
Congratulations.
Bill Baker
in message
news:<d824e041-6d3d-415e...@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>...
> Bill Baker <wba...@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
>
>> I thought so.
>
> You really are proving that Obama supporters are morons.
And you're doing the same for Hillary supporters.
> Congratulations.
Same to you.
--
<BlackDeth> i like stalked this girl sorta :D
<BlackDeth> like once she asked me for a ride home from work
<BlackDeth> and i took her home... i dropped her off at her house
<BlackDeth> and shes like... wait a minute..how did you know where i lived?
Bill Baker
in message
news:<f052417c-d91d-4418...@b64g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>...
>
> Bill Baker <wba...@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
>
>> Nice troll.
>
> Yep, you're definitely trying to make the Obama supporters
> look stupid, and you're succeeding.
Same for you and Hillary supporters.
> Fine. Let's not argue. You break it down for us. I contend that
> Obama has a large money advantage,
No argument there.
> and that the media is and has been giving him a sweet ride.
It may have seemed like it to some people at first, but not lately.
> I also contend that these
> advantages have resulted in a less than 200 delegate lead, and
> only then after they refused to seat the delegates from two
> important states (Florida & Michigan).... both of which Hillary
> has won.
Hillary agreed to that rule, though. Now she's only complaining
because she's behind.
> On top of this is the ugly racial divide amongst a number of
> states, especially states that Obama has won. His oh so
> "remarkable" victories on South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama
> and Mississippi, for example, were entirely racial.
I suppose that explains his victories in lily-white Iowa, Maine,
Nebraska, North Dakota and others? Black people aren't the only
ones voting for him.
> So, we have a candidate that only did well because of the
> unique racial oddities of the Democratic primaries -- primaries
> in many states -- and even then he couldn't beat Hillary without
> a cash advantage, a media advantage and the robbing of two
> large states of their delegates.
When did anyone rob MI and FL of delegates? They were told going in
that that's what would happen if they held their primaries early, and
they went ahead and broke the rules anyway. You're saying that people
should be able to break the rules and not pay the consequences?
> Why is this good?
>
> Can you remember back in 2000 when you thought all the
> votes in Florida should count? How electable is Obama,
> if the biggest advantage in cash & media isn't enough, and
> they litterally have to not count 366 delegates from two
> extremely important states?
Pretty damn electable if you consider that Hillary had all the advantages
going in and Obama is still beating her. He looks better and better to
me every day. I'd say Hillary is unelectable if she has all these
advantages and still can't beat a freshman senator who practically no
one had heard of before 2007.
--
Bushism 7-28:
"What I am against is quotas. I am against hard quotas, quotas they
basically delineate based upon whatever. However, they delineate quotas,
I think, vulcanize society. So I don't know how that fits into what
everybody else is saying, their relative positions, but that's my position."
--As quoted by Molly Ivins; San Francisco Chronicle; January 21, 2000
Bill Baker
in message
news:<a93f074e-33f9-4444...@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>...
Learn to follow a thread, for one.
--
Bushism 12-1:
"The Bob Jones policy on interracial dating, I mean, I spoke out on
interracial dating. I spoke against that. I spoke out against
interracial dating. I support the policy of interracial dating."
--CBS News; February 25, 2000
raven1
<wba...@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
>When did anyone rob MI and FL of delegates? They were told going in
>that that's what would happen if they held their primaries early, and
>they went ahead and broke the rules anyway. You're saying that people
>should be able to break the rules and not pay the consequences?
It's not clear to me that the Democratic voters of Florida and
Michigan should be disenfranchised because State Party leaders chose
to violate National Party rules in scheduling the Primaries. I'd be
open to a re-vote in both States, regardless of the results.
>
>> Why is this good?
>>
>> Can you remember back in 2000 when you thought all the
>> votes in Florida should count? How electable is Obama,
>> if the biggest advantage in cash & media isn't enough, and
>> they litterally have to not count 366 delegates from two
>> extremely important states?
>
>Pretty damn electable if you consider that Hillary had all the advantages
>going in and Obama is still beating her. He looks better and better to
>me every day. I'd say Hillary is unelectable if she has all these
>advantages and still can't beat a freshman senator who practically no
>one had heard of before 2007.
Are you kidding about that last part? His electrifying speech at the
2004 DNC made him a media superstar, and started the ball rolling on
his campaign. I was blown away by it, and said "that man is going to
be President some day".
Bill Baker
wrote in message news:<lk1i04logfvips3ns...@4ax.com>...
> On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 15:32:23 -0500, Bill Baker
><wba...@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
>
>>When did anyone rob MI and FL of delegates? They were told going in
>>that that's what would happen if they held their primaries early, and
>>they went ahead and broke the rules anyway. You're saying that people
>>should be able to break the rules and not pay the consequences?
>
> It's not clear to me that the Democratic voters of Florida and
> Michigan should be disenfranchised because State Party leaders chose
> to violate National Party rules in scheduling the Primaries. I'd be
> open to a re-vote in both States, regardless of the results.
Same here, but it doesn't look like it's going to happen.
>>> Why is this good?
>>>
>>> Can you remember back in 2000 when you thought all the
>>> votes in Florida should count? How electable is Obama,
>>> if the biggest advantage in cash & media isn't enough, and
>>> they litterally have to not count 366 delegates from two
>>> extremely important states?
>>
>>Pretty damn electable if you consider that Hillary had all the
advantages
>>going in and Obama is still beating her. He looks better and better to
>>me every day. I'd say Hillary is unelectable if she has all these
>>advantages and still can't beat a freshman senator who practically no
>>one had heard of before 2007.
>
> Are you kidding about that last part? His electrifying speech at the
> 2004 DNC made him a media superstar, and started the ball rolling on
> his campaign. I was blown away by it, and said "that man is going to
> be President some day".
Yeah, but how many people actually watched that? Not everyone is a
political junkie. I'd bet that 2007 was the first time most Americans
had ever heard of him.
--
<_kr4m3r> so many fucking criminals, its bullshit
<foniks`> heh, if we sent all the criminals to some empty continent and
just left them there to die
<foniks`> and showed up like 50yrs later like, "sup?"
<foniks`> whatd u think they'd say?
<FoSZoR[bg]> something along the lines of, "G`Day mate"
JTEM
[---babble---]
You really are proving that Obama supporters are morons.
Fine. Let's not argue. You break it down for us. I contend that
Obama has a large money advantage, and that the media is
and has been giving him a sweet ride. I also contend that these
advantages have resulted in a less than 200 delegate lead, and
only then after they refused to seat the delegates from two
important states (Florida & Michigan).... both of which Hillary
has won.
On top of this is the ugly racial divide amongst a number of
states, especially states that Obama has won. His oh so
"remarkable" victories in South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama
and Mississippi, for example, were entirely racial.
So, we have a candidate that only did well because of the
unique racial oddities of the Democratic primaries -- primaries
in many states -- and even then he couldn't beat Hillary without
a cash advantage, a media advantage and the robbing of two
large states of their delegates.
Why do you think this is good?