The polls that I've seen show Clinton ahead in IN (~10 points) and closing to single digits in NC. But Eriposte's main point is still correct. The only poll that counts in both states will happen next Tuesday.
Posted by jwrjr at May 4, 2008 10:46 AMWonder if Guam is sending a message? Obama took the Virgins Islands by 90%, Hawaii by 76%, and Dems abroad by 65%. He spent a lot of money in Guam and took it by 7 VOTES, basically a tie.
That might bode well for Clinton in N. Carolina. Probably not a win, but enough to keep it close. Plus Obama might lose some AA's over the Wright issue.
Posted by jmac at May 4, 2008 11:18 AMObama will win NC and lose IN.
Essentially not losing any ground to Clinton in the much needed delegate count.
He will still win Oregon, while she takes WV and KY.
She's made it much closer now in SD and MT.
So it will end up being the Super Delegates deciding.
Posted by Seven of Six at May 4, 2008 11:20 AMEriposte states:
there is no doubt that Sen. Obama is heavily favored to win NC and should be able to win IN comfortably given how he did in IL.
And you base that rationale of Obama winning IN by, uhh, what again?:
http://www.pollster.com/08-IN-Dem-Pres-Primary.php
Nearly all polls clearly state otherwise at this point, so I'm not exactly sure of your reasoning here. Since when did Illinois somehow equate to Indiana? Because they're neighbors? The geographics are similar somehow? Can you substantiate further?
Otherwise it would appear you are making an attempt to cushion the effects of an Obama win in NC, while overemphasizing what looks to be an Indiana win for Hillary. Surely that's not your desired effect, is it?
And while I appreciate your response to the gas tax dilemma of Hillary in another thread, which I'll address later today, I'm still wondering if you can address this basic question I continue to ask:
Given the fact that she will need to win the remaining few races by 71%, and if she does not that percentage needed to win increases by each race, and given the fact that Hillary has not won by such margins in the past, how do you expect your candidate to win at this point?
And if she cannot win, which I thought was the whole reason for running as a presidential candidate, why does she continue?
Posted by MisterOpus1 at May 4, 2008 11:22 AMOpus, while I do support Hillary you're post is 100% correct. She cannot win unless she steals the primary via smokey, back room deals with the super delegates. And it does feel like Obama is about to be the victim of a huge hose job.
Posted by Muck at May 4, 2008 11:30 AMI appreciate your candor, Muck. We've got a much bigger adversary to fight, and we needed to start yesterday. As I've stated in the past, I would feel the exact same way towards Obama if the situation was reversed. We have to start focusing on the GOP Noise Machine NOW, and make sure their message does not infiltrate into the media cycle in a similar manner as 1988, or perhaps more recently as 2004.
Posted by MisterOpus1 at May 4, 2008 11:35 AMMisterOpus1,
I said clearly in my post that I am not paying much attention to the polls - my comments are based on demographics. According to the poll of polls, Obama leads Hillary by ~10% in NC. I believe, based on the demographics, that he can do much better. In the same way I am having a hard time believing that IN will go for Clinton as comfortably as the polls appear to predict. Proximity to IL is simply a way of mentioning Obama's popularity in the region.
I could certainly be wrong entirely but as I said, the people of IN and NC will tell us exactly what they think on Tuesday. The intent of my post in not to pre-spin the results of Tuesday. The intent was to respond to Big Tent Democrat who has been criticizing Zogby. (Moreover, the latest Obama surrogate Joe Andrew is the one saying that Obama will win IN and NC - so if you think I'm spinning for Hillary, what is he doing?)
As for your question on how HRC can win given she will certainly be behind in pledged delegates in June, Turkana has written more than one post on this - so I urge you, if you are serious, to read all the posts published at TLC, including Turkana's. She has a non-trivial chance of being ahead in the popular vote count when all is said and done. If Obama is ahead in pledged delegates and HRC is ahead in the popular vote count, superdelegates will have to choose between the popular vote winner and the person with a pledged delegate lead. They can go either way in that scenario. There is no rule in the Democratic party that superdelegates need to pick the leader in pledged delegates.
Posted by eriposte at May 4, 2008 11:50 AMPolls. Who is on the phone, and how is the question asked? It's manipulative voo doo.
Analyzing chicken bones thrown randomly on the ground is more accurate.
Actual election results are suspect, also.
Posted by TIKI AL at May 4, 2008 12:00 PMActual election results are suspect, also.
So we should just get on with the coronation as it was initially envisioned eh?
