Obama panders to Ohio and Florida

[Keller]

Errrrr, Michigan and Florida.

He said, "I believe party unity calls for the delegates from Florida and Michigan to be able to participate fully alongside the delegates from the other states and territories," but all I heard was, "Hey guys -- can't we just kiss and make up?"

more at: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/03/obama.delegates/index.html

[Keller]

I think this could hurt a lot more than it helps.

The damage was done in Michigan and Florida and now he just looks like a jackass. I still believe neither state should be included. But then I guess I believe in the rule of law.

[Sean of the Thread]

Seriously I'm starting to believe that it doesn't fucking matter anymore. This election is the most fuktarded in my voting life.

[Drew]

No way you can stick this guy with the flip flopper label, but he deserves it more than Kerry did I think.

[crb]

It was Obama who prevented them from being counted earlier. If he had agreed with the compromise that everyone else wanted... but he didn't.

Sure, an obamaphile I'm sure will come and post saying "It is the state's faults for breaking rules." No kidding sherlock. But the fact is both states are important, and the Dems were stupid for acting the way they did, stripping all delegated. Barack was stupid for taking his name off the ballot in Michigan, and was stupid for attacking hillary's wins in both states and refusing the early compromise.

Now, of course, that the nomination is secured he has the luxury to welcome the states back, but there definitely will be some advertisements this fall reminding voters how he dissed us.

[Seran]

At least Kerry usually had a good excuse for being a flip flopper, and kudos on the Republican party for successfully spinning it to look like Kerry was the first in history to do it.

Problem with this race is that both McCain and Obama have jumped back and forth so many times on different issues that one loses count. I mean, McCain ends up looking confused like he didn't know where he stood to begin with, and Obama looks like some sleezy panderer.

But what is amusing about this is Obama's fiece opposition to the MI, FL delegates being counted in Clinton's favor, and know has gone a complete 180 degrees now that he's defeated her. Irregardless of his trying to smooch up to them to regain their trust, both states will be strong McCain states coming November.

[Daniel]

Shoulda just left that alone.

No idea what he was trying to accomplish

[Khariz]

http://blog.cleveland.com/pdopinion/2008/07/large_obama-mc.jpg

[Tsa`ah]

It was Obama who prevented them from being counted earlier. If he had agreed with the compromise that everyone else wanted... but he didn't.

Sure, an obamaphile I'm sure will come and post saying "It is the state's faults for breaking rules." No kidding sherlock. But the fact is both states are important, and the Dems were stupid for acting the way they did, stripping all delegated. Barack was stupid for taking his name off the ballot in Michigan, and was stupid for attacking hillary's wins in both states and refusing the early compromise.

Now, of course, that the nomination is secured he has the luxury to welcome the states back, but there definitely will be some advertisements this fall reminding voters how he dissed us.

For the love of whatever ... do some fucking research before blowing that shit all over the forums.

[Keller]

For the love of whatever ... do some fucking research before blowing that shit all over the forums.

What do you mean?

[Tsa`ah]

Placing the blame of the MI/FL debacle on Obama ... his "prevention" of them being counted.

[Clove]

For the love of whatever ... do some fucking research before blowing that shit all over the forums.


What do you mean?He meant "do some fucking Googling"


Placing the blame of the MI/FL debacle on Obama ... his "prevention" of them being counted.But I tend to agree with Tsa'ah that Obama doesn't deserve the blame for the MI/FL pigfuck.

He should have let the sleeping dog lie, though.

[Clove]

PS: I still want to know why Hillary is staying so fucking quiet.

[Tsa`ah]

PS: I still want to know why Hillary is staying so fucking quiet.

She's too busy trying to recover the extensive debt her campaign incurred after her chances of winning dropped to zilch.

And she's likely to still have sand in her vagina because she thought Obama was just going to pay it off and instead she got two checks (one from Mr and one from Mrs Obama) totaling less than 6k.

[Keller]

Placing the blame of the MI/FL debacle on Obama ... his "prevention" of them being counted.

If Obama would have supported it, it would have happened.

Do you not agree with that?

[Warriorbird]

Lame. Ah well. Both McCain and Obama are more than capable of losing the election for themselves.

