Democratic Nomination?

Originally posted by Strangelove
When will people realize that when I make a statement, it is rarely a generalization? I appreciate the fact that among the other anti-Clinton posters in this thread, you've been the most cooperative (not a high bar, though). But I was referring to a single post.

Do I ignore e-mails sent by both BOs' and HRCs' campaigns? Yes. Does that in any way mean that I'm uninformed and/or unwilling to change my opinion? Absolutely not. However, I will point out that the fact that I already voted is somewhat final, wouldn't you agree?

The notion that my level of commitment to this campaign is somehow linked to whether or not I read the campaigns' e-mails is both ridiculous and insulting. And that is what I was referring to.

When? Once you stop qualifying?

As soon as BO's and the HRC's emails become the same, we might find resolution?

My level of cooperation shoulding imply consideration.

It doesn't matter if your reading of the Clinton's campaign emails are conducive with a change in candidate stance. Both have done as much. To dismiss that is irresponsible. And less change in candidate stance (which happends every 4 years) but are possible talking points for the supported candidant stance.

I'm sorry, your argument makes no sense to me. I stay quite well-informed enough through other channels than to simply rely on campaign e-mails. I'd argue better informed.

You still haven't addressed the fact that I've already voted. How does that factor in?

You kinda negate the "consideration" when you talk to me in a blatantly arrogant fashion like you did.

Originally posted by Devil King
Pointing out that you might get them and [b]ignore them. [/B]

Originally posted by Devil King
I might not have the cash to incite your interest.

Originally posted by Strangelove
On that note, it's 5:33 in the morning and I need to get the **** to bed. Later gents.

Originally posted by Strangelove

It's okay to go to bed. The campaign won't wither because you went to sleep.

Originally posted by Strangelove
I'm sorry, your argument makes no sense to me. I stay quite well-informed enough through other channels than to simply rely on campaign e-mails. I'd argue better informed.

You still haven't addressed the fact that I've already voted. How does that factor in?

You kinda negate the "consideration" when you talk to me in a blatantly arrogant fashion like you did.
Where's the "consideration" there?

Don't imply that I'm uninformed because I don't get "other e-mails". I've jujst been pointing out that you should know your oppponent.

You can vote all you want. I have. But having voted isn't my point. Being registerd or being capable or willing or able isn't either.

Originally posted by Strangelove
...relevance?

don't conflate my point about people who subscribe to FOX ews, in my first point, with my second point.

Edwards delegates in South Carolina move to Obama
Posted: 12:23 PM ET

From CNN Political Producer Peter Hamby, CNN's Beth Rotatori
(CNN) – At least six of John Edwards’ eight pledged delegates in South Carolina will throw their support to Barack Obama following Edwards’ endorsement of the Democratic frontrunner on Wednesday, CNN has learned.

Daniel Boan, Christine Brennan-Bond, Robert Groce, Susan Smith, Mike Evatt and Lauren Bilton — all elected as pledged delegates for Edwards following his third place finish in the South Carolina primary on January 29 — announced Thursday they will follow Edwards’ lead and pledge their support to Obama at the Democratic National Convention in August.

John Moylan, the Columbia attorney who directed Edwards’ campaign in the state and is now serving as an alternate delegate for Edwards, appeared on CNN’s “American Morning” Thursday. He stated his support for Obama and hinted that more members of the Edwards delegation would soon follow.

“I didn't reach all eight of them, but I can tell you that at least six of the eight are prepared to endorse Senator Obama,” Moylan said.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

"John Edwards is not a superdelegate".

your point?

For that, you'll have to ask the person who said it.

John Edwards releasing his delegates to Barack Obama has a much larger effect than the endorsement itself

well they pretty much go hand in hand. his endorsement is a call for his deligates to vote for obama. in essence he's a superduperdeligate

Originally posted by Strangelove
John Edwards releasing his delegates to Barack Obama has a much larger effect than the endorsement itself

I assume you mean among those uneducated poor white voters, who love Mr. Edwards?

Superdelegates that didn't just endorse Obama, but switched from Clinton to Obama.

So, should he?

Originally posted by Schecter
well they pretty much go hand in hand. his endorsement is a call for his deligates to vote for obama. in essence he's a superduperdeligate

there is no process to it. its a collection of individuals following the advice of their candidate of previous choice.

Originally posted by Devil King
So, should he?

haha i like how they retouched the photo so that he looks darker and about 16 years old

why not just throw some bling and a set of grillz.

Originally posted by Schecter
haha i like how they retouched the photo so that he looks darker and about 16 years old

why not just throw some bling and a set of grillz.

may as well say "should the n****r boy quit?"

Originally posted by Schecter
there is no process to it. its a collection of individuals following the advice of their candidate of previous choice.

Originally posted by Schecter
may as well say "should the n****r boy quit?"