Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

i'll save my opinion for later and simply post the delegate count. (courtesy of the AP)

Barack Obama
Pledged:1,660
Superdelegates309
Total:1,969

Hillary Clinton
Pledged:1,500
Superdelegates279
Total:1,779

2025 needed to win

do you think this needs to go to the convention or is it time to move on with obama as the nominee? discuss, but please remember to vote. i even threw in an option for neocon ****wits. everyone's happy.

I want Barack to win.

shit i meant for this to be in the gdf (im drunk )

well, ill let it sit here for now and get all your opinions and ask for it to be moved later.

Originally posted by Schecter
shit i meant for this to be in the gdf (im drunk )



drunk...by yourself...on the internetz....FTW?



(damn...I just insulted half the people in the OTF....sorry mates.)

Originally posted by dadudemon


drunk...by yourself...on the internetz....FTW?



(damn...I just insulted half the people in the OTF....sorry mates.)

The hell with Clinton.

I wish ddm dad pulled out in time.

oh well.

Originally posted by dadudemon


drunk...by yourself...on the internetz....FTW?



(damn...I just insulted half the people in the OTF....sorry mates.)

too bad you didnt realise the double edged irony of your little jab.

anyway...topic

Originally posted by Schecter
too bad you didnt realise the double edged irony of your little jab.

anyway...topic

you're too drunk right now...or something... More cock please.



I voted that she should throw in her splooge stained towel(you know, that one with the animals on it)...wait, that's yours...

Originally posted by Schecter
i'll save my opinion for later and simply post the delegate count. (courtesy of the AP)

Barack Obama
Pledged:1,660
Superdelegates309
Total:1,969

Hillary Clinton
Pledged:1,500
Superdelegates279
Total:1,779

2025 needed to win

do you think this needs to go to the convention or is it time to move on with obama as the nominee? discuss, but please remember to vote. i even threw in an option for neocon ****wits. everyone's happy.


She should quit but she won't. She'll prolly fight until the bitter end

Her staying in really only hurts the Democrats.

Maybe she should become Obama's running mate??

Originally posted by dadudemon


drunk...by yourself...on the internetz....FTW?



(damn...I just insulted half the people in the OTF....sorry mates.)

I reckon
But i take no offence
this is the OTF after all <333
We're all mateys to the end YO HOO

She should throw in the towel, it's only hurting her campaign. THere's no way she'll win Montana and South Dakota. Considering opinion polls:

SD: Clinton - 34%| Obama - 46%
MT: Clinton - 29% | Obama - 17% (although wikipedia says it has no data)

Unless she wins Puerto Rico with an insane majority (and Montana), she's as good as gone.

Originally posted by BruceSkywalker
Maybe she should become Obama's running mate??

id rather see edwards or perhaps jim webb

Is the pope catholic?

Hell, she never should've called it starts.

I think she should stay in through June 3rd and maybe mid June if that's what she wants to do.

There is no reason for it to go all the way to the convention, though. Everyone will likely know by mid June who is going to win. For her to stay in the race after it's clear that she's lost will just make her look like a sore loser.

As far as her for the VP, it's hard to argue that it would be the wisest choice as far as ensuring a victory in November. Probably not the best choice as far as who would actually be the best VP once he's won, but an Obama Clinton ticket would win pretty handily, I think. And it would be the easiest and best way to bring wary Clinton supporters over to vote for Obama.

It's her money

She should get out. Seeing as she's not going to get the nomination, her staying in the race means her supporters are more likely to vote for McCain as opposed to Obama. She's alienating him from her key support when the big election comes around.

I really hope Obama wins, he would just be a breath of fresh air both in the US and internationally. His support across alone Europe is huge. He's also very popular in Asia - elementary school kids even chat about him in their break time. When they're being retards, they even shout out "Yes, we can! Yes, we can!". No joke.

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
She should get out. Seeing as she's not going to get the nomination, her staying in the race means her supporters are more likely to vote for McCain as opposed to Obama. She's alienating him from her key support when the big election comes around.

I really hope Obama wins, he would just be a breath of fresh air both in the US and internationally. His support across alone Europe is huge. He's also very popular in Asia - elementary school kids even chat about him in their break time. When they're being retards, they even shout out "Yes, we can! Yes, we can!". No joke. What the hell are you doing watching elementary kids?

EDIT: It's a secret.