Elitist
Posted by SnarkyShark at May 4, 2008 12:13 PMFrom Dexter:
Eriposte's rather casual post suggests that he or she doesn't recognize that North Carolina is zero hour for Hillary. NC is the last state that is big enough and Obama-friendly enough in terms of demographics to change the CW that Obama has too much of a pledged delegate lead to deny him the nomination. A Carolina loss would indicate serious discontent in Obama's core constituency, and would really shake the Supers confidence in him for the general. But after NC, it's over as far as tests in the Obama heartland. No meaningful number of Supers will move to Clinton because she can whomp Obama in Appalachian Kentucky and West Virginia. Oregon is also too eccentric and white to do any real damage to him should he lose there.
It's now or never for Hill. If she loses in NC, I think that next week we'll see the Supers break for Obama in a big way.
Posted by Dexter at May 4, 2008 12:17 PMeriposte, your statistics bear out what a lot of other polls and anecdotal information are sadly making clear: A lot of Democrat votes on both sides in this primary season are being cast on the basis of race. I would have hoped that we as Democrats could have risen above race as a voting criteria this time around, but apparently it is not to be. We still have a lot of work to do.
Posted by redstater at May 4, 2008 12:28 PMThe fact that the Democrat in the Louisiana race yesterday had to distance himself from Obama to win should say something to the super delegates. The argument that Obama can help the down-ticket in the south didn't play out in La. I don't know how many AA's voted in that race.
Posted by jmac at May 4, 2008 12:38 PMThe fact that the Democrat in the Louisiana race yesterday had to distance himself from Obama to win should say something to the super delegates. The argument that Obama can help the down-ticket in the south didn't play out in La. I don't know how many AA's voted in that race.
Some Democrats favor Obama and some Democrats favor Clinton. They're in the middle of a hard-fought primary. The Republicans, their front groups and their corporate media allies have thrown all they could into the ridiculous meme that Rev. Wright= Obama= Candidate X. No traction whatsoever. The Democratic leaning precincts in East Baton Rouge were energized and turned out massively for Cazayoux yesterday not despite Obama but because of Obama (and Clinton) and because they don't want to see another 4 years of the Bush Regime in the form of a John W. McCain presidency with another rubber stamp Republican Congress. And most of all, they turned out because they agree with the Democrats-- Obama, Clinton, Cazayoux-- on the key issues and disagree with Bush, McCain and Woody-KKKpecker on those same issues... and won't buy into "let's change the subject and remember how racist we are."
Nice to know you are an easily gamed rube though. And probably a racist too!
Posted by SnarkyShark at May 4, 2008 01:39 PMAnd you base that rationale of Obama winning IN by, uhh, what again?
It's called lowering expectations, a favorite ploy of the Clinton campaign and it's supporters all primary season.
Posted by Upton at May 4, 2008 01:53 PMEriposte replies:
I said clearly in my post that I am not paying much attention to the polls - my comments are based on demographics.
Fair enough, however I would like to see a bit more behind the demographics argument other than a mere relationship of neighboring states.
According to the poll of polls, Obama leads Hillary by ~10% in NC. I believe, based on the demographics, that he can do much better. In the same way I am having a hard time believing that IN will go for Clinton as comfortably as the polls appear to predict. Proximity to IL is simply a way of mentioning Obama's popularity in the region.
Tuesday will tell, I suppose. However I think it's clear that we're dealing with more than just demographics at play right now, considering that by all accounts Obama has had the hardest 2-3 weeks of his campaign as of late.
The intent was to respond to Big Tent Democrat who has been criticizing Zogby.
Again, fair enough. Zogby has been the most consistent outlier, and quite frankly should re-examine their methodology as a consequence.
(Moreover, the latest Obama surrogate Joe Andrew is the one saying that Obama will win IN and NC - so if you think I'm spinning for Hillary, what is he doing?)
Spinning, of course, just as most supporters do varying extents.
Turkana has written more than one post on this - so I urge you, if you are serious, to read all the posts published at TLC, including Turkana's.
I scanned through a few of them but was wondering if I overlooked any that were more recent pertaining the last couple of weeks (i.e. after Penn). It would seem a bit more relevant to examine that more recently.
She has a non-trivial chance of being ahead in the popular vote count when all is said and done. If Obama is ahead in pledged delegates and HRC is ahead in the popular vote count, superdelegates will have to choose between the popular vote winner and the person with a pledged delegate lead. They can go either way in that scenario. There is no rule in the Democratic party that superdelegates need to pick the leader in pledged delegates.