[crb]

For the love of whatever ... do some fucking research before blowing that shit all over the forums.
Gee whiz Tsa, I follow politics, I live in Michigan. This story was kinda in the news every damn day, there was a fair compromise on the table, the Obama campaign refused to back it, because they were at that point still worried about Billary. They only got friendly with these two states after the nomination was secured. Or, to say it another way, the Obama campaign is merely a fair weather friend to Michigan and Florida.

I swear, you've got such a man crush on Obama if someone posted a video of him tripping on a step you'd probably claim he was inventing a new dance move.

[Mabus]

Placing the blame of the MI/FL debacle on Obama ... his "prevention" of them being counted.
Did you watch the DNC Rules and Bylaws meeting where this was decided, or just visit the Obama website for the details? He fought tooth and nail against full representation, and even wanted 1/2 the delegates in his initial offering. He was awarded not only the "Uncommitted" delegates (in violation of the DNC's own rules), but some delegates that were won by Clinton in Michigan.

And it is telling that with over 20,000 votes Kucinich got 0 delegates from Michigan, but did get to call for impeachment for several hours on the House floor in a compromise for him to drop his claim.

Obama was also seeking that there be no floor roll call at the convention, or if there was a roll call that Clinton's name be removed from nomination before it is held. A deal was reached with Clinton only last week that she not ask that her name be placed in nomination, which is a change from most previous DNC conventions (where all remaining candidates who had not formally ended their campaigns would appear in the initial floor vote).

Some people are saying that there will be some delegates that will hold a "protest vote" for Clinton anyway, but it will mean nothing if she does not submit her name and delegate petition.

What a fun debacle to watch.

This is that "new kind of politics" he was talking about, I am sure.

[Gan]

PS: I still want to know why Hillary is staying so fucking quiet.

Just for you Clove.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/08/05/art.unitywave0805.gi.jpg



(CNN) – Hillary Clinton will campaign for Barack Obama on two dates in August, the Obama campaign announced Tuesday.

She will hold rallies and voter registration drives in the swing states of Nevada and Florida on August 8 and 21, respectively. Obama won’t attend Friday’s event since he is taking a planned vacation with his family — and it’s not yet clear whether he’ll be at the latter date, which falls just days before the Democratic convention in Denver.

The last time Obama and Clinton were seen together was at a New York fundraiser on July 10, when she told donors, “I’m going to do everything I can and everything I’m asked to make sure he takes the oath of office on January 20th, 2009.”

That fundraiser was one of three the pair have held since Clinton suspended her campaign in early June, and just their second public appearance together.

Obama has said on several occasions that he hopes for both Bill and Hillary Clinton’s help campaigning to win in November.

“I am proud to call [Hillary] my friend, and I know that I desperately need her and Bill Clinton involved in this campaign,” Obama said in New York.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

[Clove]

Yeah three appearances isn't exactly "doing all she can" and certainly doesn't sound like Obama "desperately" needs her help.. unless he was planning on announcing her as his running mate. Just sayin'.

[Tsa`ah]

If Obama would have supported it, it would have happened.

Do you not agree with that?

Why would anyone support their own defeat?

Last game of the world series and you're up by 3, bottom of the ninth with bases loaded and the guy at the plate is batting .422 in the series with a HR in every game except this one. Do you send in a bench warmer who has never pitched and tell him to just lob them over the plate?

Here's the problem with the entire scenario. The delegates were stripped by the party before the primary season began. The candidates all agreed to not campaign and they all understood that the results wouldn't count.

Clinton changed her toon really fast .... because she was behind pledged delegates after the first lap and never recovered. Clinton was the first to make MI and FL an issue, and painted Obama the villain as a result.

To what outcome do you think a revote would have resulted in? Certainly you wouldn't have let the results stand as they were and allow the delegates to vote at the convention ... why would Obama do it considering the number of Obama supporters that didn't even bother to vote ... and take into consideration that MI's primary was open.

The simple truth was that the cards were heavily stacked in Clintons favor under either scenario and the only way the Dems could feign integrity and keep either state in play was to allow the delegates to vote, and split them evenly.

[crb]

Why would anyone support their own defeat?

Last game of the world series and you're up by 3, bottom of the ninth with bases loaded and the guy at the plate is batting .422 in the series with a HR in every game except this one. Do you send in a bench warmer who has never pitched and tell him to just lob them over the plate?

Here's the problem with the entire scenario. The delegates were stripped by the party before the primary season began. The candidates all agreed to not campaign and they all understood that the results wouldn't count.