Barack Obama
Pledged:1,660
Superdelegates314
Total:1,974

Hillary Clinton
Pledged:1,500
Superdelegates280
Total:1,780

now bill clinton is throwing a tantrum saying that the superdelegates are being 'bullied' into changing their vote and that clinton is a victim of a 'cover up'.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/26/bill.clinton.mon/index.html?eref=rss_politics&iref=polticker

She should have quit a month ago. ermm

Remember Bobby Kennedy? If Clinton quits now she loses her chance as the only democratic candidate if Obama is assassinated.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/05/clinton_mention.html

Even though she apologized for it, she probably still means it.

The point is, Obama all but has the nomination. Clinton just wants the publicity, and her hope Obama will be assassinated.

The Democratic Nomination seems to be more of a front-page story than the actual election will be...

Originally posted by caedusrulesall
Clinton just wants the publicity, and her hope Obama will be assassinated.

wow thats quite an accusation there.

Originally posted by Schecter
wow thats quite an accusation there.

Well, look at her quote about Bobby Kennedy being assassinated. Why else would she start mentioning that?

you know...........**** if i know. really to me she lost all credibility as someone who gives a **** about anything but her career when she refused to run in 04. now she's just coming off as a desperate and dellusional hack who talks out her ass...with her husband singing along. however although i never liked her at all, i disagree with you there. since its just my speculation against yours though, i guess thats that.

She is just getting so desperate, you can tell. A while back it was like she couldn't answer a question without two or three cheap shots at Obama coming with it.

Originally posted by Schecter
you know...........**** if i know. really to me she lost all credibility as someone who gives a **** about anything but her career when she refused to run in 04. now she's just coming off as a desperate and dellusional hack who talks out her ass...with her husband singing along. however although i never liked her at all, i disagree with you there. since its just my speculation against yours though, i guess thats that. Maye back then she knew Bush would beat her, and that would look very bad, losing to Bush Cheney.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Maye back then she knew Bush would beat her, and that would look very bad, losing to Bush Cheney.

she figured it would be a sure win in 08. rather than take a chance and throw her hat in, she consciously chose to sit back and HOPE for another 4 years of bush/cheney.

presidents get elected after losing previous elections. there was no excuse for not running.

I couldnt give a shit ; i think she should go and retire in florida

Originally posted by Schecter
Barack Obama
Pledged:1,660
Superdelegates314
Total:1,974

Hillary Clinton
Pledged:1,500
Superdelegates280
Total:1,780

now bill clinton is throwing a tantrum saying that the superdelegates are being 'bullied' into changing their vote and that clinton is a victim of a 'cover up'.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/26/bill.clinton.mon/index.html?eref=rss_politics&iref=polticker

For a conspiracy theory to hold much water, you at least have to have someone to blame. Mr. Clinton apparently does not. Sometimes I think Bill has become the bigger threat to the democrat party.

He is the comeback kid remember. His reputation wont suffer for long.

It isn't his reputation that concerns me.

obama now with 1978 delegates total.

47 needed

even with the florida delegates she's doomed, so she also factors in the michigan primaries of which obama was not on the ballot (because he was busy abiding by dnc rules). then factor in clinton's assumption that people who voted for obama are regretting it now, and the big evil conspiracy to bully superdelegates. conclusion of course is that clinton wins wins WINS!

i can see a new political term coming from this primary season: "clinton math"

Your American conspiracy in action.

Lame that she has to call in her husband for back-up. She should really just have the honor and wish Obama a win in '08, while gracefully bowing out now.

She did a good run; it's a definite win for would-be women candidates of the future, but enough is enough.

I said no, obviously.

Originally posted by Strangelove
I said no, obviously.

Do you honestly think she can turns things around now?

Originally posted by Strangelove
I said no, obviously. Although I am liking the idea of an Obama-Clinton ticket more and more.

The Clinton supporters kind of have to now, she's circling the drain.

Originally posted by Robtard
Do you honestly think she can turns things around now? No, but I still don't think she should quit. Obama hasn't won yet. It doesn't make sense to quit so close to the end when no one has crossed the finish line yet. And calling it quits would essentially disenfranchise PR, MT and SD.

...not really if they are ineffectual in the outcome. in fact not at all.

the dnc will decide this weekend whether or not to let clinton get her way and seat the delagates, when in michigan obama won nearly 40% of the votes. of course they wont be counted since his name wasnt on the ballot and everyone voted "undecided". is this fair?

Originally posted by Strangelove
No, but I still don't think she should quit. Obama hasn't won yet. It doesn't make sense to quit so close to the end when no one has crossed the finish line yet. And calling it quits would essentially disenfranchise PR, MT and SD.

