Over

[g++]

Jun 3, 3:26 PM EDT


AP tally: Obama effectively clinches nomination

AP Tally: Obama Clinches Democratic Nomination




WASHINGTON (AP) -- Barack Obama effectively clinched the Democratic presidential nomination Tuesday, based on an Associated Press tally of convention delegates, ending a grueling marathon to become the first black candidate ever to lead his party into a fall campaign for the White House.

Campaigning on an insistent call for change, Obama outlasted former first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton in a historic race that sparked record turnout in primary after primary, yet exposed deep racial and gender divisions within the party.

The tally was based on public declarations from delegates as well as from another 16 who have confirmed their intentions to the AP. It also included 11 delegates Obama was guaranteed as long as he gained 30 percent of the vote in South Dakota and Montana later in the day. It takes 2,118 delegates to clinch the nomination.

The 46-year-old first-term senator will face John McCain in the fall campaign to become the 44th president. The Arizona senator campaigned in Memphis, Tenn., during the day, and had no immediate reaction to Obama's victory.

Clinton stood ready to concede that her rival had amassed the delegates needed to triumph, according to officials in her campaign. They stressed that the New York senator did not intend to suspend or end her candidacy in a speech Tuesday night in New York. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they had not been authorized to divulge her plans.

Obama's triumph was fashioned on prodigious fundraising, meticulous organizing and his theme of change aimed at an electorate opposed to the Iraq war and worried about the economy - all harnessed to his own innate gifts as a campaigner.

With her husband's two-White House terms as a backdrop, Clinton campaigned for months as the candidate of experience, a former first lady and second-term senator ready, she said, to take over on Day One.

But after a year on the campaign trail, Obama won the kickoff Iowa caucuses on Jan. 3, and the freshman senator became something of an overnight political phenomenon.

"We came together as Democrats, as Republicans and independents, to stand up and say we are one nation, we are one people and our time for change has come," he said that night in Des Moines.

A video produced by Will I. Am and built around Obama's "Yes, we can" rallying cry quickly went viral. It drew its one millionth hit within a few days of being posted.

As the strongest female presidential candidate in history, Clinton drew large, enthusiastic audiences. Yet Obama's were bigger still. One audience, in Dallas, famously cheered when he blew his nose on stage; a crowd of 75,000 turned out in Portland, Ore., the weekend before the state's May 20 primary.

The former first lady countered Obama's Iowa victory with an upset five days later in New Hampshire that set the stage for a campaign marathon as competitive as any in the last generation.

"Over the last week I listened to you, and in the process I found my own voice," she told supporters who had saved her candidacy from an early demise.

In defeat, Obama's aides concluded they had committed a cardinal sin of New Hampshire politics, forsaking small, intimate events in favor of speeches to large audiences inviting them to ratify Iowa's choice.

It was not a mistake they made again - which helped explain Obama's later outings to bowling alleys, backyard basketball hoops and American Legion halls in the heartland.

Clinton conceded nothing, memorably knocking back a shot of Crown Royal whiskey at a bar in Indiana, recalling that her grandfather had taught her to use a shotgun, and driving in a pickup to a gas station in South Bend, Ind., to emphasize her support for a summertime suspension of the federal gasoline tax.

As other rivals quickly fell away in winter, the strongest black candidate in history and the strongest female White House contender traded victories on Super Tuesday, the Feb. 5 series of primaries and caucuses across 21 states and American Samoa that once seemed likely to settle the nomination.

But Clinton had a problem that Obama exploited, and he scored a coup she could not answer.

Pressed for cash, the former first lady ran noncompetitive campaigns in several Super Tuesday caucus states, allowing her rival to run up his delegate totals.

At the same time, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., endorsed the young senator in terms that summoned memories of his slain brothers while seeking to turn the page on the Clinton era.

In a reference that likened former President Clinton to Harry Truman: "There was another time, when another young candidate was running for president and challenging America to cross a new frontier. He faced criticism from the preceding Democratic president, who was widely respected in the party."

Merely by surviving Super Tuesday, Obama exceeded expectations.

But he did more than survive, emerging with a lead in delegates that he never relinquished, and proceeded to run off a string of 11 straight victories.

Clinton saved her candidacy once more with primary victories in Ohio and Texas on March 4, beginning a stretch in which she won primaries in six of the final nine states on the calendar, as well as in Puerto Rico.

It was a strong run, providing glimpses of what might have been for the one-time front-runner.

But by then Obama was well on his way to victory, Clinton and her allies stressed the popular vote instead of delegates. Yet he seemed to emerge from each loss with residual strength.

Obama's bigger-than-expected victory in North Carolina on May 6 offset his narrow defeat in Indiana the same day. Four days later, he overtook Clinton's lead among superdelegates, the party leaders she had hoped would award her the nomination on the basis of a strong showing in swing states.

Obama lost West Virginia by a whopping 67 percent to 26 percent on May 13. Yet he won an endorsement the following day from former presidential rival and one-time North Carolina Sen. John Edwards.

Clinton administered another drubbing in Kentucky a week later. This time, Obama countered with a victory in Oregon, and turned up that night in Iowa to say he had won a majority of all the delegates available in 56 primaries and caucuses on the calendar.

There were moments of anger, notably in a finger-wagging debate in South Carolina on Jan. 21.

Obama told the former first lady he was helping unemployed workers on the streets of Chicago when "you were a corporate lawyer sitting on the board at Wal-Mart."

Moments later, Clinton said that she was fighting against misguided Republican policies "when you were practicing law and representing your contributor ... in his slum landlord business in inner city Chicago."

And Bill Clinton was a constant presence and an occasional irritant for Obama. The former president angered several black politicians when he seemed to diminish Obama's South Carolina triumph by noting that Jesse Jackson had also won the state.

Obama's frustration showed at the Jan. 21 debate, when he accused the former president in absentia of uttering a series of distortions.

"I'm here. He's not," the former first lady snapped.

"Well, I can't tell who I'm running against sometimes," Obama countered.

There were relatively few policy differences. Clinton accused Obama of backing a health care plan that would leave millions out, and the two clashed repeatedly over trade.

Yet race, religion, region and gender became political fault lines as the two campaigned from coast to coast.

Along the way, Obama showed an ability to weather the inevitable controversies, most notably one caused by the incendiary rhetoric of his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

At first, Obama said he could not break with his longtime spiritual adviser. Then, when Wright spoke out anew, Obama reversed course and denounced him strongly.

Clinton struggled with self-inflicted wounds. Most prominently, she claimed to have come under sniper fire as first lady more than a decade earlier while paying a visit to Bosnia.

Instead, videotapes showed her receiving a gift of flowers from a young girl who greeted her plane.

---

Associated Press Writers Nedra Pickler and Beth Fouhy in Washington, Stephen Majors in Columbus, Ohio, Jim Davenport in Columbia, S.C., and Libby Quaid in Memphis, Tenn.

© 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy.

[Back]

Rock. Now to get to the WH.

[Clove]

Nobody's voted yet...

[Stanley Burrell]

Nobody's voted yet...

I think a lot more of those nobody's will vote this time around.

[Gan]

Cant wait to see the VP selections.

Lots of votes and potential votes will hinge on that too.

[g++]

Ask and you shall receive Gan ....


WASHINGTON - Hillary Rodham Clinton told colleagues Tuesday she would be consider joining Barack Obama as his running mate, and advisers said she was withholding a formal departure from the race partly to use her remaining leverage to press for a spot on the ticket.

On a conference call with other New York lawmakers, Clinton, a New York senator, said she was willing to become Obama's vice presidential nominee if it would help Democrats win the White House, according to a participant who spoke on condition of anonymity because this person was not authorized to speak for Clinton.

Clinton's remarks came in response to a question from Democratic Rep. Nydia Velazquez, who said she believed the best way for Obama to win key voting blocs, including Hispanics, would be for him to choose Clinton as his running mate.

"I am open to it," Clinton replied, if it would help the party's prospects in November.

Clinton also told colleagues the delegate math was not there for her to overtake Obama, but that she wanted to take time to determine how to leave the race in a way that would best help Democrats.

"I deserve some time to get this right," she said, even as the other lawmakers forcefully argued for her to press Obama to choose her as his running mate.

Aides to the Illinois senator said he and Clinton had not spoken about the prospects of her joining the ticket.

Obama effectively sewed up the 2,118 delegates needed to win the nomination Tuesday, based on a tally of pledged delegates, superdelegates who have declared their preference, and another 18 superdelegates who have confirmed their intentions to The Associated Press. It also included five delegates Obama was guaranteed as long as he gained 15 percent of the vote in South Dakota and Montana later in the day.

Word of Clinton's vice presidential musings came as she prepared to deliver a televised address to supporters on the final night of the epic primary season. She was working out final details of the speech at her Chappaqua, N.Y., home with her husband, former President Bill Clinton, their daughter Chelsea, and close aides.

Earlier, on NBC's "Today Show," Clinton campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe said that once Obama gets the majority of convention delegates, "I think Hillary Clinton will congratulate him and call him the nominee."

Clinton will pledge to continue to speak out on issues like health care. But for all intents and purposes, two senior officials said, her campaign is over.

Most campaign staff will be let go and will be paid through June 15, said the officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to divulge her plans.

The advisers said Clinton has made a strategic decision to not formally end her campaign, giving her leverage to negotiate with Obama on various matters including a possible vice presidential nomination for her. She also wants to press him on issues he should focus on in the fall, such as health care.

Universal health care, Clinton's signature issue as first lady in the 1990s, was a point of dispute between Obama and the New York senator during their epic nomination fight.

In a formal statement, the campaign made clear the limits of how far she would go in Tuesday night's speech. "Senator Clinton will not concede the nomination," the statement said.

Clinton field hands who worked in key battlegrounds said they were told to stand down, without pay, and await instructions. Speaking not for attribution because they didn't want to jeopardize their jobs searches, many said they were peddling resumes, returning to their hometowns or seeking out former employers.

Clinton officials have said they would not contest the seating of Michigan delegates at the convention in Denver this August. The campaign was angry this past weekend when a Democratic National Committee panel awarded Obama delegates it thought Clinton deserved.