Again I am interested in seeing any plausible scenario here with more recent numbers in the past week or two, if possible.
And do these numbers take into account of Florida or Michigan, which we know that Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot for one of these states? I'm guessing that you'd likely be taking that into account as well.
It seems that considering Obama is ahead by all measures as it stands today, the hypotheticals are pretty wishful thinking, at best, and terribly distractive of combining our efforts to fighting the GOP slime machine at worst.
Posted by MisterOpus1 at May 4, 2008 01:59 PMI just love it when I see Obamabots/Obama-anians (those that reluctantly listen to reason)/Obama Supporters (more willing to listen to reason than Obama-anians) keep saying the mantra....
"Hillary Can't Win....Get Out Of the Race....Hillary Can't Win....Get Out of the Race..." ["We are the Borg. Surrender. Resistance is Futile...We are the Borg...Surrender...Resistance is Futile..."]
Well, let me give you all a Reality Check:
Obama Can't Win Either.
Not at all.
Even IF Hillary would LOSE ALL THE REST OF THE PRIMARIES, Obama still wouldn't be able to "close the deal."
This is going to the Convention.
As it should be.
IF Obama can't "Close the Deal," then shouldn't he get out of the race?
Same sort of Obamabot Logic, turned inwardly.
Like that Logic, Obamabots?
Oh, no? You don't?
Then stop using it.
This isn't a Primary Day, or a Primary Week, or a Primary Month, or a Primary Quarter.
It's called a Primary Season.
Obamabots, rectify your date and calendar counters in your skulls.
And Eriposte and Turkana are always right. The actual best Reality Check is this:
The only poll (and the sole, 100% accurate poll) is the one where people go to the voting precinct and cast their ballots.
Zogby, and all the rest of these GIGO interpreters can go elsewhere. AND they have been notably wrong before. And no doubt, they will be notably wrong AGAIN.
I want to see what all the people of America say via their votes in the primaries.
I do think that there is a trend towards Hillary. My state of PA put proof to the lie that Obama is a "uniter," that his "pull" was wide spectrum; but his meme "Yes we can!" did resonate--Yes, we could say "no" to Obama. And yes, we could say "yes" to Hillary Clinton. And we certainly did.
Posted by Troubled American at May 4, 2008 02:10 PMguam ought to scare the shit out of you obamamites..then again... it probably won't..given most of your appetites for anything resembling reality
Posted by dennis at May 4, 2008 02:11 PMMy state of PA put proof to the lie that Obama is a "uniter," that his "pull" was wide spectrum
Yeah, it's pretty clear Obama won't be getting the racist cracker vote.
Posted by SnarkyShark at May 4, 2008 02:27 PMThe cry starting today (after Guam) is: Obama should pull out. It will be interesting to see how Obama supporters react to the pullout cry if she takes Indiana and is close or pulls a victory in NC. All of a sudden, taking it to the convention might look good.
Posted by jmac at May 4, 2008 02:34 PMFirst we get this
guam ought to scare the shit out of you obamamites..then again... it probably won't..given most of your appetites for anything resembling reality
And then this
The cry starting today (after Guam) is: Obama should pull out. It will be interesting to see how Obama supporters react to the pullout cry if she takes Indiana and is close or pulls a victory in NC. All of a sudden, taking it to the convention might look good.
First of all, the only one I have heard cry anything is you. Second of all, only in Hillaryworld(tm)'s psychedelic hue could winning be taken as pending doom for Obama.
Oh thats right, just like in wingnuttia, anything that happens is good for Republicans/Hillary.
You people are losing it. Get a grip!
Posted by SnarkyShark at May 4, 2008 02:56 PMSnarkysnark:
TO: Interested Parties
FROM: NRCC Communications Division
SUBJECT: NRCC Memo: LA-06 Special Election Results
DATE: May 3, 2008
________________________________
There is something to be learned from tonight’s results. When Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi were introduced into this campaign, Don Cazayoux was leading by a large margin in the polls. Since then, Republicans saturated the Baton Rouge airwaves in an effort to nationalize this contest and make the election about the real life consequences of a Barack Obama presidency and a continued Pelosi-run Democratic Congress. In that time, Republicans made substantial ground.
This election speaks to the potential toxicity of an Obama candidacy and the possible drag he could have down-ballot this fall.
Read the rest
SSnark: I read the article about Obama doing the right thing a pulling out to prove he's the unity candidate in today's Dallas Morning News.