Obama is essentially at the finish line, so unless something catastrophic happens, she isn't winning. Why delay the inevitable? PR, MT and SD would recover, fear not.

clintons not staying in to stimulate the democratic process. she's accusing obama of stealing the victory while she tries to steal a victory.

call it what it is

srug

If we let her compete and lose in PR, MI, FL, SD and MT she'll probably never talk again...and lose her money!

Seems like a good plan.

Hey kid.......go somewhere else

Originally posted by Strangelove
srug

do you think its fair that the michigan votes are counted as clinton- all and obama-nothing?

Originally posted by Strangelove
Hey kid.......go somewhere else Seriously though, why do you support Hillary?

Originally posted by lord xyz
Seriously though, why do you support Hillary?

Seriously though, why can't you stand her?

Originally posted by Robtard
Seriously though, why can't you stand her? She's an arrogant, idiotic, self-absorbed, annoying, war-supporting ***** who makes the democrats look bad. Not that I absolutely love the democrats, but if they lose, the Republicans win.

Originally posted by Schecter
do you think its fair that the michigan votes are counted as clinton- all and obama-nothing? it's kind of stupid that Obama took his name off the ballot when he had no real reason to.Originally posted by lord xyz
Seriously though, why do you support Hillary? Well, I've explained myself several times, so I don't feel the need to do it again.

Plus, from what I've read, you make rather arbitrary arguments against her.

Originally posted by lord xyz
She's an arrogant, idiotic, self-absorbed, annoying, war-supporting ***** who makes the democrats look bad. Not that I absolutely love the democrats, but if they lose, the Republicans win. Case in point

Originally posted by Strangelove
it's kind of stupid that Obama took his name off the ballot when he had no real reason to. Well, I've explained myself several times, so I don't feel the need to do it again.

Plus, from what I've read, you make rather arbitrary arguments against her. So rather than explain it to me conveniently, you refer me to...nothing.

Interesting.

Originally posted by Strangelove
it's kind of stupid that Obama took his name off the ballot when he had no real reason to. Well, I've explained myself several times, so I don't feel the need to do it again.

the election was forfeit as announced by the dnc, while the state held them anyway. imho it was extremely dishonerable of clinton and kucinich to stay on the ballot. by we digress, and you havent answered the question

Originally posted by Schecter
the election was forfeit as announced by the dnc, while the state held them anyway. imho it was extremely dishonerable of clinton and kucinich to stay on the ballot. by we digress, and you havent answered the question Why did he take his name off the Michigan ballot and not Florida if it was so "dishonorable"? Seems like a double standard.

I know I didn't answer your question, I rejected its premise.

Personally I don't think she should be VP either. The whole election has been her trying to hurt Obama's credibility, her being VP will just make it seem like she's a hypocrite and discredit him even more. Maybe that's what she wants though.

Originally posted by Strangelove
Why did he take his name off the Michigan ballot and not Florida if it was so "dishonorable"? Seems like a double standard.

I know I didn't answer your question, I rejected its premise.

its premise is reality. its premise is how clinton wishes it. she wants michigan to count as obama NOTHING and clinton ALL. i asked you if this is fair. it is not a fallacious question, so please do me the courtesy.

Originally posted by Schecter
its premise is reality. its premise is how clinton wishes it. she wants michigan to count as obama NOTHING and clinton ALL. i asked you if this is fair. it is not a fallacious question, so please do me the courtesy. Do I think it's fair? No, it wouldn't be. The fairest way would be to hold a new primary.

And you still didn't answer my question.

if she had pressed for just that i would have respected such a request and supported it. but she didnt. she's been simply saying "let the votes count" and now its too late. she won florida. although the vote was forfeit before primary day and many people just stayed home and said "**** it", obama's name was on the ballot. its the fact that she wants michigan which forces me to conclude that she is incredible hypocritical about this "stealing the election" rhetoric.

:edit: and just to be clear i fell strongly that they should have redone the primaries for both states...MONTHS ago

Just to be clear, Hillary herself is saying nothing about "stealing" anything. That's all Bill.

And actually, the Clinton campaign fully supported re-votes in both states, it was the Obama campaign that was reluctant to cooperate, as well as suggesting bullshit options like splitting the delegates 50-50.

correction on the florida primaries:

Hillary Clinton 870,986 - 49.77%
Barack Obama 576,214 - 32.93%

Also, before the Michigan primary, there was rumour that Hillary stole votes in NH -- that Obama actually won it.

Originally posted by Strangelove
Just to be clear, Hillary herself is saying nothing about "stealing" anything. That's all Bill.

And actually, the Clinton campaign fully supported re-votes in both states, it was the Obama campaign that was reluctant to cooperate, as well as suggesting bullshit options like splitting the delegates 50-50.

i never heard that obama refused to cooperate. could you provide a link to substantiate this?