Clinton changed her toon really fast .... because she was behind pledged delegates after the first lap and never recovered. Clinton was the first to make MI and FL an issue, and painted Obama the villain as a result.

To what outcome do you think a revote would have resulted in? Certainly you wouldn't have let the results stand as they were and allow the delegates to vote at the convention ... why would Obama do it considering the number of Obama supporters that didn't even bother to vote ... and take into consideration that MI's primary was open.

The simple truth was that the cards were heavily stacked in Clintons favor under either scenario and the only way the Dems could feign integrity and keep either state in play was to allow the delegates to vote, and split them evenly.
I dunno... because it is the right thing to do? Obama == sore loser in Michigan & Florida.

[Parkbandit]

If I were Tsa'ah, I would never, ever, use a baseball analogy. It's not like he's hitting 1.000 with them.

:)

[Ashliana]

How exactly was he a sore loser? It was Clinton that flopped once she realized people had voted for her. She initially supported the DNC (NOT OBAMA)'s decision to punish Michigan and Florida for violating party rules.

She saw a potential advantage, and swooped in on it and pretended it was all about the "disenfranchised voters" while Obama stuck to the rules. Now that the nomination is wrapped up, he doesn't want those those voters to feel alienated. It's not rocket science.

[CrystalTears]

How exactly was he a sore loser? It was Clinton that flopped once she realized people had voted for her. She initially supported the DNC (NOT OBAMA)'s decision to punish Michigan and Florida for violating party rules.

She saw a potential advantage, and swooped in on it and pretended it was all about the "disenfranchised voters" while Obama stuck to the rules. Now that the nomination is wrapped up, he doesn't want those those voters to feel alienated. It's not rocket science.
That's generally my take on the situation. That said, Obama didn't need to bring this up again.

[Clove]

If I were Tsa'ah, I would never, ever, use a baseball analogy. It's not like he's hitting 1.000 with them.

:)You can lead a horse to water but you can't throw stones in the kettle black.

[Gan]

If I were Tsa'ah, I would never, ever, use a baseball analogy. It's not like he's hitting 1.000 with them.

:)
LOL, that was my first thought when I read his post.


You can lead a horse to water but you can't throw stones in the kettle black.

Glass stones in black kettles? Or black stones in glass kettles?
That indeed is the question...

[crb]

How exactly was he a sore loser? It was Clinton that flopped once she realized people had voted for her. She initially supported the DNC (NOT OBAMA)'s decision to punish Michigan and Florida for violating party rules.

She saw a potential advantage, and swooped in on it and pretended it was all about the "disenfranchised voters" while Obama stuck to the rules. Now that the nomination is wrapped up, he doesn't want those those voters to feel alienated. It's not rocket science.
It was the best thing for his party.

Obama is a huge narcissist, this is a huge contrast to McCain who has always put greater purposes ahead of his own personal goals or wants. Obama puts himself first, even before his party, and certainly before the people of Michigan or Florida.

The Democrats made their stupid decision before they realized how close this election would be and how crucial both Michigan and Florida would be. Alienating those two states was profoundly stupid by the DNC, most people don't even know the RNC also punished them, but did it in a much more intelligent away and it was quickly done away with anyways once McCain had locked up the nomination.

Once the Democrats realized how retarded they had been to ignore these two states entirely, they needed to do damage control, and the best way to do that would have been to simply count the ballots and give half the number of normal delegates to the winners, or something like that. Obama repeatedly stood infront of that compromise.

It isn't about Clinton flip flopping, obviously she had to gain from the decision. It is about Obama not doing the right thing by the people of Michigan & Florida, not doing this crucial thing to help his party rebuild bridges, because he was worried it would affect his shot at the nomination.

It wasn't sporting of him. If you're winning in some contest you don't hold a technicality over the head of those you're beating.

I guess this is why, mostly, the men (the real men) think he should have agreed to the deal and the woman don't. We men care about things like that. No one likes a paper champion.

(if you don't know what a paper champion is, then that just underlines my point).

[Mabus]

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.

We discussed this a while back.

People seem to forget that Obama broke the DNC rules by advertising in Florida (a national cable ad that his campaign was told could not be blocked from Florida) and was the only candidate to do so. Under the DNC rules he should receive no delegates from the state.

People also forget that Florida did attempt to come back into compliance with DNC rules, but that Obama fought the effort tooth and nail.