[NocturnalRob]

WASHINGTON - Hillary Rodham Clinton told colleagues Tuesday she would be consider joining Barack Obama as his running mate,

= fastest way for Obama to lose this election.

[landy]

Although it would be a virtually unbeatable ticket, I truly hope she doesn't make it as VP.

[landy]

= fastest way for Obama to lose this election.

I think that would be the general consensus of this board, however, the average democrat would be fairly obligated to vote for these two. And I believe record turnout of democrats at the polls would easily propel them in to the white house.

[Gan]

Although it would be a virtually unbeatable ticket, I truly hope she doesn't make it as VP.

Unbeatable?

How so?

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

I think that would be the general consensus of this board, however, the average democrat would be fairly obligated to vote for these two. And I believe record turnout of democrats at the polls would easily propel them in to the white house.

A massive part of that turn out were swing and independent voters who feel no loyalty to the Democratic party. I think they'd lose a lot of those swing voters if they put her on the ticket with Obama. Even before this primary season she's been a very polarizing figure.

[CrystalTears]

I won't vote for Obama if Clinton is the VP primarily because people have been saying all this time that neither of them have enough experience to hold office and would need a strong, experience VP to be complete. So we should have them working together? The blind leading the blind? No thanks.

[NocturnalRob]

Although it would be a virtually unbeatable ticket.

perhaps you don't know what unbeatable means. let me help.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unbeatable


The blind leading the blind? No thanks.

correct

[Mabus]

Clinton officials have said they would not contest the seating of Michigan delegates at the convention in Denver this August. The campaign was angry this past weekend when a Democratic National Committee panel awarded Obama delegates it thought Clinton deserved.
I have found it astonishing that the media skip how 59 Michigan delegates were given to Clinton's opponent, and only seem to focus on the 4 stolen from her.

They skip that others received votes, and that "Uncommitted" votes have a place within the DNC rules.

Regulation 4.25:
"`uncommitted’ is treated as any other presidential candidate status for the purpose of allocating delegates and alternates."

Instead, not only all uncommitted votes, but a "model" using exit polls and other non-election data was used to determine the delegate selection, not the actual votes from the voters.

Even voters that did choose a candidate other then Clinton on the ballot (like Kucinich, who received over 20,000 votes) had their vote given to someone they did not vote for.

Now that is fairness and following the rules, eh? This must be the "new kind of politics" we keep hearing about from a certain campaign!

[g++]

It would be so sweet if Obama took Bill instead.

[CrystalTears]

It would be so sweet if Obama took Bill instead.
That would be super sweet.

[Clove]

Even voters that did choose a candidate other then Clinton on the ballot (like Kucinich, who received over 20,000 votes) had their vote given to someone they did not vote for.

Now that is fairness and following the rules, eh? This must be the "new kind of politics" we keep hearing about from a certain campaign!I agree, they should allow delegates for Kucinich at the Convention.

[CrystalTears]

Now that is fairness and following the rules, eh? This must be the "new kind of politics" we keep hearing about from a certain campaign!
It would have been more fair had they gone with their initial standing and not given any votes from either of those states.

[g++]

Yah I wrote my own name in wheres my delegate.

[NocturnalRob]

It would be so sweet if Obama took Bill instead.

= 2nd fastest way for Obama to lose.

But I would love to see her face. Like her tasting a sour lemon...like her face always looks...

[Some Rogue]

Now that is fairness and following the rules, eh?

If this were about following the rules, no one would have got any fucking delegates because they went against party rules and held their damn primary early. So cry me a fucking river...neither one should have gotten any delegates and you know what the outcome would have been? The same thing, Obama wins.

[landy]

Noc, I'd link you to the word virtually, but I'm too lazy. Must... read... whole... sentences.

[Mabus]

It would have been more fair had they gone with their initial standing and not given any votes from either of those states.
I agree, but I as I stated before the DNC would seat the delegations. They want to win the general election, and in order to have a chance to do so they have to allow the participation of of the two states.

The rules (Rule 20(C)-1) allow for a 50% reduction in delegates. They also allow for full seating if the party tries to bring the primary back into compliance (which the FLA democrats tried).

The DNC rules nowhere allow for "Uncommitted" to be given to a specific delegate.

Here is a next prediction you can all hate me for, and tell me I am wrong about: Obama will ask at the convention that the two states be given full delegate votes, and it will win resoundingly in a floor vote.

[Mabus]

If this were about following the rules, no one would have got any fucking delegates because they went against party rules and held their damn primary early. So cry me a fucking river...neither one should have gotten any delegates and you know what the outcome would have been? The same thing, Obama wins.
I am not crying anything, just stating facts. I support neither of the candidates involved in the primary in question.

Before all of you start speaking of rules, read them. Just once. They are available.

[Gan]

= 2nd fastest way for Obama to lose.

But I would love to see her face. Like her tasting a sour lemon...like her face always looks...
This one?

http://www.extrememortman.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/Hillary%20Clinton%20from%20all4humor.jpg

[NocturnalRob]

Noc, I'd link you to the word virtually, but I'm too lazy. Must... read... whole... sentences.

Landy, virtually or not, stfu. you're wrong. that's the worst goddamn ticket I've seen since...Perot/Stockdale in 1992.


This one?

http://www.extrememortman.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/Hillary%20Clinton%20from%20all4humor.jpg

Gan FTW

although CNN posted one too that was pretty fun. it was taken down in about 5 minutes and replaced with one where she looks almost human.

[Mabus]

Landy, virtually or not, stfu. you're wrong. that's the worst goddamn ticket I've seen since...Perot/Stockdale in 1992.

I said then that Perot was a crazy MF'er, but damn if he wasn't correct when he said:

"Well, everybody's nibbling around the edges. Let's go to the center of the bull's-eye, the core problem. And believe me, everybody on the factory floor all over this country knows it. You implement that NAFTA, the Mexican trade agreement, where they pay people a dollar an hour, have no health care, no retirement, no pollution controls, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, and you're going to hear a giant sucking sound of jobs being pulled out of this country right at a time when we need the tax base to pay the debt and pay down the interest on the debt and get our house back in order."

[Some Rogue]

I am not crying anything, just stating facts. I support neither of the candidates involved in the primary in question.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

I won't vote for Obama if Clinton is the VP primarily because people have been saying all this time that neither of them have enough experience to hold office and would need a strong, experience VP to be complete. So we should have them working together? The blind leading the blind? No thanks.

I just don't trust Clinton.

I think she grossly mishandled her campaign (financially and otherwise) and I disagree with the style of campaign she ran.. when she spoke in CT right before Super Tuesday she tried to paint herself as the Woman's candidate and the candidate with compassion and the sorts of traits we'd imagine to see more in a woman than a man.. but that's certainly not how she acted. The last straw for me were the comments she made about the youth vote and comments made by her opening speakers outright ridiculing the supporters of Obama. She lost my vote when she went on all of her "it doesn't count!" tirades or her femnazi supporters went on about how any female who voted for Obama was a disgrace (totally not seeing how it's sexist to not vote for someone because he's a man, but oh well). We'll see how much it counts, against her.

I just see this whole mess of mistakes and mis-steps from her, and regardless of which party she belongs to, I don't think she's fit at all to lead the country. Not as President, not as Vice President.

[Mabus]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I am sure you believe you know my complete political beliefs. You do know that I do not support an inexperienced candidate whose proposed policies I disagree with, but little else.

Tell me who I supported in this primary season, or laugh at yourself.

:hi:

[Gan]

PARTY AT ILVANE'S!!!

[BigWorm]

I don't know why everyone thinks that the running mates will make a big difference in the race. When was the last time a running mate was the difference between getting elected and not? Whoever gets picked for the VP nod, I don't really think it is going to make very much difference if any...

Unless its Hillary Clinton. I think there are a lot of independent and swing voters that will not vote for a ticket with Clinton on it.

[Daniel]

I have found it astonishing that the media skip how 59 Michigan delegates were given to Clinton's opponent, and only seem to focus on the 4 stolen from her.

They skip that others received votes, and that "Uncommitted" votes have a place within the DNC rules.

Regulation 4.25:
"`uncommitted’ is treated as any other presidential candidate status for the purpose of allocating delegates and alternates."

Instead, not only all uncommitted votes, but a "model" using exit polls and other non-election data was used to determine the delegate selection, not the actual votes from the voters.

Even voters that did choose a candidate other then Clinton on the ballot (like Kucinich, who received over 20,000 votes) had their vote given to someone they did not vote for.

Now that is fairness and following the rules, eh? This must be the "new kind of politics" we keep hearing about from a certain campaign!

I can almost hear the tear drops hitting your pillow.

[Daniel]

I don't know why everyone thinks that the running mates will make a big difference in the race. When was the last time a running mate was the difference between getting elected and not? Whoever gets picked for the VP nod, I don't really think it is going to make very much difference if any...

Unless its Hillary Clinton. I think there are a lot of independent and swing voters that will not vote for a ticket with Clinton on it.

Um seriously?

I believe it will be a deciding factor is because you have two candidates with perceived weaknesses who are entirely dependent on moderates to propell them into the white house. A good selection on one side and a bad on another will spell a shit load of moderate votes going the good way.

[AestheticDeath]

I don't see how Obama and Clinton teaming up could get anywhere. Haven't they basically butted heads on all topics? How could two totally different people run a country together?

[Latrinsorm]

How could two totally different people run a country together?Because the VP doesn't have shit to do with running the country, probably.

Doesn't really matter, though, putting Hilary on the ticket won't get Eschaton and his ilk back from Le France anyway. It's a lose-lose move.

[Kranar]

I have to second the idea that a Vice President doesn't really make a difference.

I doubt people voted for Al Gore because of Joe Lieberman anymore than I think anyone voted for George Bush because of Dick Cheney. The focus of a campaign is very much on the Presidential candidate, and very little attention is given to the VP.

In other words... if a candidate is not strong enough to win a general election on their own aptitude, they certainly aren't going to win it because of their VP.

[Stanley Burrell]

Because the VP doesn't have shit to do with running the country, probably.