Originally posted by lord xyz
Also, before the Michigan primary, there was rumour that Hillary stole votes in NH -- that Obama actually won it.

did you read it in a chain email? i read one that said obama is a secret al qaeda operative. please leave rumors out of the topic.

No, on Alex Jones' website.

Hehe. lookaround

Originally posted by Schecter
i never heard that obama refused to cooperate. could you provide a link to substantiate this?



did you read it in a chain email? i read one that said obama is a secret al qaeda operative. please leave rumors out of the topic. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/15/us/politics/15donate.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Originally posted by lord xyz
Also, before the Michigan primary, there was rumour that Hillary stole votes in NH -- that Obama actually won it. That's just plain idiotic.

seems fair to me



too vague. maybe he was obstructive, maybe not. its just too vague and in a he-said she-said vein. plus this quote from the article:



adds weight to the question of whether obama was thinking in a prudent manner or deliberate/obstructive one. there's alot more to such a process than "should we or shouldnt we do it". its possible that he wasnt going to be given any time to campaign. far more to the issue than "go or no-go?"



notice the order of priority/urgency?

"Tupac A. Hunter" - Funny.

And what does one do if Edward's delegates decide to back Obama? If that were to happen, does it not make Florida a pretty moot issue?

clinton comes out a bit ahead still...but still...

Yeah, something like 51 to 49. So, what then?

dont forget michigan. magical michigan where EVERY delegate goes to clinton.

As much as I dont like her, its still a long time until the elections so by all means, she should be allowed to stay in the race.

Originally posted by Schecter
dont forget michigan. magical michigan where EVERY delegate goes to clinton.

Oh, I haven't forgotten it.

Originally posted by Schecter
dont forget michigan. magical michigan where EVERY delegate goes to clinton. You keep forgetting the part where that's not true. 40% of the delegates are uncommitted. That means they can vote for anyone. And if they wouldn't vote for Clinton, guess who they would vote for....shocker.

Ron Paul???

Mike Gravel???

Yer mom???

(I like this game...)

Originally posted by Strangelove
You keep forgetting the part where that's not true. 40% of the delegates are uncommitted. That means they can vote for anyone. And if they wouldn't vote for Clinton, guess who they would vote for....shocker.

how does this level the playing field? so clinton starts with 50% from a forfeit election. also, since the delegation would not have to vote for obama given the uncommitted status and no further election, who says they would vote for obama?

Well, according to the CNN delegate tracker, if the remaining three primaries were to proceed with the following numbers, PR being generous with Mrs. Clinton, Hillary would have to win something like 98% of the remaining unpledged super-delegates.

So, PR is projected to go something like 75/25 for Mrs. Clinton. And if SD and MT follow trend with the states surrounding them, they'll go something like 65-70/35-30 for Obama. At that point, Mr. Obama will be only a hand full of delegates away from 2026. And I really can't see that many sD's going for Mrs. Clinton.

Originally posted by Devil King
Well, according to the CNN delegate tracker, if the remaining three primaries were to proceed with the following numbers, PR being generous with Mrs. Clinton, Hillary would have to win something like 98% of the remaining unpledged super-delegates.

So, PR is projected to go something like 75/25 for Mrs. Clinton. And if SD and MT follow trend with the states surrounding them, they'll go something like 65-70/35-30 for Obama. At that point, Mr. Obama will be only a hand full of delegates away from 2026. And I really can't see that many sD's going for Mrs. Clinton. She was winning on Super Delegates, but then members of the party got some common sense and switched to Obama.

Looking at wikipedia, Obama needs 46 delegates. PR, SD and MT have 86 in total. So he needs just over half...like he's done since this race began.

But from a different perspective, Clinton needs 245 to win. If she wins every state 100%, she still won't be the nominee.

Right, she'd still have less than he has now. That leaves it to the superdelegates. Only 24% of which he'd need to hit 2026.

I think she only stayed in the race so long is because she hoped to win the Northern states like NH, OH and PY. Wish she won by slim majorities and would go Democratic in the general election anyway. Why won't she just endorse Obama? It's not as if he's an old idiot who's more concerned about her own self image than the country.

Can you just summarize that for me? I'm too lazy to read it.

Conservatives are working diligently:

Here's a good article about Hillary's less-than-honorable tactics:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/may/26/hillaryclinton.barackobama

It relates her campaign tactics as similar to those Bush has used to run the country. Re. "Major operations have ended..." *a few years pass* "Oh, that was actually about a specific misson for the sailors on that ship I was on..."