And I don't agree with it but it will be interesting if it becomes a MSM cry to see how Obama supporters who wanted her to pull out will react.
Gosh almighty, a Republican party memo! It must be true!
Had you bothered to read my link, you would have seen this
Let's go over the GOP press release, since this is the thinking that we can expect to hear for the next 6 months as the McCain campaign continues to sputter and then, inevitably dies a miserable death, dragging the whole party down with it. Paragraph one:
There is something to be learned from tonight’s results. When Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi were introduced into this campaign, Don Cazayoux was leading by a large margin in the polls. Since then, Republicans saturated the Baton Rouge airwaves in an effort to nationalize this contest and make the election about the real life consequences of a Barack Obama presidency and a continued Pelosi-run Democratic Congress. In that time, Republicans made substantial ground.
Three weeks ago there was an open primary and Democrat Don Cazayoux took 49% while Woody-KKKpecker got 46% of the vote in one of the most Republican strongholds in America. Yesterday, after the GOP spent whatever they could scrape together to poison the airwaves in an attempt to link Cazayoux with Rev. Wright-- something of absolutely zero interest to anyone who isn't a die-hard Rush Limbaugh/Hannity/Coulter fanatic-- and when the votes were counted, Cazayoux had 49% and Woody-KKKpecker had 46%. So what, again, was there to be learned?
Feel that sting? That's reality slapping you in your ugly Republican mug.
How much money did the fascist party spend to lose what used to be a reliable fascist seat?
You guys suck at everything except lying and torturing/killing defenseless people.
Posted by SnarkyShark at May 4, 2008 03:08 PMjmac-
It would be nice if you had a link. Maybe Maybe its only in the dead tree edition.
That is a fantasy, pure and simple. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the MSM to take it up.
Posted by SnarkyShark at May 4, 2008 03:12 PMSnarkySnark:
If you can't stand the heat--that the fact is that Obama can't win outright the number of delegates needed to take the Democratic Standard Bearership, and he still can't take it even if Hillary loses all the rest of the primaries from here through June....--then get out of the Reality Kitchen ...
Don't you think Obama should drop out? He can't close the deal...he can't gain enough delegates outright, or even combined with Superdelegates, to win the nomination outright (no, he can't as of this very day).
He should get out.
Hillary in her town hall meeting on ABC News this morning, stated the fact that, if one factors in additionally both Michigan and Florida, she is well ahead in the popular vote. Right now.
Obama hasn't unified the electorate. Instead, they are finding trends pointing to the exact opposite (I am quoting this poll, because it would be the Obamabot-like thing to do):
Just today, an Associated Press wire story was published on the front page of the Sharon (PA) Herald, just below the fold.
"Ominous Signals Emerge for Obama"
excerpt:
"....Barack Obama's problem winning votes from working class whites is showing no sign of going away, and their impression of him is getting worse.
Those are ominous signals as he hopes for strong performances next week in the Indiana and North Carolina primaries....
Those contests come as his candidacy has beenrocked by renewed attention to his volatile former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and by his defeat in last month's Pennsylvania primary.
In an Associated Press/Yahoo News poll in April, 53 percent of whites who have not completed college viewed Obama unfavorably, up a dozen percentage points from November....
..."
I think Howard Dean, and the rest of the DNC membership are sitting up, and taking notice of this.
As for calling me or any other fellow Pennsylvanian (who didn't vote for Obama) part of a "racist cracker vote," well then...
Let me respond to this hatred.
Be very careful, Obamabot, when you throw around the "racist" or "racism" terms.... Talking to Northeastern-based United Staters in this way, insulting them, and calling them those labels will just confirm to us that Obamabots in aggregate are racist and race-baiters themselves....
SnarkySnark == Willfully Misinformed Obamabot. And a Race-baiter.
(And this is factual on both counts. Not merely my opinion. SSnark proved it by their words typed on this discussion thread.)
Does SSnark's comments sound like a member of a political support group for an alleged "uniter" to you? Doesn't to me.
Come Wednesday morning, let's see where things stand, at least for North Carolina and Indiana.
Posted by Troubled American at May 4, 2008 03:32 PM"Elitist". ...(SS)
...Thank you for the compliment.
Humorless Euprotomicrus bispinatus, (9" pygmy shark) was sent here by our friends at the GOP to divide us. On his best day he couldn't chomp off a pinky.
Posted by TIKI AL at May 4, 2008 04:00 PMFirst of all your premise is incorrect. If you mean currently pledged superdelegates, you would be correct, but that is not what you said.