Doesn't really matter, though, putting Hilary on the ticket won't get Eschaton and his ilk back from Le France anyway. It's a lose-lose move.

Cheney's been Bush's undoubted Igor throughout this presidency. He hardly exerted himself.

[AestheticDeath]

That seems pretty fucking stupid to me. The VP IS the president if something happens to the nominated president. You have to be happy with how the VP could run things if it goes that way.

And the VP is supposed to be responsible for a lot of stuff, beyond what the president is responsible for.

[Clove]

He's President of the Senate!

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

That seems pretty fucking stupid to me. The VP IS the president if something happens to the nominated president. You have to be happy with how the VP could run things if it goes that way.

And the VP is supposed to be responsible for a lot of stuff, beyond what the president is responsible for.

:yeahthat:

[Kranar]

That seems pretty fucking stupid to me. The VP IS the president if something happens to the nominated president. You have to be happy with how the VP could run things if it goes that way.


Same goes for the Speaker of the House as well as for the Senate Pro Tempore but I don't think you see people voting for Nanci Pelosi in the unlikely case that she has to take over the Presidency. Fact of the matter is that there is such a low likelyhood that the Vice President will become the President that for all intent and purposes it's not something that a Presidential candidate should really spend much time focusing on during a campaign.



And the VP is supposed to be responsible for a lot of stuff, beyond what the president is responsible for.


Not really... unless you think being the chairman of the Smithsonian or of NASA are big responsibilities.

[Some Rogue]

I'm sure after her comment about the assassination of RFK, he's a little shy about bringing her on the ticket.

[AestheticDeath]

The VP is more likely than the Speaker though to assume the role. And I didn't think we could vote for the Speaker? Thought that was appointed or something...

And the VP travels the world talking to all the other head idiots to do certain talks that the pres doesn't have time for, right?

[Mabus]

I can almost hear the tear drops hitting your pillow.
Dreaming of being face down in my pillow again, Daniel?

Let it go, as it is not going to happen.

[Kefka]

Hillary as Obama's VP kills his message of change.

[Latrinsorm]

For a guy who claims to be old, you make some pretty high school remarks.

I know, I know, "BUT THEY DID IT FIRST!!!" See above.

[Mabus]

For a guy who claims to be old, you make some pretty high school remarks.

I know, I know, "BUT THEY DID IT FIRST!!!" See above.
Skip the fact that I made a reasoned post, with the actual rules cited, and then look at the response he gave.

Whether someone supports "candidate A", "candidate B" or no candidate at all does not change the rules.

Instead of a debate addressing the fact that the DNC was acting within the rules to grant 50% reduction, but outside of the rules to disregard actual vote totals and "Uncommitted" status (which is true), I have to deal with juvenile remarks in a language the kiddies may understand.

I hope that has been helpful.

[Keller]

You do know that I do not support an inexperienced candidate whose proposed policies I disagree with, but little else.


Maybe if you removed your chin from Obama's nuts we'd know something else.

Obamaniac.

PS - You're still extremely biased and therefore have no credibility (not that your regurgitation of rules is not genuine, but that your opinion based thereon is suspect).

[Latrinsorm]

I have to deal with juvenile remarks in a language the kiddies may understand.Only an imbecile has to respond. An adult can choose not to, regardless of what the "kiddies" do.

[Mabus]

Maybe if you removed your chin from Obama's nuts we'd know something else.
Your facination with nuts knows no bounds, eh?


Obamaniac.

Obamaniac - Supporter of a candidate with low judgement and little experience. Blind follower of a hopeless cause.

Got the wrong fella.

PS - You're still extremely biased and therefore have no credibility (not that your regurgitation of rules is not genuine, but that your opinion based thereon is suspect).
So the rules of the DNC are suspect because you do not like my opinion of your "nuts"-buddy?

You sir, are an idiot.

It is fact that he did not win the nomination by votes. He did not have the pledged delegates to win.

He won by the party elitists (super delegates) and suspect decisions by the DNC (59 delegates for 0 votes, allowed political commercials in a state in violation, denial of FLA full status allowed by rules) that were decided in backrooms and at lunch, previous to a farce of a public vote.

Those are facts. That they are not "happy" facts for you, and the Obamaniacs, matters not.

[Daniel]

So the rules of the DNC are suspect because you do not like my opinion of your "nuts"-buddy?

You sir, are an idiot.

It is fact that he did not win the nomination by votes. He did not have the pledged delegates to win.

He won by the party elitists (super delegates) and suspect decisions by the DNC (59 delegates for 0 votes, allowed political commercials in a state in violation, denial of FLA full status allowed by rules) that were decided in backrooms and at lunch, previous to a farce of a public vote.

Those are facts. That they are not "happy" facts for you, and the Obamaniacs, matters not.


No, you're opinion is suspect because you go on this long tirade about "rules" and forget that Michigan and Florida were the ones who broke the rules first and everything stems from that.

[Ilvane]

Mabus, don't even bother. You aren't going to convince anyone on this board, they are all pretty much already set in their opinions.

[Tisket]

Mabus, don't even bother. You aren't going to convince anyone on this board, they are all pretty much already set in their opinions.

And you are Miss Flexible I suppose.

[Keller]

Mabus, don't even bother. You aren't going to convince anyone on this board, they are all pretty much already set in their opinions.

I think his inability to convince others has more to do with his (1) attitude and pejorative posting tendency, (2) inability to discuss material elements, and (3) his inability to be wrong when he clearly is.

[Clove]

Mabus, don't even bother. You aren't going to convince anyone on this board, they are all pretty much already set in their opinions.You may as well just delete your posts.

[Ilvane]

Clove, do me a favor and shut the fuck up.

Get over something that happened months ago, will you?

Christ, it gets old.

[Clove]

Not for us sweety.

[Ilvane]

It's pretty sad that you are all still at it. :yawn:

[Clove]

It's pretty sad that you are all still at it. :yawn:It's sad that people still make fun of Backlash... but he (like you) brought it on himself.

It's just one of those things, you don't post on a board- only to delete them.

Quit trying to change the subject. Party at your house.

[Daniel]

It doesn't help when you come back drumming up old arguments with shit like "They won't believe you anyway, because they didn't believe me when I was equally full of shit".

[Gan]

Clove, do me a favor and shut the fuck up.

Get over something that happened months ago, will you?

Christ, it gets old.

PARTY AT ILVANES!!!!!

[Clove]

http://punditkitchen.wordpress.com/files/2008/06/political-pictures-hillary-clinton-bobby-kennedy.jpg
http://punditkitchen.wordpress.com/files/2008/05/political-pictures-hillary-clinton-concede-gracefully.jpg
http://punditkitchen.wordpress.com/files/2008/05/political-pictures-barack-obama-heres-hillary-nice-try.jpg

[g++]

I don't see how Obama and Clinton teaming up could get anywhere. Haven't they basically butted heads on all topics? How could two totally different people run a country together?

I think the similarities are far more important then the differences.

They both want universal health care and make it their main stand.

They are both politically inexperienced senators although Hilary was first lady.

They both have similiar bail out ideas for the economy with Clintons being slightly more defined and Obamas being slightly more theoretical but essentially being very similiar.

Clinton put her foot in her mouth saying Iraq had nuclear weapons and voted for the Iraq war. Voted no to immediate withdrawl.
Obama spoke out against the Iraq war. Was not seated for the Iraq vote and voted no to immediate withdrawl.

They both favor some kind of vague measured withdrawl and both have been changing their stance on exactly how to go about it as the race has progressed.

In my opinion Hilary is likely more attached to hard core liberal interest groups right now than Obama at the moment....but electing a guy a democratic president is a good way to get your business card floating in those circles.

I think Obama would make a better president based on the way he has run his campaign more than anything else. Well oiled come from behind machine. It shows he can manage an organization well and put the right people around him which is probarbly a trait thats more important in a president than anything else.

[AestheticDeath]

But was that Obama or the people running his campaign?

[Clove]

But was that Obama or the people running his campaign?He hires and fires the people running his campaign. His people run the campaign. He runs his people.

[g++]

I really doubt if hes elected president hes going to ditch those people at a bar, their going with him to be his advisors and high level admins. A presidents administration is the third important thing next to their policy stances and decision making ability IMHO.

Oh and whether they smoke or not and what church they belong too and their concession speechs, right Mabus?

[Clove]

I don't know. The strongest recommendation I can make for Obama is that he's run a very shrewd campaign. Just about everything else about his policy suggestions trouble though.

Still as I am watching his "victory speech" tonight, I can't help but hum the theme from the Jeffersons.

[Daniel]

Still as I am watching his "victory speech" tonight, I can't help but hum the theme from the Jeffersons.

*sigh

[Back]

WOT ALERT!!!


Remarks of Senator Barack Obama
Final Primary Night
Tuesday, June 3rd, 2008
St. Paul, Minnesota
As Prepared for Delivery


Tonight, after fifty-four hard-fought contests, our primary season has finally come to an end.


Sixteen months have passed since we first stood together on the steps of the Old State Capitol in Springfield, Illinois. Thousands of miles have been traveled. Millions of voices have been heard. And because of what you said - because you decided that change must come to Washington; because you believed that this year must be different than all the rest; because you chose to listen not to your doubts or your fears but to your greatest hopes and highest aspirations, tonight we mark the end of one historic journey with the beginning of another - a journey that will bring a new and better day to America. Tonight, I can stand before you and say that I will be the Democratic nominee for President of the United States.



I want to thank every American who stood with us over the course of this campaign - through the good days and the bad; from the snows of Cedar Rapids to the sunshine of Sioux Falls. And tonight I also want to thank the men and woman who took this journey with me as fellow candidates for President.



At this defining moment for our nation, we should be proud that our party put forth one of the most talented, qualified field of individuals ever to run for this office. I have not just competed with them as rivals, I have learned from them as friends, as public servants, and as patriots who love America and are willing to work tirelessly to make this country better. They are leaders of this party, and leaders that America will turn to for years to come.



That is particularly true for the candidate who has traveled further on this journey than anyone else. Senator Hillary Clinton has made history in this campaign not just because she's a woman who has done what no woman has done before, but because she's a leader who inspires millions of Americans with her strength, her courage, and her commitment to the causes that brought us here tonight.