That reminds me of the time when I first disliked Hillary (in like 2007 or Iowa).

She staged questions.

Well, which is it? Did you dislike her in a time or a place?

When I said Iowa I meant early January when the Caucus took place.

looks like pelosi will prove a bit useful at long last. if clinton has her way this shit will continue for 3 more months.

Originally posted by Schecter
looks like pelosi will prove a bit useful at long last. if clinton has her way this shit will continue for 3 more months.

Clinton needs to sit down and STFU and focus on helping Obama win. I am looking forward to even less so for a McCain administration than an Obama administration.

According to Wikipedia, had the primaries taken place, the delagets would've gone:

MI: 73 - 55 (though I don't trust it, since Obama wasn't on the ballot, and it's likely some of his supporters voted Hillary instead)

FL: 105 - 67 - 13

Total would be: 178 - 122 - 13

So Hillary needing 245 and Obama needing 44 would just mean Obama has the nominee and Hillary doesn't.

Also Hillary would probably get about 43 in MT, PR and SD (aswell as Obama). This would make it:

HC: 178 + 43 = 225
BO: 122 + 43 = 165

245 - 225 = 20
44 - 165 = -121

Hillary still wouldn't have the nominee, Obama would be 141 delegates ahead, the superdelates are leaning more and more towards Obama. She might aswell give up.

She should never have started.

Was her only attack at Obama the experience argument? I'm sure the "unamerican" one was by republicans.

Seriously, "unexperienced" is their only argument?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=tu4_rWhwtT4 John Kerry explains why Obama is better and this argument is nonsense.

Originally posted by lord xyz
That reminds me of the time when I first disliked Hillary (in like 2007 or Iowa).

She staged questions. Clinton herself had nothing to do with it.

Originally posted by Strangelove
Clinton herself had nothing to do with it. I'm sure she has to be involved for it to be staged. And if not, that's still not good.

Originally posted by lord xyz
I'm sure she has to be involved for it to be staged. And if not, that's still not good. Had to be? Do you understand how a national campaign works? Apparently not.

And no, it's not a good thing to stage questions. But if it wasn't her, you shouldn't hold it against her.

Completely misread my post there.

why do they want to take delegates away from the States that Clinton won ?

Originally posted by lord xyz
According to Wikipedia, had the primaries taken place, the delagets would've gone:

MI: 73 - 55 (though I don't trust it, since Obama wasn't on the ballot, and it's likely some of his supporters voted Hillary instead)

FL: 105 - 67 - 13

Total would be: 178 - 122 - 13

So Hillary needing 245 and Obama needing 44 would just mean Obama has the nominee and Hillary doesn't.

Also Hillary would probably get about 43 in MT, PR and SD (aswell as Obama). This would make it:

HC: 178 + 43 = 225
BO: 122 + 43 = 165

245 - 225 = 20
44 - 165 = -121

Hillary still wouldn't have the nominee, Obama would be 141 delegates ahead, the superdelates are leaning more and more towards Obama. She might aswell give up.

Leading in delegates is meaningless if one does not have the requisite number of delegates to secure the nomination.

Nah. It's important because that seems to be how a number of the super delegates are making their decision - going by who's won the elected delegates.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Leading in delegates is meaningless if one does not have the requisite number of delegates to secure the nomination.


Oh come on Burl. It's a mere matter of days before the lead becomes official and insurmountable. Hilldog can't win that many remaining superdelegates. 1/2 of your recent posts have illustrated your conviction. I get it. Obama is not capable of winning the general election, according to your perspective. Point: Hillary wins v McCain, because the American public can't get over Obama not being responsible for his childhood education. Would I have gone to catholic school if it were up to me?

Bottom line: McCain v Obama = a McCain win. Why? Because Obama won't speak down to his supporters? And that's not going to get anyone in this knee-jerk, ignorant country elected, except McCain? I find it a sad reality that Hillary plays by those rules, while assuming the listening public is only capable of thinking and realizing for themselves what they've been told. I guess Obama really is an elitist.

Maybe you're right. But, haven't I always relied on the intelligence of others to prove my point? And maybe I've always been disappointed.

And as I said to PVS: I'm wrong sometimes, but I wish I wasn't. And I would add that anyone here who is a democrat that refuses to vote for Clinton, is WRONG!. At this point, you don't have much to worry about. But don't discount a possible better choice in favor of placing canidate above party or country. That would only illustrate a clear subscription to the Bush policy.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Completely misread my post there. then please explain it.