Second of all, everything you have stated is even more true for Hillary, so your argument is patently ridicules.
I have never said she should drop out, but I have stated on many occasions that she needs to quit campaigning on the Rove model of personal destruction. In case you haven't noticed, her unfavorables are being driven through the roof.
The fact is, she can't win except through a coup that will tear the party apart. All she is doing is screwing up the good will most Dems felt towards the Clintons.
Hillary in her town hall meeting on ABC News this morning, stated the fact that, if one factors in additionally both Michigan and Florida, she is well ahead in the popular vote. Right now.
Sorry, Florida and Mich don't count. Hillary promised not to keep her name on the ballot and then renigged. Only you kool-aid drinking fools can't seem to grasp that. So if wishes were horses, dreamers would ride.
In an Associated Press/Yahoo News poll in April, 53 percent of whites who have not completed college viewed Obama unfavorably, up a dozen percentage points from November....
Yes, stupid people look like they're lining up to get bent over again. Hillary attracts stupid people. There's a ringing endorsement. And the AP has been one of the worst offenders in the MSM when it comes to pushing an agenda.
Be very careful, Obamabot, when you throw around the "racist" or "racism" terms.... Talking to Northeastern-based United Staters in this way, insulting them, and calling them those labels will just confirm to us that Obamabots in aggregate are racist and race-baiters themselves....
Yeah, my responding to your stupid ass on an increasingly irrelevent blog is going to change the dynamics of this race. Could you be more of a phsycotic egomaniac. I will call racist all I wan't. Bill Moyers spells it out. Anybody who is still going on about Rev Wright is a racist.
Go see for yourself
Hes talking about youd
Humorless Euprotomicrus bispinatus, (9" pygmy shark) was sent here by our friends at the GOP to divide us.
Thats funny, because that's what I believe about you.
Not that you were sent by anybody, just that you divide us out of some egotistical self-importance.
My guess is you are another boomer acting out.
Posted by SnarkyShark at May 4, 2008 04:15 PM"My guess is you are another boomer acting out."
...Bingo!
When does the snarky stuff start?
Posted by TIKI AL at May 4, 2008 04:32 PMCRAP! CRAP! CRAP!
Umm, uhh, hey look, Obama only attracts black voters! Argh!
(Kitchen Sink, Part III)
Posted by at May 4, 2008 04:51 PMeriposte,
Talk about parroting campaign talking points!
You aren't "paying attention to polls" except when they advance the cause of Mrs. Clinton. Not sure where you got your "demographics" from; no doubt out of thin air.
The reality is that early voting turn-out in three counties (Marion, Monroe and Lake) MAY ultimately favor Obama; however, Clinton's November 2007 OPPO plan (Wright, Ayers, Rezco, Obama's dead mother as a "leftist", etc.) has in fact increased the anxiety of white 'blue collar' male voters such that they will likely vote for Clinton or not vote at all.
Real CLear Politics (the best predictor of the 2004 presidential outcome)shows the following as of today:
Indiana RCP Average: Clinton +5.
North Carolina RCP Average: Obama +7.0
BTW, CBS News/New York Times
Dems: Obama 50, Clinton 38
General: Obama 51, McCain 40
General: Clinton 53, McCain 41
As usual, you are 'talking out of your (emotional) hat'.
Posted by tfitznc@bellsouth.net at May 4, 2008 05:00 PMAs for calling me or any other fellow Pennsylvanian (who didn't vote for Obama) part of a "racist cracker vote," well then...
Pop quiz racist...who said " Pennsylvania is Philly and Pittsburgh with Alabama in between"?
Hint..it wasn't an Obamabot.
Posted by SnarkyShark at May 4, 2008 05:35 PMHillary in her town hall meeting on ABC News this morning, stated the fact that, if one factors in additionally both Michigan and Florida, she is well ahead in the popular vote. Right now.
If Hillary Clinton...
TA, And if the uncommitted votes in MI were to go to Obama she would be behind in the popular vote. So if Hillary says something, it must make it a fact... I see, CDS in reverse.
What don't you understand about playing within the guidelines set by the DNC, that Hillary's campaign signed onto? MI and FL votes don't count, her staff agreed to it, Hillary's attempt to make them count is pathetic and shows her desperation.
As Clinton wildly shrieks, "I'm behind in the votes... I have to look for all the votes I can, I must step out of bounds and take all those votes in FL and MI. Nobody but me gets them... ha, ha, ha..." Fucking unreal!