We've certainly had our differences over the last sixteen months. But as someone who's shared a stage with her many times, I can tell you that what gets Hillary Clinton up in the morning - even in the face of tough odds - is exactly what sent her and Bill Clinton to sign up for their first campaign in Texas all those years ago; what sent her to work at the Children's Defense Fund and made her fight for health care as First Lady; what led her to the United States Senate and fueled her barrier-breaking campaign for the presidency - an unyielding desire to improve the lives of ordinary Americans, no matter how difficult the fight may be. And you can rest assured that when we finally win the battle for universal health care in this country, she will be central to that victory. When we transform our energy policy and lift our children out of poverty, it will be because she worked to help make it happen. Our party and our country are better off because of her, and I am a better candidate for having had the honor to compete with Hillary Rodham Clinton.



There are those who say that this primary has somehow left us weaker and more divided. Well I say that because of this primary, there are millions of Americans who have cast their ballot for the very first time. There are Independents and Republicans who understand that this election isn't just about the party in charge of Washington, it's about the need to change Washington. There are young people, and African-Americans, and Latinos, and women of all ages who have voted in numbers that have broken records and inspired a nation.



All of you chose to support a candidate you believe in deeply. But at the end of the day, we aren't the reason you came out and waited in lines that stretched block after block to make your voice heard. You didn't do that because of me or Senator Clinton or anyone else. You did it because you know in your hearts that at this moment - a moment that will define a generation - we cannot afford to keep doing what we've been doing. We owe our children a better future. We owe our country a better future. And for all those who dream of that future tonight, I say - let us begin the work together. Let us unite in common effort to chart a new course for America.



In just a few short months, the Republican Party will arrive in St. Paul with a very different agenda. They will come here to nominate John McCain, a man who has served this country heroically. I honor that service, and I respect his many accomplishments, even if he chooses to deny mine. My differences with him are not personal; they are with the policies he has proposed in this campaign.



Because while John McCain can legitimately tout moments of independence from his party in the past, such independence has not been the hallmark of his presidential campaign.



It's not change when John McCain decided to stand with George Bush ninety-five percent of the time, as he did in the Senate last year.

It's not change when he offers four more years of Bush economic policies that have failed to create well-paying jobs, or insure our workers, or help Americans afford the skyrocketing cost of college - policies that have lowered the real incomes of the average American family, widened the gap between Wall Street and Main Street, and left our children with a mountain of debt.



And it's not change when he promises to continue a policy in Iraq that asks everything of our brave men and women in uniform and nothing of Iraqi politicians - a policy where all we look for are reasons to stay in Iraq, while we spend billions of dollars a month on a war that isn't making the American people any safer.



So I'll say this - there are many words to describe John McCain's attempt to pass off his embrace of George Bush's policies as bipartisan and new. But change is not one of them.



Change is a foreign policy that doesn't begin and end with a war that should've never been authorized and never been waged. I won't stand here and pretend that there are many good options left in Iraq, but what's not an option is leaving our troops in that country for the next hundred years - especially at a time when our military is overstretched, our nation is isolated, and nearly every other threat to America is being ignored.



We must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in - but start leaving we must. It's time for Iraqis to take responsibility for their future. It's time to rebuild our military and give our veterans the care they need and the benefits they deserve when they come home. It's time to refocus our efforts on al Qaeda's leadership and Afghanistan, and rally the world against the common threats of the 21st century - terrorism and nuclear weapons; climate change and poverty; genocide and disease. That's what change is.



Change is realizing that meeting today's threats requires not just our firepower, but the power of our diplomacy - tough, direct diplomacy where the President of the United States isn't afraid to let any petty dictator know where America stands and what we stand for. We must once again have the courage and conviction to lead the free world. That is the legacy of Roosevelt, and Truman, and Kennedy. That's what the American people want. That's what change is.



Change is building an economy that rewards not just wealth, but the work and workers who created it. It's understanding that the struggles facing working families can't be solved by spending billions of dollars on more tax breaks for big corporations and wealthy CEOs, but by giving a the middle-class a tax break, and investing in our crumbling infrastructure, and transforming how we use energy, and improving our schools, and renewing our commitment to science and innovation. It's understanding that fiscal responsibility and shared prosperity can go hand-in-hand, as they did when Bill Clinton was President.



John McCain has spent a lot of time talking about trips to Iraq in the last few weeks, but maybe if he spent some time taking trips to the cities and towns that have been hardest hit by this economy - cities in Michigan, and Ohio, and right here in Minnesota - he'd understand the kind of change that people are looking for.



Maybe if he went to Iowa and met the student who works the night shift after a full day of class and still can't pay the medical bills for a sister who's ill, he'd understand that she can't afford four more years of a health care plan that only takes care of the healthy and wealthy. She needs us to pass health care plan that guarantees insurance to every American who wants it and brings down premiums for every family who needs it. That's the change we need.



Maybe if he went to Pennsylvania and met the man who lost his job but can't even afford the gas to drive around and look for a new one, he'd understand that we can't afford four more years of our addiction to oil from dictators. That man needs us to pass an energy policy that works with automakers to raise fuel standards, and makes corporations pay for their pollution, and oil companies invest their record profits in a clean energy future - an energy policy that will create millions of new jobs that pay well and can't be outsourced. That's the change we need.



And maybe if he spent some time in the schools of South Carolina or St. Paul or where he spoke tonight in New Orleans, he'd understand that we can't afford to leave the money behind for No Child Left Behind; that we owe it to our children to invest in early childhood education; to recruit an army of new teachers and give them better pay and more support; to finally decide that in this global economy, the chance to get a college education should not be a privilege for the wealthy few, but the birthright of every American. That's the change we need in America. That's why I'm running for President.



The other side will come here in September and offer a very different set of policies and positions, and that is a debate I look forward to. It is a debate the American people deserve. But what you don't deserve is another election that's governed by fear, and innuendo, and division. What you won't hear from this campaign or this party is the kind of politics that uses religion as a wedge, and patriotism as a bludgeon - that sees our opponents not as competitors to challenge, but enemies to demonize. Because we may call ourselves Democrats and Republicans, but we are Americans first. We are always Americans first.



Despite what the good Senator from Arizona said tonight, I have seen people of differing views and opinions find common cause many times during my two decades in public life, and I have brought many together myself. I've walked arm-in-arm with community leaders on the South Side of Chicago and watched tensions fade as black, white, and Latino fought together for good jobs and good schools. I've sat across the table from law enforcement and civil rights advocates to reform a criminal justice system that sent thirteen innocent people to death row. And I've worked with friends in the other party to provide more children with health insurance and more working families with a tax break; to curb the spread of nuclear weapons and ensure that the American people know where their tax dollars are being spent; and to reduce the influence of lobbyists who have all too often set the agenda in Washington.



In our country, I have found that this cooperation happens not because we agree on everything, but because behind all the labels and false divisions and categories that define us; beyond all the petty bickering and point-scoring in Washington, Americans are a decent, generous, compassionate people, united by common challenges and common hopes. And every so often, there are moments which call on that fundamental goodness to make this country great again.



So it was for that band of patriots who declared in a Philadelphia hall the formation of a more perfect union; and for all those who gave on the fields of Gettysburg and Antietam their last full measure of devotion to save that same union.



So it was for the Greatest Generation that conquered fear itself, and liberated a continent from tyranny, and made this country home to untold opportunity and prosperity.



So it was for the workers who stood out on the picket lines; the women who shattered glass ceilings; the children who braved a Selma bridge for freedom's cause.



So it has been for every generation that faced down the greatest challenges and the most improbable odds to leave their children a world that's better, and kinder, and more just.



And so it must be for us.



America, this is our moment. This is our time. Our time to turn the page on the policies of the past. Our time to bring new energy and new ideas to the challenges we face. Our time to offer a new direction for the country we love.



The journey will be difficult. The road will be long. I face this challenge with profound humility, and knowledge of my own limitations. But I also face it with limitless faith in the capacity of the American people. Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth. This was the moment - this was the time - when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves, and our highest ideals. Thank you, God Bless you, and may God Bless the United States of America.

[Gan]

Barack Obama claimed victory in the Democratic presidential campaign tonight. CNN projects Obama secured enough delegates to make history as the first African-American to lead a U.S. major-party ticket. But Hillary Clinton said she was not yet ready to make a decision on her campaign's future.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/03/election.democrats/index.html

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

But Hillary Clinton said she was not yet ready to make a decision on her campaign's future.


PARTY AT ILVANE'S?

I'm disappointed that you didn't add this to the post yourself, Gan.

[Khariz]

Insert me posting the link to the obama assassination video again.

I really won't be surprised when it happens.

[Mabus]

It doesn't help when you come back drumming up old arguments with shit like "They won't believe you anyway, because they didn't believe me when I was equally full of shit".
First, point out which part is "full of shit" about the facts of my posts in this thread. Be specific.

Second, do you ever post anything related to the thread, or just attack people? Think about just finding some troll forum and attacking people there. They wouldn't even expect you to be truthful, or have a point that fits the thread. You would fit right in.

[Mabus]

But Hillary Clinton said she was not yet ready to make a decision on her campaign's future.
Just went to her website to see what people are posting. Most posts (the ones the moderators have left) tell her to go independent, or that people will write her name in, or that people will vote for McCain.

Of course I do not expect her to mount an independent campaign, but it does show what the people interested in her continuing have to say, and what the moderators allow to stay up (I would gather) shows what she wants to be seen by people outside the campaign.

[Ilvane]

I just think Obama is too left. I wanted a more middle of the road candidate and really believed in Hillary Clinton. God forbid.

I'm not sure I'll vote for Obama. If he picks her for something that would be great, but I just don't feel he's the right person. Anyway, this whole thing just sours me on politics. I am pretty disgusted with the Democratic party in the way they pushed her out, and how they so obviously wanted Obama.

Nader 2008? lmao.(Oh please don't start, Clove, etc)

Angela

[Gan]

PARTY AT ILVANE'S?

I'm disappointed that you didn't add this to the post yourself, Gan.