Originally posted by Devil King
Oh come on Burl. It's a mere matter of days before the lead becomes official and insurmountable. Hilldog can't win that many remaining superdelegates. 1/2 of your recent posts have illustrated your conviction. I get it. Obama is not capable of winning the general election, according to your perspective. Point: Hillary wins v McCain, because the American public can't get over Obama not being responsible for his childhood education. Would I have gone to catholic school if it were up to me?

Bottom line: McCain v Obama = a McCain win. Why? Because Obama won't speak down to his supporters? And that's not going to get anyone in this knee-jerk, ignorant country elected, except McCain? I find it a sad reality that Hillary plays by those rules, while assuming the listening public is only capable of thinking and realizing for themselves what they've been told. I guess Obama really is an elitist.

Maybe you're right. But, haven't I always relied on the intelligence of others to prove my point? And maybe I've always been disappointed.

And as I said to PVS: I'm wrong sometimes, but I wish I wasn't. And I would add that anyone here who is a democrat that refuses to vote for Clinton, is WRONG!. At this point, you don't have much to worry about. But don't discount a possible better choice in favor of placing canidate above party or country. That would only illustrate a clear subscription to the Bush policy.

Until a candidate has the requisite number of delegates required to secure the nomination, who is currently leading in delegates is meaningless, because the affiliations of the delegates may change leading to or at the convention.

Barak Obama may be leading in delegates at the moment, but if conservative efforts to affect his real or perceived electability succeed, he may not be leading in delegates at the convention.

At least, I am concerned that Barak Obama will not defeat John McCain in the general election; and at most, I am concerned that he will be an ineffectual president. One of the reasons that I support Hillary Clinton is that I have confidence in her abilities with regard to both of these issues.

However, I supported Barak Obama for both State and US Senate, and I would support him for President in the event that he secured the nomination of the Democratic party.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Until a candidate has the requisite number of delegates required to secure the nomination, who is currently leading in delegates is meaningless, because the affiliations of the delegates may change leading to or at the convention.

Barak Obama may be leading in delegates at the moment, but if conservative efforts to affect his real or perceived electability succeed, he may not be leading in delegates at the convention.

At least, I am concerned that Barak Obama will not defeat John McCain in the general election; and at most, I am concerned that he will be an ineffectual president. One of the reasons that I support Hillary Clinton is that I have confidence in her abilities with regard to both of these issues.

However, I supported Barak Obama for both State and US Senate, and I would support him for President in the event that he secured the nomination of the Democratic party.

As I would do for Hillary. I have also approached your concerns. There is a very real possibility that Obama will loose. But consider my point: that he has not chosen to pander to the lowest common denominator. I am most proud of Obama for not bending knee to the Clinton perspective of saying what must be said to appeal to the ****ing idiots. I'm sorry, but I am attracted to the idea that not speaking down to the people is the best way to speak to people who are being approached like they're idiots! And what makes me most sad is that those people are ****ing idiots.

An intelligent democrat would absolutely vote for Clinton. But an intelligent democrat that is tired of being spoken down to would vote for Obama. Only a fool could possiby assume Clinton is not worth voting for, in the general election. But, she has lost and it's time for her to support Obama.

Originally posted by Devil King
Only a fool could possiby assume Clinton is not worth voting for, in the general election.

i guess im a fool then. the only reason i would vote for her would be to avoid a disaster...you know...another 4 years of mcbush

Originally posted by Schecter
i guess im a fool then. ...

Originally posted by Shakyamunison


trolling again?

Originally posted by Schecter
trolling again?

fail

I think that Clinton should stay in until someone wins.

if she gets her way tomorrow at the rules and bylaws hearing, that means it will drag on through august (with obama still holding the popular vote). isnt that way past the point of helpful?

Originally posted by ragesRemorse
why do they want to take delegates away from the States that Clinton won ? They took the delegates away before Clinton won them, because they weren't aloud to have their primary before Super Tuesday.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Leading in delegates is meaningless if one does not have the requisite number of delegates to secure the nomination. It shows who the people want, since it'll be the last time they vote.

Originally posted by Strangelove
then please explain it. Involved as in, was the one behind the asking of the questions.

Not good because staging questions isn't answering the public's questions, it's feeding into your own ego.

Originally posted by Devil King
As I would do for Hillary. I have also approached your concerns. There is a very real possibility that Obama will loose. But consider my point: that he has not chosen to pander to the lowest common denominator. I am most proud of Obama for not bending knee to the Clinton perspective of saying what must be said to appeal to the ****ing idiots. I'm sorry, but I am attracted to the idea that not speaking down to the people is the best way to speak to people who are being approached like they're idiots! And what makes me most sad is that those people are ****ing idiots.