Blame the real problems in MI and FL where they lie, on the republi-con state legislators of both states.
Poor DLC'ers... I feel for them... the old part of the Democratic Party... the outgoing system... good fucking riddance!
Posted by Seven of Six at May 4, 2008 05:38 PMPoor DLC'ers... I feel for them... the old part of the Democratic Party... the outgoing system... good fucking riddance!
Seven-I love ya man...in a strictly heterosexual way!
The shark could not have said it better.
Posted by SnarkyShark at May 4, 2008 05:42 PMI've given up giving a shit which one wins the nomination, neither one is really what we need to start to repair the damage that the Republican party has wrought on our country.
They started planning after Goldwater got his ass kicked in 1964, and they started to implement it in 1980 with probably the worst President of the 20th Century, Reagan.
So, we're not going to get much in the way of solutions from the top on down with either Hillary or Barack, so who cares which one wins the nomination? Just make sure they don't blow it and lose to McCain, which is not going to happen no matter what mean things either campaign is saying about the other.
Posted by Duckman GR at May 4, 2008 10:14 PMWho knew the democratic party was full of people casually calling other people racists because they don't support the black candidate and characterizing women as shriekers?
No longer a democrat because of you people. Don't want to be aligned with you. You're really republicans if you act this way.
Posted by at May 5, 2008 04:06 AMWho knew the democratic party was full of people casually calling other people racists because they don't support the black candidate and characterizing women as shriekers?
Who knew the Democratic party was full of racist
J. K. Patrick, a retired state employee from a neighboring county, wore a button on his shirt that said “Hillary: Smart Choice.”“East of Lexington she’ll carry seventy per cent of the primary vote,” he said. Kentucky votes on May 20. “She could win the general election in Kentucky.” I asked about Obama. “Obama couldn’t win.”
Why not?
“Race,” Patrick said matter-of-factly. “I’ve talked to people—a woman who was chair of county elections last year, she said she wouldn’t vote for a black man.” Patrick said he wouldn’t vote for Obama either.
Why not?
“Race. I really don’t want an African-American as President. Race.”
What about race?
“I thought about it. I think he would put too many minorities in positions over the white race. That’s my opinion. After 1964, you saw what the South did.” He meant that it went Republican. “Now what caused that? Race. There’s a lot of white people that just wouldn’t vote for a colored person. Especially older people. They know what happened in the sixties. Under thirty—they don’t remember. I do. I was here.”
Never has the whole world been so ready for a generation to die! The boomers and their ridicules nonstop bullshit, with the racism and seeing DFHs under every bed. The dumb asses that voted for Reagean and the Bushies. Look...it's about me! It's always about me! We want our greatest war evah(tm) too!
And Seven didn't say all women shrieked, just one Republican lite clone in a pantsuit.
Sounds like the racist accusation is starting to sting, which is generally what happens when one looks in the mirror and sees the truth.
As for someone who would state that they would leave the Democratic party on account of some comments in a blog, you weren't much of a Democrat to start with so don't let the door hit you in the ass.
I want to see the Democrats trimmed of the so-called Reagean Democrats anyway. A bunch of traitorous son-of-a-bitches , they should have been called by their proper name a long time ago-Republicans.
Go join your loser racist low life friends in the Republican party.
Posted by SnarkyShark at May 5, 2008 04:51 AM...and characterizing women as shriekers?
Shit, Bill is acting the same way as Hillary!
Join whatever Party you want. Just have to love those anonymous posters, their statement carries so much weight.
Guidelines are guidelines, you either agree to follow them or not. But don't complain about the rules later in the race, especially if you're behind.
Hey, Obama wears pantsuits. What's your problem with that, SS?
I don't mind that you're a loudmouth Bush=Gore Faux-Left Manichaean Naderite with the blood of 600K Iraq War dead on your hands. Do you?
Posted by No Blood for Hubris at May 5, 2008 07:14 AMI don't mind that you're a loudmouth Bush=Gore Faux-Left Manichaean Naderite with the blood of 600K Iraq War dead on your hands. Do you?
Wrong. I don't remember seeing you while I was standing with Cindy in Crawford for two weeks and getting spit on by Republican Chicken-hawks. .
You were probably blowing one of your DLC heroes while figuring out how to loose another election Terry McCaullife style.
And I voted for Gore and hate Naderites. So your powers of perception are as bad as your blog-writing skills.
loser
Posted by SnarkyShark at May 5, 2008 07:39 AM