It was late...

what can I say.

[Clove]

I just think Obama is too left. I wanted a more middle of the road candidate and really believed in Hillary Clinton.:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Clove]

No no, your other left!

[Parkbandit]

I just think Obama is too left. I wanted a more middle of the road candidate and really believed in Hillary Clinton. God forbid.

I'm not sure I'll vote for Obama. If he picks her for something that would be great, but I just don't feel he's the right person. Anyway, this whole thing just sours me on politics. I am pretty disgusted with the Democratic party in the way they pushed her out, and how they so obviously wanted Obama.

Nader 2008? lmao.(Oh please don't start, Clove, etc)

Angela

She was never that much closer to the middle than he was. When you talk about seizing profits from companies and socializing healthcare, you are already on the far left.

[CrystalTears]

First, point out which part is "full of shit" about the facts of my posts in this thread. Be specific.
Yeah Daniel, in THIS thread because he's already been proven wrong in the others.[/QUOTE]


I just think Obama is too left. I wanted a more middle of the road candidate and really believed in Hillary Clinton. God forbid.
:lol: OKAYY! :lol:


I am pretty disgusted with the Democratic party in the way they pushed her out, and how they so obviously wanted Obama.
Pushed her out? If the democratic party really wanted to push her out, they could have done it months ago. But you're right, it's all a facade because they really wanted Obama from the start. All the people who voted for her was just a ruse. /smirk

[Warriorbird]

Hillary had this nomination in the bag. She fucked it up herself... with the help of her husband.

[DeV]

If the democratic party really wanted to push her out, they could have done it months ago.
How so?

[CrystalTears]

Call me naive that I don't see any "pushing" on the part of the Democratic party. As WB said, she screwed herself and she would have been practically an automatic candidate had she and Bill not stuck their foot in their mouth so much. She was initially winning, and had they allowed her to keep the delegates from cheating Florida and Michigan as originally voted, this MAY have ended months ago.

Perhaps the pushing she's referring to is some people asking that she step down as Obama was on a winning streak? I have no clue what Ilvane is thinking. You can call Clinton a lot of things, but quitter isn't one of them.

So I can't see what pushing they could have done, and if there was, why they'd wait until the end of the race to do it. Ginormic waste of time.

[DeV]

So I can't see what pushing they could have done, and if there was, why they'd wait until the end of the race to do it. I couldn't see any successful pushing they could have done now or then which is why I questioned your response to Ilvane's remark, which was a couple different shades of wrong.

Many Democrats may have called for Hillary's departure, but they didn't come anywhere close to pushing her anywhere... let alone out. As we can see, quitting isn't really her forte.

[TheEschaton]

She was never initially winning. She lost Iowa, barely won NH, and has been behind ever since. Granted, she was the favorite going in, but that's because she was the DNC's established candidate.

[CrystalTears]

She had more delegates, especially superdelegates, for quite a long time. It was why there was initial talk of choosing based solely on superdelegates because that's what she was winning at.

[TheEschaton]

She was winning til March 8th, a little bit more than halfway through this process, based solely on endorsements garnished before the process even started.

[CrystalTears]

She was never initially winning.


She was winning til March 8th, a little bit more than halfway through this process, based solely on endorsements garnished before the process even started.
Um... okayy. Make up your mind.

[TheEschaton]

Never initially winning THE ACTUAL PRIMARIES/CAUCUSES. She was ahead on a totally superficial basis - based on endorsements by party officials made before a vote had ever been cast.

[DeV]

She had more delegates, especially superdelegates, for quite a long time. It was why there was initial talk of choosing based solely on superdelegates because that's what she was winning at.You mean for a couple weeks in January? That's not a long time at all. Obama held a delegate lead at the beginning of February.

He held a hundred plus delegate lead at the beginning of March. She won some big states, Texas, Ohio, etc, yet didn't pick up any steam among superdelegates.

[Mabus]

Yeah Daniel, in THIS thread because he's already been proven wrong in the others.
You have never "proven wrong" anything I have posted. You have side-tracked, bitched, complained, joined in attacks and skipped over facts, but I cannot remember you ever proving anything (other then you want to bear Daniel's love child).

Now get back to work!

[Some Rogue]

You have never "proven wrong" anything I have posted. You have side-tracked, bitched, complained, joined in attacks and skipped over facts, but I cannot remember you ever proving anything (other then you want to bear Daniel's love child).

Now get back to work!

STFU Lucas

[CrystalTears]

You have never "proven wrong" anything I have posted. You have side-tracked, bitched, complained, joined in attacks and skipped over facts, but I cannot remember you ever proving anything (other then you want to bear Daniel's love child).

Now get back to work!
I'm on my lunch break, so kindly go fuck yourself.

Daniel confirmed that the enlistment date is not the date that you sign up. Latrinsorm proved that Obama never said that his grandfather spoke to fellow soldiers in Auscwitz, but heard of them. Several proved that stating the wrong concentration camp doesn't change the fact that Obama's uncle did in fact liberate a concentration camp. It was also proven that Clinton didn't have a congrats speak for Obama for every primary he won. I really don't want to go back further and see what else you were proven wrong on.

Don't you have another thread to start about how Obama was kissing Clinton's ass in his speech last night or something?

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

She was winning til March 8th, a little bit more than halfway through this process, based solely on endorsements garnished before the process even started.

I'd say her major fuck up on Super Tuesday and losing a lot of those states was when Hilary started to lose for good. The fact that she talked so much shit about trouncing Obama, and then she failed miserably at it, got a lot of people's attention and made them pay closer attention to Obama than they may have normally. Her campaign pulled some stupid moves over and over, and hoped for a different result, like going negative when all that did was give him more media and press and made his support base even more energized to recruit new supporters.

I agree with WB, too. She had this in the bag and she really fucked it up by not taking her opposition seriously. And in this case, the fact that she's not a "quitter" is not a good thing-- it shows that even when it makes the most sense to bow out and stop doing something, everyone else be damned she's just gonna keep doing it. I dunno about other people but I think that's a shitty quality in a President.

[Parkbandit]

Thankfully, Obama has never, ever gone negative in his campaign.. because that would fuck up his overall message of "Hope" and "Change".

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

Thankfully, Obama has never, ever gone negative in his campaign.. because that would fuck up his overall message of "Hope" and "Change".

When he did go negative he was smart enough to do it in a way that didn't force a shit load of attention onto Hilary and then backfire on him.

Whether you like Obama or not, he ran a better campaign than her, hands down.

[DeV]

And in this case, the fact that she's not a "quitter" is not a good thing-- it shows that even when it makes the most sense to bow out and stop doing something, everyone else be damned she's just gonna keep doing it.When the largest group of people calling for your departure, as early as February, are your opponents, you tend to do the exact opposite to the very end.

Alternately, I think John Edwards bowed out too soon, but he didn't have much of a chance anyway.

[Keller]

Thankfully, Obama has never, ever gone negative in his campaign.. because that would fuck up his overall message of "Hope" and "Change".

What I especially loved is how the liberal media who loves Obama kept repeating how Obama attacked McCain last night (did he attack him? or was he engaging the American public in an education of McCain's policies?) while McCain was aggressive and demeaning in his repeated series of blatent attacks on Obama. Damn Liberal media.

[CrystalTears]

Obama needs to get off the "I'm not Bush but McCain is" trip, because that whole schtick of "I'm not Bush" is getting fucking old. McCain and Bush are the same in party name only. Just because McCain agrees on some things with Bush does not mean he's overall going to run a third term of Bush.

It's the same shit I didn't like about Kerry. Stop telling me that you're not the screwball currently in office. I get it. Tell me how you're going to change things up.

[Keller]

CT: Did you watch McCain last night? Did you see the way, after every joke he made, he paused and gave a goofball smile to the audience? Tell me that's not a page pulled directly from Bush.

[CrystalTears]

Unfortunately I totally missed his speech. :(

He loves his own jokes. Someone has to!

[Some Rogue]

Unfortunately I totally missed his speech. :(

He loves his own jokes. Someone has to!

Are we talking about PB or McCain?

[Mabus]

I'm on my lunch break, so kindly go fuck yourself.
How you waste your employers money is of no concern to me. Continue posting until you got caught, or until the employee waste affects your employer.

Matters not to me.


Daniel confirmed that the enlistment date is not the date that you sign up.
Stating and using modern manuals does not "confirm" anything, except that Daniel would try anything. He is already a confirmed and admitted liar.


Latrinsorm proved that Obama never said that his grandfather spoke to fellow soldiers in Auscwitz, but heard of them.
His argument was based on grammatical usage, but proved nothing about Obama's lie. It did show that he could argue a point effectively, which is more credit then I would give you.


Several proved that stating the wrong concentration camp doesn't change the fact that Obama's uncle did in fact liberate a concentration camp.
They proved what?

They gave opinions. Proof and opinion are very different in the real world. Perhaps some day you will join it.



It was also proven that Clinton didn't have a congrats speak for Obama for every primary he won. I really don't want to go back further and see what else you were proven wrong on.
That was never the point of the original post.

It was showing that Obama was a poor sport, and did not congratulate her in that instance.

Your (and others) side track was "She did it too!". That does "prove" the childish extent people will go to in their effort to protect the DNC Chosen One.


Don't you have another thread to start about how Obama was kissing Clinton's ass in his speech last night or something?
I haven't started any threads in this folder for a while. I have been spending my time (while on this site) defending against attacks from idiots, like you.

Have a great day! Get some work done!

[g++]

Yah I think I'm going to go with Daniel on all things Army since he did a tour recently and from the way you post I get the feeling you don't even work.

As far as the rest of the quotes you seem to think stating a fact and then proposing it correlates a negative attribute to someone is fine as long you can prove your fact is true. That is not the case.

If I say the sky is blue and that makes Mabus a contradictory cunt for instance. When someone says "Hey wait now Mabus isn't a contradictory cunt" I cant say...but the sky is blue. Thats what you just did three time.

If your not working get a job and stop being such a condescending prick.

[Sean of the Thread]

FFS

[Clove]

Okay Tsa...er Mabus. First off, why don't you get some work done? Second, Latrin proved very effectively that what Obama said and what you reported he said, were not the same. There's a huge difference between a direct object and an indirect object. As such you misquoted him, so who's really lying here?