An intelligent democrat would absolutely vote for Clinton. But an intelligent democrat that is tired of being spoken down to would vote for Obama. Only a fool could possiby assume Clinton is not worth voting for, in the general election. But, she has lost and it's time for her to support Obama.

He does not appeal to the lowest common denominator, but he no less approaches voters as if they are idiots than does any other politician. One need look no further than his most ardent and over-zealous supporters who cannot address how he will solve their problems, yet are being lead around by the nose by waning rhetoric.




Originally posted by lord xyz
It shows who the people want, since it'll be the last time they vote.

If elections were determined by popular vote, this would be relevant.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
He does not appeal to the lowest common denominator, but he no less approaches voters as if they are idiots than does any other politician. One need look no further than his most ardent and over-zealous supporters who cannot address how he will solve their problems, yet are being lead around by the nose by waning rhetoric.

and this makes him exclusive from mccain and clinton because....

Originally posted by Schecter
and this makes him exclusive from mccain and clinton because....

It does not; that is the point.

ok fair enough. i agree. all candidates...well..anyone famous has their own fanatical following who will never be swayed into turning away...even charles manson. however it seems the implication of many is that obama's supporters are all fanatical idiots who just like to hear pretty muses of hope and prosperity. while you likely did not intend to imply this, it does fit the common rhetoric.

:edit: also just food for thought, i have noticed more of a fanatical anti-obama trend in the media and among our less intelligent peers than any other candidate in my lifetime.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
If elections were determined by popular vote, this would be relevant.

I'd be careful with that, since the popular vote is going to end up being Clinton's only substantial source for her argument to super delegates as to why she should win. An acknowledgment (a correct one, mind you) that the popular vote is meaningless means she will literally have no real path to the nomination outside of empty rhetoric and baseless spinning about how she's the stronger candidate, despite having lost to the 'weaker' candidate. That said, her argument as to how she's even won the popular vote is sketchy and fallacious, at best.

its funny how even we skirt the real issue. the dnc is concerned that 'white america' isnt ready to vote for a n****r. a white broad perhaps, but maybe not a darkie. thats the real issue and we should just come down from planet wellintendedrhetoric and just say it.

Obama isn't a ******, he is ahalf cast, also, it's possible that if Obama loses for whatever reason, the black comunity will not be happy. Especially FOTN.

*sigh* again, in the eyes of 'white america', 1/2,1/4,1/8 n****r=n****r. dark skin. curly hair. all they see is puff daddy. its sad yes, but there you have it.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Obama isn't a ******, he is ahalf cast, also, it's possible that if Obama loses for whatever reason, the black comunity will not be happy. Especially FOTN.

When I look at Barack, I don't see "black" or "half black"; I see "change".

Originally posted by lord xyz
Obama isn't a ******, he is ahalf cast, also, it's possible that if Obama loses for whatever reason, the black comunity will not be happy. Especially FOTN.

He's mixed race, you racist piece of shit.

Who cares? He's an intelligent dude with great charisma and good ideas.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
He does not appeal to the lowest common denominator, but he no less approaches voters as if they are idiots than does any other politician. One need look no further than his most ardent and over-zealous supporters who cannot address how he will solve their problems, yet are being lead around by the nose by waning rhetoric.






If elections were determined by popular vote, this would be relevant.

Well, it's unfortunate you think so little of my position. But, there is no doubt you've been paying attention to what Mrs. Clinton says, and how she says it. It's often that she attacks the person over the position. I guess I strike you as someone who is easily led around by the nose. I'm not saying he appeals to the lowest common denominator, I'm saying she tries to. And never once did I say you were the lowest common denominator. And I can also see the possible clouds on the horizon. I have no doubt that anything positive accomplished by a possible Obama administration where Mrs. Clinton serves as the VP will be attributed to her.


As for the popular vote, I seem to recall her standing on the steps of capitol hill after the 2000 election, promising to lead the fight to do away with the electoral college. I also see it is still in effect

Originally posted by Devil King
As for the popular vote, I seem to recall her standing on the steps of capitol hill after the 2000 election, promising to lead the fight to do away with the electoral college. I also see it is still in effect The Electoral College was established by the Constitution, which is notoriously hard to amend.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
He's mixed race, you racist piece of shit. I know, I'm evil, aren't I?