They then conveniently forget that Obama, and a few others, pulled out of Michigan not because of a DNC ruling, but to deny Clinton an early-state win.

They then forget that Obama wanted 1/2 of all delegates as his initial offering at the rigged DNC Rules and Bylaws meeting.

He was then give all the Uncommitted delegates in Michigan, in violation of the DNC rules. "Uncommitted" is an actual delegate status according to the DNC rules.

He was then also given 5 delegates that that the votes of the people of Michigan had given to Clinton. Others in Michigan, other then Clinton, that actually were voted for by citizens got 0 delegates.

Now he has worked out Clinton not placing her name in nomination at the convention, likely to keep any "surprises" from happening. Usually, all candidates that have not formally ended their campaigns are included in the first ballot. This will not happen at the 2008 Denver DNC convention.

Remember, neither Democratic candidate has the pledged delegates to win. This summer 17 super-delegates have switched from Obama to Clinton, with little to no media fanfare. And the group PUMA (http://blog.pumapac.org/) plans on doing a little demonstrating in Denver.

Interesting times, indeed.

[Daniel]

It's over. Get over it.

[Parkbandit]

It's over. Get over it.

O'RLY? Not so fast!

Sen. Hillary Clinton Not Ruling Out Having Name Put Up for Vote in Denver
Aug. 7, 2008

RSS In an online chat today on her Web site, former Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton assured supporters that she and Sen. Barack Obama are committed to making the party "fully unified heading into the November election."

Sen. Obama says his staff and Clinton's team are working toward a unified party.Obama clinched the Democratic presidential nomination after a bruising primary battle with Clinton. Both Democrats have since sought to publicly ease tensions between the campaigns.

As Democrats near the Aug. 25 start date of their party convention, Clinton acknowledged in her chat that "excitement and curiosity is certainly starting to build" but that "no decisions have been made yet."

Clinton said, "I will make sure that we keep you up to date and involved with all of the convention activity."


http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=5528104&page=1



God.. Clinton ROCKS! YOU GO GIRL!

[Daniel]

It's always good to have a dream right?

[Parkbandit]

It's always good to have a dream right?

Yea. As much as I dislike Clinton.. I'm definately rooting for her at the convention to stir the shit pot up.

[Gan]

Hillary Clinton tells supporters she believes that Democratic Party unity would be stronger 'if people feel that their voices were heard and their views respected.'

From the Associated Press
August 7, 2008


DENVER -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is seeking a way for her delegates to be heard at the Democratic National Convention, telling supporters such a step would help unify a party that split between her and Sen. Barack Obama during their hard-fought nominating contest.

"I happen to believe that we will come out stronger if people feel that their voices were heard and their views respected. I think that is a very big part of how we actually come out unified," the New York senator told supporters last week at a California fundraiser.



A video clip of her remarks was posted on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8gdU_1MM44).

"Because I know from just what I'm hearing that there's incredible pent-up desire, and I think that people want to feel like, 'OK, it's a catharsis, we're here, we did it, and then everybody get behind Sen. Obama.' That is what most people believe is the best way to go," she said.

The former first lady did not rule out having her name placed into nomination at the convention, which will be held Aug. 25-28 in Denver. But her advisors said that was unlikely.


Clinton, who suspended her White House bid on June 7 and endorsed Obama, is expected to deliver a prime-time address to delegates on the second night of the convention.

more...

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-clinton7-2008aug07,0,6846877.story

_________________________________________________

This is Hillary we're talking about. I would expect a suprise or two before "its over"...

[crb]

I get the distinct impression that that little show in Unity was just a show, I mean, even more so than I did at the time. Hillary and Obama have not made up, are not friendly, and there is still a lot of animosity under the surface.

Go Hillary, I too want to see some convention craziness.

[Ashliana]

She's not going to pull anything major.. It wouldn't work, would hurt the party, and people would remember it come 2012.

[crb]

If Obama wins she can't run in 2012.

Think about it.

[Parkbandit]

If Obama wins she can't run in 2012.

Think about it.

Oh, she'll try her hardest to ensure that doesn't happen. Imagine... Karl Rove and the Clintons.. working TOGETHER. Now THAT'S UNITY BITCHES!

[Daniel]

Does anyone else get the visual image of Parkbandit writing this post while rubbing his nipples in extascy?