I'm sorry you don't accept the modern military manual as enough proof that signing date isn't the same as enlistment date. But since you've been furnished with support for the distinction, the onus is on YOU to discredit the support. All you're doing is asserting that "things were different then" which is unlikely. Until then Daniel has, in fact backed up his point. You, have not. Full of shit.

Finally, the distinction between the two camps proves that Obama was mistaken and not that he was lying. Had his uncle NOT been at a concentration camp at all, it would be grounds enough for a lie, since it was completely untrue AND his being at a concentration camp was the point of the statement. He may still have been lying, but you're really reaching (translation "full of shit") if you think there's any point in deliberately lying about which camp his uncle was at (when it can obviously be vetted). There's just not enough benifit in being at Auschwitz versus Buchenwald to bother. "Hey... Obama, turns out your uncle was at Buchenwald... naw, that's not good enough, you better go with Auschwitz." Please.

CT, Daniel, Latrin (and others) have adequately proven you wrong; often.

Thanks for playing.

[Mabus]

CT, Daniel, Latrin (and others) have adequately proven you wrong; often.

Wrong. But that's what you get "for playing"; nothing.

Come up with something "snippy" next time? Your posts have been rather boring lately.

[Clove]

Wrong. But that's what you get "for playing"; nothing.

Come up with something "snippy" next time? Your posts have been rather boring lately.I certainly don't get a decent argument from you for playing.

[CrystalTears]

I'm not going to bother with your bullshit, Mabus. Everyone has offered proof and you have shown nothing but your ass. All you say is "OMG you're such a liar and attack me for no reason!" and then offer nothing in return to contradict what you state are lies.

Just give up, Mabus. When the only people on your side is Ilvane and PB because you're anti-Obama... well... :loser:

[Mabus]

I certainly don't get a decent argument from you for playing.
Here, let's just post something "intelligent" you have posted before:


:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Now you can be assured of your "win"! Lucky you!

[Mabus]

I'm not going to bother with your bullshit, Mabus.

Bullshit like...
...you have a long ass lunch?

Look at the time of your posts. You do know they are time stamped, eh?

[Clove]

Here, let's just post something "intelligent" you have posted before:



Now you can be assured of your "win"! Lucky you!


Bullshit like...
...you have a long ass lunch?

Look at the time of your posts. You do know they are time stamped, eh?Still got nothing? My post history has plenty of content.

[CrystalTears]

Again with the time stamps. You really have nothing better to do than nitpick when someone posts or edits?

[Mabus]

I'm on my lunch break, so kindly go fuck yourself.

I imagine you were on lunch break for:

06-04-2008, 04:13 PM
06-04-2008, 02:46 PM
06-04-2008, 02:20 PM
06-04-2008, 02:11 PM
06-04-2008, 12:54 PM
06-04-2008, 11:54 AM
06-04-2008, 11:52 AM
06-04-2008, 11:49 AM
06-04-2008, 11:45 AM
06-04-2008, 11:12 AM
06-04-2008, 10:00 AM
06-04-2008, 08:56 AM
06-04-2008, 08:52 AM

Those are just your post times today. One long ass lunch, girlie.

[CrystalTears]

I really don't have to explain myself or my job to you. You need a life.

[Mabus]

I really don't have to explain myself or my job to you. You need a life.
Is it quitting time yet?

[Clove]

Is it quitting time yet?WTF are you doing with your time? You really have nothing when you're down to auditing CT's post times.

[Mabus]

WTF are you doing with your time?
Making money, having fun and dealing with idiots like you. Thank you for asking.

You really have nothing when you're down to auditing CT's post times.
She posted in response to my saying "Now get back to work!" that she was at lunch, with profanity.

The post that I was responding to had been posted at 8:52 AM, and I responded at 12:15. Perhaps the grammar experts can "prove" that she meant only when she read the post she was taking lunch, but as her posting history shows today (and I would bet most working days) she is not on lunch when posting all of the time.

That must be one terrible company in Connecticut she works for. I they are publicly owned let me know so I can assure myself that CrystalPoster is not wasting my money.

[Clove]

Making money, having fun and dealing with idiots like you. Thank you for asking.

She posted in response to my saying "Now get back to work!" that she was at lunch, with profanity.

The post that I was responding to had been posted at 8:52 AM, and I responded at 12:15. Perhaps the grammar experts can "prove" that she meant only when she read the post she was taking lunch, but as her posting history shows today (and I would bet most working days) she is not on lunch when posting all of the time.

That must be one terrible company in Connecticut she works for. I they are publicly owned let me know so I can assure myself that CrystalPoster is not wasting my money.Like I said, you're doing an excellent job of deflecting but... unfortunately you just look pathetic. You can't address any of the points that CT, Daniel, Latrin, Gan, myself (and others) have posed you with, so you just go retarded and fuck with CT because she's posting at work. The sad fact is, it doesn't take much time or attention to make you look like a fool. I doubt any profits are effected.

[Mabus]

Like I said, you're doing an excellent job of deflecting but... unfortunately you just look pathetic. You can't address any of the points that CT, Daniel, Latrin, Gan, myself (and others) have posed you with,
I have addressed each one in its own thread. That your (and their) opinions and mine differ just makes you look the fool when you call it "proof".

Each of the offenders, save one, is a master at "deflecting", as you call it. When my posts carried facts they would skip them and change the subject. When I stated my opinions they would latch on like rabid pit bulls in order to protect TheDNCChosenOne.

That "CT" is posting from work shows a lack of concern for the profits of the company that employs her. That she would attempt to deflect such criticism is the reason for the post times being posted.

That you (and others) would defend her comes as no surprise. Your cliques are easy to spot, and in a very short time. I can see the "yes men" that always jump to the defense of others, while damning the facts.

Enjoy the delusion that this does not exist, if it comforts you to believe "others feel like I do!". If that is the gratification you need to live your life, I do not fault you.

I do not even pity you, much.

[Clove]

I have addressed each one in its own thread. That your (and their) opinions and mine differ just makes you look the fool when you call it "proof".You can call it opinion but you:

1) Misquoted
2) Arbitrarily deemed an error of fact as lying
3) Refuse to acknowlege proof that sign date and enlistment date are not the same.

If you can make money and post, CT can make money and post. You're making assumptions about a scenario you can't possibly know about.

[Daniel]

Man,

Mabus really has some nerve talking about "deflection" when he resorted to the "YOU MUST HAVE EDITED YOUR POST TO MAKE ME LOOK STUPID" as he got wtfpwned for being a retard.

[Mabus]

You can call it opinion but you:

1) Misquoted
2) Arbitrarily deemed an error of fact as lying
3) Refuse to acknowlege proof that sign date and enlistment date are not the same.

If you can make money and post, CT can make money and post. You're making assumptions about a scenario you can't possibly know about.
Yes, and I can accuse you of things as well. But your accusations are incorrect, and you know it.

You have lost so many debates to me that your judgement is clouded. Shall I go through and count your baseless attacks and side-tracks that you initiated that had nothing to do with the conversation? Really?

I run my own firm, and answer to me. It is privately held, and no investors will lose money if I take time off to read a bunch of fanatics posts as they ramble. She does not, which means she is stealing money from the company (and any investors) she works for by posting at work if she is not doing so on a break, lunch and/or with her employers' expressed permission.

I cannot answer whether that permission exists for her, but by her defensive attitude over a quick jab (much less then the baseless accusations and phrases she has used on me) the chances are high that she is posting without permission.

[Mabus]

Man,

Mabus really has some nerve talking about "deflection" when he resorted to the "YOU MUST HAVE EDITED YOUR POST TO MAKE ME LOOK STUPID" as he got wtfpwned for being a retard.
Hey look! Your clique liar showed up to defend! Maybe he can edit this post and use it in an argument later!

[Gan]

Dear Mabus,

I'M POSTING AT/FROM WORK TOO BITCH!!!


BOOOYAH!

[Clove]

I run my own firm, and answer to me. It is privately held, and no investors will lose money if I take time off to read a bunch of fanatics posts as they ramble. She does not, which means she is stealing money from the company (and any investors) she works for by posting at work if she is not doing so on a break, lunch and/or with her employers' expressed permissionDefine non-exempt employee. Then define exempt employee. Then see if you can wrap your mind around the subtle implications.

[landy]

I can see everyone is against me, so I must continue this ceaseless war!

No wonder Mabus hates Obama, Mabus=Bush!

[Gan]

ROFL at Mabus' self rightous BS.

[Clove]

ROFL at Mabus' self rightous BS.Yeah and firm/=selling Amway.

[Latrinsorm]

Anyway, this whole thing just sours me on politics. I am pretty disgusted with the Democratic party in the way they pushed her out, and how they so obviously wanted Obama.It's almost like they were following the will of the people or something, like some kind of "democracy" or some such bullshit. I don't know where they get off.

[Mabus]

Yeah and firm/=selling Amway.
At least you got one thing right, though I prefer != for the intended "does not equal".

[Clove]

It's almost like they were following the will of the people or something, like some kind of "democracy" or some such bullshit. I don't know where they get off.Welcome to the clique Latrin.

[Mabus]

It's almost like they were following the will of the people or something, like some kind of "democracy" or some such bullshit. I don't know where they get off.
Yeah, the "will of the people", and not "the votes of the people".

You get 0 votes, so you get 59 delegates!

It's that "new kind of politics" that TheDNCChosenOne talks about.

[Daniel]

Hey look! Your clique liar showed up to defend! Maybe he can edit this post and use it in an argument later!

Lol. It's like your unraveling more and more with each post.

[Mabus]

Lol. It's like your unraveling more and more with each post.
Damn, I hope not.

If I get to the point of just posting nonsense, attacks and anything generally off topic then I will suck as much as you!

[Daniel]

Burn.

Guess what though? Obama still won.

Sucks don't it?

[Latrinsorm]

Ok, let's see what the votes of the people said:

Most votes: Obama.
Most caucus wins: Obama.
Most pledged delegates: Obama.

