Well, duh. What else do expect them to say?

Maybe Obama can't win the general, but Clinton can't win the primary...

Fatty can't run a campaign so who gives a rat's ass what he has to say.

There are plenty of indipendants and disillusioned republicans that will vote for Obama but not for Hillary. Most of these folks won't even vote a Clinton / Obama ticket if it means Hillary on top. All the pols say that McCain loses to Obama but wins agains Hillary. This guy is just trying to spin the shit his way.

The Clinton camp may have winged Obama enough to lose the general. But, if he can't win, Clinton can't win at all. The question then is which campaign can raise money and grow the party in all 50 states to the benefit of downticket Democrats. Or was 1994 not enough of a scolding?

In order to appreciate how totally insanely desperate this stupidity is you really hafta click on the link that connects you to "Barack Obama's Tongue in Cheek reaction"

That shiat purely RAWKS!

Here's a Taste...

ClintCo: If Barack Obama cannot reverse his downward spiral with a big win in Pennsylvania, he
cannot possibly be competitive against John McCain in November.

BHO: If they are defining downward spiral as a series of events in which the Clinton
campaign has lost more votes, lost more contests and lost more delegates to us I
guess we will have to suffer this horribly painful slide all the way to the nomination
and then on to the White House.

[Thanks for the laughs guys. This was great.]

Gotta luff Barack Obama! Not only is he smart, politically savvy, and a truly tough competitor but he's also got a great sense of humour.

Woo Hoo! Good Eye, Blog-god!

08ama '08.

Be Well.

"if Barack Obama can't win" in Pennsylvania, "how could he win the general election?"

Demographically and historically speaking, a very good question. And Penn is right about Obama's demographics shrinking and hers getting larger from WI to PN.

Obama's campaign retort dissing Pennsylvania?

Priceless.

Unfortunately he is right and no matter what spin or abuse people want to heap on him he is bang on the button.

Polls showed Gore with a massive lead in August 2000 and that died a quick death.

The reality is his color may get out the vote in some places but it will lose him votes in states where he should be winning.

If Obama v McCain then McCain win will CA, NM,FL as well as the normal other states the GOP win.

Obama's demographics shrinking and hers getting larger from WI to PN.

Wyoming and Mississippi?

ClintCo: If Barack Obama cannot reverse his downward spiral with a big win in Pennsylvania, he
cannot possibly be competitive against John McCain in November.

BHO: If they are defining downward spiral as a series of events in which the Clinton
campaign has lost more votes, lost more contests and lost more delegates to us I
guess we will have to suffer this horribly painful slide all the way to the nomination
and then on to the White House.

That's it in a nutshell isn't it. Man it is funny. The Clintons are obviously desperate, which makes for an easy setup for a guy as quick witted as Obama.
Yes, it's horrible that he's got more delegates and more popular vote (and that's including Clintons dittohead vote!)

Sorry, Tax, should be "Wisconsin to Ohio", comparing states with similar demographics. Pennsylvania, too, but they haven't voted yet.

I had to check, Obama has 1404 regular delegates to Clintons 1243. So he is 161 ahead as of now. Though that should move ahead by the end of the month right?

-defining downward spiral

downward spiral: losing 3 out of 4 and being 19 points down in the next, when you had just won 11 in a row. downward spiral.

Do you need a definition of: can't close?

How about the definition of Hill-arious: can't lead!

I would use stalemate rather than downward spiral when looking from WI to PA. Going forward from there, if either loses badly in the rest then we can say downward spiral.

Demographically and historically speaking, a very good question.

Corky: You do realize that Republicans vote in the general election, right? The ability to win a party's primary in a state has -- measuring scientifically here -- exactly 2.5 shits to do with the ability to win in the general. The Democrat who gets more independents and Republicans is the one more likely to turn a red state blue.

You gotta stop passing along the dumbest Clinton talking points coming from Penn and the confederacy of dunces in that campaign. Stick to the smart ones.

Penn: 'Obama Can't Win the General Election'

Teller, predictably, had no comment....

"Then Penn says that if Obama doesn't win the Pennsylvania primary, it "raises serious questions" about whether he can win the general election."

Hillary is favored in Pennsylvania so her campaign manager is trying to negate all the previous primaries by making it all about Pennsylvania. Not a surprising or particularly hard to recognize shovel full of bullshit coming from the side that is losing. The thought that Pennsylvania delegates or electoral votes are worth more than others is of course, absurd.