[Parkbandit]

Does anyone else get the visual image of Parkbandit writing this post while rubbing his nipples in extascy?

Too bad they don't have spell check on the iPhone, huh. At least you sounded it out...

And it's a bit frightening that you have visuals of me rubbing my nipples. I've never, ever thought about a guy like that.

Hey Snapp... Daniel might want to tryout for your team as a switch hitter.

[Tsa`ah]

We discussed this a while back.

Yep, and even then you couldn't get your facts straight.


People seem to forget that Obama broke the DNC rules by advertising in Florida (a national cable ad that his campaign was told could not be blocked from Florida) and was the only candidate to do so. Under the DNC rules he should receive no delegates from the state.

The adds ran on CNN and MSNBC ... so ya, they also ran in MI and FL. Both national networks told the Obama camp that it was impossible to exclude specific markets.

Obama consulted the DNC about the add and were told that it in no way violated the agreement. Only Clinton, the conservative spin machine, and you believe it to be a violation.


People also forget that Florida did attempt to come back into compliance with DNC rules, but that Obama fought the effort tooth and nail.

Source for either ... or it's bullshit.


They then conveniently forget that Obama, and a few others, pulled out of Michigan not because of a DNC ruling, but to deny Clinton an early-state win.

Source ... or again, it's more of your bullshit/opinion.


They then forget that Obama wanted 1/2 of all delegates as his initial offering at the rigged DNC Rules and Bylaws meeting.

It's called negotiating. Clinton wanted the results to stand as they were ... why would Obama agree to that again?


He was then give all the Uncommitted delegates in Michigan, in violation of the DNC rules. "Uncommitted" is an actual delegate status according to the DNC rules.

Because his name wasn't on the ballot and a very large majority of those "uncommitted" votes were in protest of Clinton.


He was then also given 5 delegates that that the votes of the people of Michigan had given to Clinton. Others in Michigan, other then Clinton, that actually were voted for by citizens got 0 delegates.

Well, the alternative was to give neither candidate any votes and not count MI at all. Again, this is called negotiating. A Clinton nomination hinged upon winning states that had been ruled out of the equation. By your logic Obama should have agreed to everything and handed the contest to the loser.

Way to promote the "will of the people".


Now he has worked out Clinton not placing her name in nomination at the convention, likely to keep any "surprises" from happening. Usually, all candidates that have not formally ended their campaigns are included in the first ballot. This will not happen at the 2008 Denver DNC convention.

Obama is trying to unify the party ... last minute surprises work against that effort. Clinton vowed to take it all the way to the convention ... I wouldn't put it past her to have been playing "opossum" all of this time.


Remember, neither Democratic candidate has the pledged delegates to win. This summer 17 super-delegates have switched from Obama to Clinton, with little to no media fanfare. And the group PUMA (http://blog.pumapac.org/) plans on doing a little demonstrating in Denver.

And the superdelegates did their job by endorsing the candidate who won the majority.


Interesting times, indeed.

Interesting enough that it doesn't need your lies and spin.

[Mabus]

Yep, and even then you couldn't get your facts straight.
Point at which ones, oh great brown one. My facts were checked, verified and underwent the scrutiny of ass-hats like you. They still stood.



The adds ran on CNN and MSNBC ... so ya, they also ran in MI and FL. Both national networks told the Obama camp that it was impossible to exclude specific markets.

Obama consulted the DNC about the add and were told that it in no way violated the agreement. Only Clinton, the conservative spin machine, and you believe it to be a violation.
Wrong again!

He talked to the state chair in South Carolina, not the national DNC.

To quote Bill Burton (Obama's then press secretary):
“Both national cable networks told us it would be impossible for us to run advertising nationally that excluded only Florida,” Burton said.

“For that reason we consulted with the South Carolina Democratic Party Chair Carol Fowler who told us unequivocally she did not consider this to be in violation of [the] pledge made to the early states.”

He broke his word. He knew the ads would run there, and he was the only candidate to do so.


Source for either ... or it's bullshit.
Letter from Karen Thurmond explaining why no revote:
"Our Democratic legislators in Tallahassee tried to set the Florida primary on Feb. 5, instead of Jan. 29, but of course, their proposed amendment to House Bill 537 was greeted with laughter and derision from the Republicans who control the state government. Does "537" ring a bell? It should. It's the number of votes that separated Texas Gov. George W. Bush and Vice President Al Gore in Florida in 2000."