HOW DID OBAMA WIN IT'S A MYSTERY

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

Ok, let's see what the votes of the people said:

Most votes: Obama.
Most caucus wins: Obama.
Most pledged delegates: Obama.

HOW DID OBAMA WIN IT'S A MYSTERY

It's those gays with their freaking lasers, I tell ya.

[Kembal]

Yeah, the "will of the people", and not "the votes of the people".

You get 0 votes, so you get 59 delegates!

It's that "new kind of politics" that TheDNCChosenOne talks about.

Not to burst your bubble or anything, but he had locked up 31 of 36 uncommitted national delegates at the Michigan district level conventions. It was expected that he would get all 19 uncommitted national delegates at the Michigan state convention, which is this month.

[Clove]

Damn, I hope not.

If I get to the point of just posting nonsense, attacks and anything generally off topic then I will suck as much as you!Is that like ignoring the argument and topic to talk about CT's work habits?

[Clove]

It's those gays with their freaking lasers, I tell ya.Welcome to the clique. Apparently the whole board community is a clique.

[Ilvane]

Mabus, I told you..it's not worth it.;)

You can say anything, they will jump all over you and say you are wrong, even if you are being perfectly logical.

On the popular vote thing.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html

Angela

[Clove]

Well, not the whole board... there's always Angela.

[CrystalTears]

Mabus, I told you..it's not worth it.;)

You can say anything, they will jump all over you and say you are wrong, even if you are being perfectly logical.
Yes because only you and Mabus know the TRUTH!

You two are made for each other.

[crb]

The democratic nominating process was dumb.

The main issue is their reliance on caucuses. Those favor the active/motivated liberal elites, so they have instituted them, but they're not nearly as democratic as a straight primary. This can be clearly shown in Texas. Hillary beat obama handedly in the primary (which dwarfed the primary in turnout), but he won the caucus. You win Caucuses if you've got a small number of very vocal and active supporters, you win primaries by getting a lot of votes.

Then, they do the whole proportional award thing instead of winner take all. Well.. the general election is constitutionally winner take all, so why not emulate it?

If they did it over with all winner take all and all primaries no caucuses hillary would have won in a landslide. If they did it over now, with all of Obama's baggage, with the same system, hillary would win in a landslide (you think Obama would have still carried Iowa etc after Wright-gate?). Obama is just about the luckiest man on Earth considering. Next to John McCain of course.

[Gan]

Mabus, I told you..it's not worth it.;)

You can say anything, they will jump all over you and say you are wrong, even if you are being perfectly logical.

On the popular vote thing.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html

Angela

LOL at you touting logical political discussion.

[Daniel]

That's a whole lot of revisionist justification.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

Mabus, I told you..it's not worth it.;)

You can say anything, they will jump all over you and say you are wrong, even if you are being perfectly logical.

On the popular vote thing.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html

Angela

Do you seriously think Mabus is being perfectly logical?

[Parkbandit]

The democratic nominating process was dumb.

The main issue is their reliance on caucuses. Those favor the active/motivated liberal elites, so they have instituted them, but they're not nearly as democratic as a straight primary. This can be clearly shown in Texas. Hillary beat obama handedly in the primary (which dwarfed the primary in turnout), but he won the caucus. You win Caucuses if you've got a small number of very vocal and active supporters, you win primaries by getting a lot of votes.

Then, they do the whole proportional award thing instead of winner take all. Well.. the general election is constitutionally winner take all, so why not emulate it?

If they did it over with all winner take all and all primaries no caucuses hillary would have won in a landslide. If they did it over now, with all of Obama's baggage, with the same system, hillary would win in a landslide (you think Obama would have still carried Iowa etc after Wright-gate?). Obama is just about the luckiest man on Earth considering. Next to John McCain of course.

/agree

See Virilneus.. we can agree on some things :)

[Latrinsorm]

You can say anything, they will jump all over you and say you are wrong, even if you are being perfectly logical.I already made a really clever post about this. Logic is only a relation of premises. It is logically valid to say:
1. Obama did not win the popular vote.
2. Any evidence to the contrary is just wrong.
3. Therefore, Obama did not win the popular vote.

Perfectly logical! Still totally wrong! Here's another example:
1. Obama is liberal.
2. Hilary and McCain are both moderates.
3. Therefore, someone who wanted to vote for Hilary but had a choice between McCain and Obama only would want to vote for McCain.

Absolutely logical! Still completely, unbelievably wrong!

[Khariz]

I already made a really clever post about this. Logic is only a relation of premises. It is logically valid to say:
1. Obama did not win the popular vote.
2. Any evidence to the contrary is just wrong.
3. Therefore, Obama did not win the popular vote.

Perfectly logical! Still totally wrong! Here's another example:
1. Obama is liberal.
2. Hilary and McCain are both moderates.
3. Therefore, someone who wanted to vote for Hilary but had a choice between McCain and Obama only would want to vote for McCain.

Absolutely logical! Still completely, unbelievably wrong!

I find that most people who post on this board have a horrendous grasp of logical fallacies.

[Ilvane]

Actually, I said I would consider voting for McCain, but then after reading into him, wasn't too sure about that.

And now I have to make a choice. Who is more like what I stand for?

I'm working on that. I may yet find an alternative. It all depends on how things go with the Democrats in the next few days.

[Clove]

The democratic nominating process was dumb.QFT.

[Crazy Bard]

Perfectly logical! Still totally wrong! Here's another example:
1. Obama is liberal.
2. Hilary and McCain are both moderates.
3. Therefore, someone who wanted to vote for Hilary but had a choice between McCain and Obama only would want to vote for McCain.

Absolutely logical! Still completely, unbelievably wrong!

I'm curious as to how you figure that? McCain's direction is totally opposite to what Hillary and Obama have outlined therefore in no way are Hillary supporters going to vote for McCain because their both "moderates". Now, they might vote for McCain out of resentment because Obama "took" to nomination from their candidate.

[Latrinsorm]

Now, they might vote for McCain out of resentment because Obama "took" to nomination from their candidate.You think that would be the justification for a person like that? Hm! You know what, that does make a lot of sense! I think that just might be the answer!

[Clove]

Actually, I said I would consider voting for McCain, but then after reading into him, wasn't too sure about that.

And now I have to make a choice. Who is more like what I stand for?

I'm working on that. I may yet find an alternative. It all depends on how things go with the Democrats in the next few days.
I'm hoping for McCain with the Republican nod, especially if Obama wins the Democratic nomination. I'd prefer Edwards if not Clinton, then would actually go Republican if not.

I just can't imagine it would be good for our country to put a person like Obama in office right now. We need strength.

I don't think he offers that at all.

AngelaThat really does sound thoroughly thought out. But then we go to this...

I've decided if it winds up Obama I'm probably not going to bother voting.A little weaker but still sounds like you made a choice. Now we're left with " I said I would consider voting for McCain" No. You didn't say that. My sandals don't flip-flop that much, but thanks for keeping the posts up.

[Gan]

Too bad she didnt go and delete those posts too.

Its almost as if she knows they will come back to haunt her, and yet she still posts anyways.

[Tsa`ah]

I'd say her major fuck up on Super Tuesday and losing a lot of those states was when Hilary started to lose for good. The fact that she talked so much shit about trouncing Obama, and then she failed miserably at it, got a lot of people's attention and made them pay closer attention to Obama than they may have normally. Her campaign pulled some stupid moves over and over, and hoped for a different result, like going negative when all that did was give him more media and press and made his support base even more energized to recruit new supporters.

Money and how she handled it probably did more damage than Slick Willy did, intentional or not.

Clinton's base, finance wise, was limited in that everyone in her book had deep pockets but maxed out early on. She had no appeal outside of women, Hollywood, and old democrats (she had black appeal but Willy kick that support right in the nuts). Once Willy nixed her largest minority support .... she had no where else to get campaign cash ... though she had more than enough to run an effective campaign.

Obama turned away the PAC money and was able to raise record sums on a monthly basis from people sending what they could .... and he could go back to those people. His campaign finance was built on the "under 90 buck" contributions.

He played it smart .... he matched Clinton's spending (or out spent her) in the big states .... which limited or negated her delegate gains, and blew her away in the small states (which she ignored almost completely) .... maximizing his gains. It was over after the last poll closed on Super Tuesday.

In a game of chess, which is the most embarrassing means of losing.

A. A board cleared of almost every pawn and being forced into check by back row pieces.

B. Clearing out your opponents back row ... only to find yourself pwnt by pawns.

I'd say B ... Clinton sucked managing a campaign and the cash to run it. She had a more successful "Giuliani" strategy, but it was still the losing strategy.


I imagine you were on lunch break for:

06-04-2008, 04:13 PM
06-04-2008, 02:46 PM
06-04-2008, 02:20 PM
06-04-2008, 02:11 PM
06-04-2008, 12:54 PM
06-04-2008, 11:54 AM
06-04-2008, 11:52 AM
06-04-2008, 11:49 AM
06-04-2008, 11:45 AM
06-04-2008, 11:12 AM
06-04-2008, 10:00 AM
06-04-2008, 08:56 AM
06-04-2008, 08:52 AM

Those are just your post times today. One long ass lunch, girlie.

Is that the best you can come up with as a response?

Listen up limp dick ... you have no fucking clue what she does for a living or what she is and is not allowed to do on company time. I'm willing to bet more than half of the active posters on this board read and/or post from work.

It's fucking irrelevant.

I can hardly believe that someone made me yern for the days when we had under achieving racist pricks, honing ethnicity identity crisis, shooting roids while aiming to become professional athletes without an iota of skill .... driving RX 7s and taking people out to the desert .... because that's how they rolled in Chino .... but god damn if you don't make that sort look intelligent.

[Clove]

Is that the best you can come up with as a response?

Listen up limp dick ... you have no fucking clue what she does for a living or what she is and is not allowed to do on company time. I'm willing to bet more than half of the active posters on this board read and/or post from work.

It's fucking irrelevant.