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=young+hillary+clinton#

Looks like Hillary hasn't changed much over the years.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/30/clinton.case/index.html



so under pressure from the dnc to follow the rules, obama, edwards, richardson, and biden all removed their names from the ballot. clinton defies the rules and puts her name on, virtually unchallenged except for kucinich (lol). so now she wants to be rewarded for it while obama is punished for following the rules. this is hillary clinton at her finest.

now its clear that she indeed seeks to steal the election while accusing a candidate who followed the rules of stealing the election.

naaa scratch all that. i'm just another sexist.

Originally posted by Schecter
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/30/clinton.case/index.html



so under pressure from the dnc to follow the rules, obama, edwards, richardson, and biden all removed their names from the ballot. clinton defies the rules and puts her name on, virtually unchallenged except for kucinich (lol). so now she wants to be rewarded for it while obama is punished for following the rules. this is hillary clinton at her finest.

now its clear that she indeed seeks to steal the election while accusing a candidate who followed the rules of stealing the election.

naaa scratch all that. i'm just another sexist.

Welcome to the real world.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Welcome to the real world.

thats the way the cookie crumbles

do you plan on adding anything to this discussion besides moronic rhetoric?

Originally posted by Strangelove
The Electoral College was established by the Constitution, which is notoriously hard to amend.

A promise is a promise. Tried and failed is vastly different from promising and never making the effort.

Originally posted by Schecter
thats the way the cookie crumbles

do you plan on adding anything to this discussion besides moronic rhetoric?

I was under the impression that was all you could understand.

yes thats teriffic, but could you please save your idiotic and useless comments for another topic? thanks a bunch.

the rnc committee reconvenes at 4:15. its been pretty civil considering the ridiculous demands and backwards logic being presented by clinton supporters.
i love the logic that if clinton isnt awarded every michigan delegate, then its disenfrachisement of voters. i guess the only voters worth considering are those who voted for her.

the great turds of logic that perpetuates their claim:

1-since its conceivable that a minority of uncommitted voters would not have supported obama (quite fair enough), then it should be assumed that everyone who voted 'uncommitted' supported clinton and she should recieve every delegate.

2-its also conceivable that all voters who didnt show up at the polls because of the michigan forfeit would have voted for clinton anyway.

3-obama was at fault for obeying the rules of the dnc and withdrawing his name from the ballot. those who break the rules should be rewarded and those who comply must be penalized.

this is not strawman. they are actually trying to sell this crap in washington today.

god i hope they end this bullshit charade by tomorrow morning. its clear that (i hope) the rules and bylaws committe wont cave in to her ridiculous demand, so get ready for epic clinton butthurt.

That's a lot of butthurt.

(Cuz her butt is big, haha)

Originally posted by lord xyz
Obama supporter saying why he won't vote for Hillary in the general election.

jcFB5POzpXw

Don't worry, he won't vote McCain either.

half the florida delegates will be counted

now michigan also will have the full delegation counted at half-votes. obama will have a percentage of delegates. some hillary supporters chanted and screamed, disrupting the democratic process at every turn. go vote for mccain assholes. (not directedat all hillary fans, just the ones who Cant Understand Normal Thinking and wouldnt mind to see a travesty and mockery of democracy just to see clinton win

Yeah, I was surprised at how rude and disruptive some of the dipshit crybabies in the audience were. Really was shameful and embarrassing for them, made them look really pathetic.

Yes.

Know what I call democracy? Having more than one damn name on the ballot when voting. They should be grateful that the disaster that is Michigan's primary is even counting at all. The idea that Obama should get no delegates because that's "what the voters" said is sheer, lopsided bullshit. They had no option becides Clinton. This isn't Cuba. One option in an election is bogus. They basically want to penalize Obama for playing by the rules.

its clear that they will abandon their party regardless so who gives a **** what they think?

seriously toward the end when they werent able to restate the decisions because of all the chanting and yelling (by like only a dozen out of hundreds of people) i would have welcomed a bit of taser action.

What's going to be really fascinating to watch is how, come tomorrow, the Clinton camp attempts to spin Puerto Rico's win as a sign that she should be the nominee, despite them not even being able to vote in November. Good times.

on a somewhat unrelated note, I really do think Puerto Rico should become a state.

agreed there. on a similar note i think texas should be removed from the union and given back to mexico. we wont even have to redesign the flag.

Originally posted by Strangelove
on a somewhat unrelated note, I really do think Puerto Rico should become a state.

And there's no real reason it shouldn't. But, what I hear is political pandering by Mr. Clinton. As well as hearing the neocon response to a state that consists mostly of merxican speakers getting up'ty. All it really comes down to is people thinking that 50 is a nice, round, democratic number.

I wasn't talking about anything related to the campaign, just throwing in a random thought.

...or maybe we could keep texas and nuke utah.