They tried to come back into compliance, which the DNC rules state:
"In the event a state shall become subject to subsections (1), (2) or (3) of section C. of this rule as a result of state law but the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee, after an investigation, including hearings if necessary, determines the state party and the other relevant Democratic party leaders and elected officials took all provable, positive steps and acted in good faith to achieve legislative changes to bring the state law into compliance with the pertinent provisions of these rules and determines that the state party and the other relevant Democratic party leaders and elected officials took all provable, positive steps and acted in good faith in attempting to prevent legislative changes which resulted in state law that fails to comply with the pertinent provisions of these rules, the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee may determine that all or a portion of the state's delegation shall not be reduced."

That makes you into bullshit, eh?


Source ... or again, it's more of your bullshit/opinion.
Hillary was up 42% to Obama's 26% in Michigan before he pulled out. All the pundits at the time were saying that the candidates that were loosing would pull out, in order to save themselves from an early-state loss.

For example CNN's Senior Political Analyst Bill Schneider said:
"If there's no campaign, the candidate most likely to win Michigan is Hillary Clinton," Schneider said. "Her Democratic rivals don't want a Clinton victory in Michigan to count. They want Iowa and New Hampshire, where they have a better chance of stopping Clinton, to count more."

It was common knowledge to people watching the election at the time. I mean intelligent people, because obviously you missed it.


It's called negotiating. Clinton wanted the results to stand as they were ... why would Obama agree to that again?
Because the DNC rules (the ones you are trying to state he follows) specifically name "Uncommitted" as a delegate status. They are not automatically given to a delegate that removed his name voluntarily from the ballot.

There was no DNC sanction, or signed pledge, to remove a candidates name from the Michigan ballot. The same pledge and sanction applied to Florida, but he kept his name on the ballot there. Explain it.



Because his name wasn't on the ballot and a very large majority of those "uncommitted" votes were in protest of Clinton.
Then the delegates should have remained "Uncommitted" and voted their will at the convention, just like the DNC rules call for.


Well, the alternative was to give neither candidate any votes and not count MI at all. Again, this is called negotiating. A Clinton nomination hinged upon winning states that had been ruled out of the equation. By your logic Obama should have agreed to everything and handed the contest to the loser.
Nope.

The alternative was to follow the rules set up before Howard Dean, with Donna Brazile championing a change, defied them.

Obviously, you have never read the DNC rules, and must have ignored the posts where I have linked them. I can understand the first, ignorance. The second is stupidity.


Way to promote the "will of the people".
In your view it is much better to give 0 delegates to candidates that did get votes, take away 5 delegates from a candidate that did win them with actual votes and give 55 delegates to a candidate that got 0 votes.

That is the "new kind of politics" your candidate supports as well. Will of the people....


Obama is trying to unify the party ... last minute surprises work against that effort. Clinton vowed to take it all the way to the convention ... I wouldn't put it past her to have been playing "opossum" all of this time.
He is trying to win, period.

If he wanted to "unify the party" he would have sent his people to the DNC Rules and Bylaws meeting and had them say, "Give her everything she wants.". He would have still had a major lead, and would have looked like a truly presidential person.

Instead he fought for delegates he did not receive. That is the real Obama.


And the superdelegates did their job by endorsing the candidate who won the majority.
Really?

I could get you lists of delegates that received funds (I believe many got up to $11,000) to their campaigns from Obama's HopeFund Pac (the one that is mostly lobbyist and PAC funds accepted by Obama) that then supported Obama, even though he lost in their districts.

So much for endorsing with the majority. Show them the money.


Interesting enough that it doesn't need your lies and spin.

Because Obama has his own. Because he has his own.

[Gan]

Does anyone else get the visual image of Parkbandit writing this post while rubbing his nipples in extascy?

Not really.

The thought of an over the hill white guy doing that just doesnt pop into my head. And I would seriously question your manhood that you even bring something like that up as a suggestion and an implication that it happens to you.

Be afraid, very afraid...

[Parkbandit]

Not really.

The thought of an over the hill white guy doing that just doesnt pop into my head. And I would seriously question your manhood that you even bring something like that up as a suggestion and an implication that it happens to you.

Be afraid, very afraid...

FUCK YOU Over the hill bitch.

[Gan]

ROFL