I can hardly believe that someone made me yern for the days when we had under achieving racist pricks, honing ethnicity identity crisis, shooting roids while aiming to become professional athletes without an iota of skill .... driving RX 7s and taking people out to the desert .... because that's how they rolled in Chino .... but god damn if you don't make that sort look intelligent.Welcome to the clique. Apparently Mabus doesn't grasp the concept of a salaried worker.

[Ilvane]

That really does sound thoroughly thought out. But then we go to this...
A little weaker but still sounds like you made a choice. Now we're left with " I said I would consider voting for McCain" No. You didn't say that. My sandals don't flip-flop that much, but thanks for keeping the posts up.

I did say I wasn't sure about McCain LATER, but I'm not about go digging for former posts to prove my point.

You have way too much time on your hands.

Angela*

[CrystalTears]

I did say I wasn't sure about McCain LATER, but I'm not about go digging for former posts to prove my point.
You just can't admit that you didn't do any research on either Obama or McCain. You were too involved in voting for Hillary. You knew nothing of either of their issues, just that they weren't Hillary. Now you actually had to read about them, and you probably still don't know much about them.

[Clove]

I did say I wasn't sure about McCain LATER, but I'm not about go digging for former posts to prove my point.

You have way too much time on your hands.

Angela*Yes, you did back out later, but originally you were actually hoping McCain would get the republican nomination so you could vote for him if Obama got the candidacy. Which caused a halestorm of WTF, then you began your waffling.

It really didn't take much time. Looking up original posts is much easier than trying to find quotes of them.

[Ilvane]

You just can't admit that you didn't do any research on either Obama or McCain. You were too involved in voting for Hillary. You knew nothing of either of their issues, just that they weren't Hillary. Now you actually had to read about them, and you probably still don't know much about them.

Actually, not true at all. You thought that to begin with, but I did a ton of research on Obama, trying to find a way to like him enough to vote for him.

I have already mentioned dozens of times that it isn't about his policies but his lack of real experience. You would then go on about Hillary not having experience, but she did..and she knew what she was doing.

I think we have to agree to disagree here, personally.

Angela*

[CrystalTears]

Actually, not true at all. You thought that to begin with, but I did a ton of research on Obama, trying to find a way to like him enough to vote for him.
Uh no. I knew plenty about Obama. You were the one who said he had no issues to speak of when several people told you where to find his information. And now it was you that said after reading about McCain, you realized he's not the candidate for you. This is after months of saying that you're voting for McCain because you agreed with him more than you did with Obama.


I have already mentioned dozens of times that it isn't about his policies but his lack of real experience. You would then go on about Hillary not having experience, but she did..and she knew what she was doing.
That's all opinion as far as she knew what she was doing. Her experience isn't any more significant than Obama. She was first lady. BFD. She knows the White House layout and can find the bathroom. I'm sorry if I don't see her experience as first lady this magnitude of experience that you speak of. Sure he lacks, but so does she.

[Clove]

I have already mentioned dozens of times that it isn't about his policies but his lack of real experience. You would then go on about Hillary not having experience, but she did..and she knew what she was doing.Apparently experience at picking out White House china wasn't enough.

[Ilvane]

Oh, so years in the legal community, working in the Children's Defense fund, um..being the first student to give a commencement speech at her graduation from law school, being active her entire life for health care, education and children doesn't count?

I see.

Angela*

[CrystalTears]

Oh, so years in the legal community..So was Obama
...working in the Children's Defense fundObama was part of the IL Senate before becoming senator
, um..being the first student to give a commencement speech at her graduation from law schoolOMFG, WHY HASN'T THIS BEEN PUT IN HER RESUME?!
being active her entire life for health careAnd getting paid well from those lobbyists, one point for Hillary, go you
doesn't count? Heh, not really.

[Clove]

Oh, so years in the legal community, working in the Children's Defense fund, um..being the first student to give a commencement speech at her graduation from law school, being active her entire life for health care, education and children doesn't count?

I see.

Angela*Wow, she's a lawyer? Where we gonna find someone with THAT kind of unique experience!? Wait... Obama. She gave a speech? Oh. So has Obama! She's been an active legislator (her senate record sucks btw). Wait.... so has Obama!

[Ilvane]

Wow, you guys been talking to each other? :yawn:

[CrystalTears]

Wow, you guys been talking to each other? :yawn:
Are you going to start posting my post times too since you have nothing left to contribute?

[Ilvane]

I actually did a paper on Hillary for one of my classes this semester analyzing her psychologically(hypothetically) from books written about her, and from her own books. This was the biographical part of it.


When she was an early teens, she helped to canvass in the 1960 presidential election for Republican Richard Nixon, and also volunteered for Barry Goldwater in 1964 as a 17 year old. It was said she was inspired to the conservative candidates by her high school history teacher--who had her read “The Conscience of a Conservative”, by Barry Goldwater--and was also an anti-communist, like her father. Some said Hillary’s mother was a closet Democrat, and her mother influenced her to be involved in issues of social justice, and in 1962, she saw and met Martin Luther King, Jr in Chicago with her youth minister.

In college, she was involved in the Young Republican’s organization during her freshman year and supported the elections of John Lindsay and Edward Brooke. Since she had started developing an interest in the American Civil rights movement, and the Vietnam War, she began to feel uncomfortable with these positions, and moved on. She described her change as “mind conservative, heart liberal.”

After the death of Martin Luther King, Jr, she became involved in the anti-war presidential nominee, Democratic candidate Eugene McCarthy. She was involved in a student strike and worked with black students at Wellesley to make changes, such as recruiting more black students and faculty. In 1969, she graduated from Wellesley with departmental honors in political science. She also became the first student in the college’s history to deliver the commencement address.

Once she was in Yale Law School, she got very heavily involved in children’s issues. She began service as the board of editors at Yale Review of Law and Social Action, and in her second year, she worked at the Yale Child Care Study Center. She also worked as a research assistant on the seminal work, Beyond the Best Interests of the Child (1973). She also became greatly interested in child abuse cases and volunteered at new Haven’s Legal Services to provider free legal advice for the poor. It was then that she started working with Marian Wright Edelman, where she was assigned to Senator Mondale’s Subcommittee on Migratory Labor, researching migrant workers problems in housing, sanitation, housing and education

It was around this time she met Bill Clinton, who was also a student at Yale. They began a romance, though it was said that Hillary was more interested in her career, and she even declined to marry him more than once. She was concerned that her separate identity would be lost, and her accomplishments would be viewed in light of someone else’s accomplishments.

She continued to work for Children, and was a consultant to the Carnegie Council of Children and served as a staff attorney for the Children’s Defense Fund, which had just recently been formed.

Once Bill Clinton had been elected Attorney General in Arkansas, she continued to work hard professionally, but again felt the pressure as a successful career woman. During the campaigns, she had been encouraged to change her name to Clinton, because traditional Arkansans seemed to have issues with her keeping her maiden name. She never thought much of it, and it never had bothered her much, and she had always used Rodham. She wrote that she had done so to keep their professional lives separate, and avoid seeming conflicts of interest, although it upset both of their mothers. She gave birth in 1980, to a daughter, Chelsea.

When Bill Clinton was re-elected Governor of Arkansas in 1982, she began to use the name Hillary Clinton. This was said to be because she was pressured by Vernon Jordan, one of Bill Clinton’s aides, and she was told it was to appeal to Arkansas’ voters. She also took a leave of absence from her job at the prestigious Rose law firm to campaign for her husband. After the governorship was secured, she moved back to working for them, working fewer hours than others, but still making a good amount of money.

[Tsa`ah]

Obama became a state senator in 1997 and then a US senator in 2004 ... Clinton became a US senator in 2000.

When it comes to "real" experience, Obama has a bit more. I don't consider her time as a Governer's wife and First Lady "real" experience. She dragged her heels in releasing documentation from her time as First Lady .... and no one was able to discern anything that could be translated into experience.

She was appointed by her husband to head a failed committee for healthcare reform.

Conversely, Obama (in his first term as an state senator) failed in his attempts at universal state healthcare, but was able to get both sides to vote in favor of expanding state provided healthcare and Kidcare ... while the state Dems were in the minority.

Let's see .... Gift Ban Act, legislation requiring police in IL to videotape interrogations and forcing the police to investigate their own racial bias/profiling to name just a few.

That's a few things on the state level in six years .... what has Clinton accomplished in six years of becoming a US senator?

[Warriorbird]

Despite you and Virilneus being so very Democratic and having such a stake in the process, PB, I'd like to point out that the Republican nominating process can be messed with just as much as the Democratic one. Romney was done pretty dirty by certain other candidates early on and it definitely altered his chances.

[Gan]

Ilvane should really try not posting in the politics folder... although the comedy relief is gratifying to say the least.

[Deathravin]

Hillary is an HD-DVD player...

[Ilvane]

Ilvane should really try not posting in the politics folder... although the comedy relief is gratifying to say the least.

And what are you adding exactly?

Hmm.

Angela*

[Gan]

I've added quite a bit to this thread if you must ask. Of course, that would require you reading the whole thread to understand.

[Latrinsorm]

I actually did a paper on Hillary for one of my classes this semester analyzing her psychologically(hypothetically) from books written about her, and from her own books. This was the biographical part of it.This is me speaking as a TA, and should not be taken personally: Proofread your papers, people, for the LOVE OF GOD. There's only so much red ink in the world.

[Ilvane]

LOL, No offense taken, I got an A-on the paper.;)

[Parkbandit]

Despite you and Virilneus being so very Democratic and having such a stake in the process, PB, I'd like to point out that the Republican nominating process can be messed with just as much as the Democratic one. Romney was done pretty dirty by certain other candidates early on and it definitely altered his chances.


Well thanks for pointing that out Captain Obvious. I've repeatedly posted my disdain for the entire nomination process. Romney was done very dirty.. by the current nominee.. which just adds to my list of issues with McCant.

We need to do away with the dirty caucuses.. then make ONE day a nationwide primary. This bullshit of having states like Iowa and NH, where balloting is open to anyone, decide which nominee will have the most momentum is such a crock of shit.

[Mabus]

Here is a next prediction you can all hate me for, and tell me I am wrong about: Obama will ask at the convention that the two states be given full delegate votes, and it will win resoundingly in a floor vote.
Darn, so close, but so far...