But if Clinton has proven anything, it is that American voters love to swallow shovels full of bullshit so maybe Democrats will eat up this latest load.

Spud, here is the link to that response. It's absolutely hilarious

~Tqaxman

Ta Tax, Spud HAS read it. S'funny!

Obama's campaign retort dissing Pennsylvania?

~Corky.

Unlike Corky, apparently.

Yeah C-man, Obama's retort was full of "Yo Mama" jokes directed at the good people of Pennsylvania.snark>

Man, do we need a "DESPERATE" FLag up in this place!

Be Well.

the confederacy of dunces

Greatest book ever!

Rogers,

As long as you realize that the Electoral Votes counted for the states Obama has won is around 180 something and Hillary is over 240, I think we'll be OK.

And if you'll stop passing along the Obama Myth that SDs MUST vote with their constituents, and that it doesn't matter if no one reaches 2024, they just win anyway, that would be cool, too.

This is the third quarter of a game that won't be over 'till June to August, and there might be re-votes in FL and MI.

Anyone who says they know what is going to happen is lying like a dog.

But Obama could put all the speculation to bed by winning in Pennsylvania.

Unless of course it is too much to ask of a Dem candidate to win over the Dem base of blue-collar workers in a Dem only primary.

But Obama could put all the speculation to bed by winning in Pennsylvania.

Or by going into the convention with the most votes, the most delegates and the most states.

-"DESPERATE" FLag

Is that anything like a "Prepubescent Tater" Flag?

Is that anything like a "Prepubescent Tater" Flag?

Hell no, a prepubescent Tater Flag has a picture of Evel Kneivel, Captain Kirk and Susan Dey on it. Susan Dey was hot back in the seventies! Laws, yes!

Be Well.

/Out fer a bit
stage left.

-Or by going into the convention with the most votes, the most delegates and the most states.

Anyone who could do that can win. Obama is ahead now. Go ahead and celebrate in the 3rd quarter ya'll.

We like to see that.

"Or by going into the convention with the most votes, the most delegates and the most states."

I think only most delegates counts, Taxman. Votes and states are secondary. No question that Barry O'Bama has all 3 covered at this point, but on the delegates it's still unclear what the superdelegate effect may be. Although with everything in the news lately, I suspect SDs will continue to jump en masse and he's getting closer to having the SD coverage he needs --- unfortunately, IMHO, but nevertheless he is running a masterful campaign. Let's see if it transfers well to the general...

Who said anything about celebrating. If Hillary wins PA, WV and KY handily (as she should), and there is a re-vote in MI and FL (which Ben Smith is saying won't happen - it looks like they are going to split MI 50/50 and give Hillary Florida but with only half the delegates giving her a net gain of 19 delegates) she could go in with the most votes, but probably not the most delegates. At that point you will have a brokered convention and Al Gore walks out with the nomination.

Nappy, I will agree that delegats should be afforded more weight, but leading in all three gives a candidate a better argument of why they should get the nomination.

"..a prepubescent Tater Flag has a picture of Evel Kneivel, Captain Kirk and Susan Dey on it."

Hmmm... Mine has Mason Reese, Valerie Bertinelli and, inexplicably, Bella Abzug on it.

Speed Racer, Schwinn Stingray, Miss January 1974

Well, why would mainstream America want a black racist, whose mentor Pastor Jeremiah Wright repeatedly has said from the pulpit, "God damn America, to be its President.

Why would America want Obama, a buddy of convicted terrorist Bill Ayers, another "Hate America" advocate, and bomber, to be its President?

Obama has a communist mother, whose views regarding "America" undoubtedly were absorbed by him, the osmosis effect.

Obama has a wife that never was proud of America until her husband won elections that propelled him toward the Democrat nomination for President. Being a U.S. Seantor was not enough.

There are rumors abounding that the choir director at Obama's church, a declared and out of the closet homosexual, was murdered to keep him silent on Obama's sexuality. Another man has declared that he was sexually intimate with Obama.

The Rezko deal stinks.

The alliance with a representive of Arab terrorists, stinks.

There are rumors of his connections with the Iranian government also. These will out.

I think that the National Inquirer is doing an expose of Obama and his connections in their current or forthcoming issue.

The stench arising from Obama and his associations and machinations is a stench that only grows worse. To know him is to recognize him as an abomination.

What a sleazeball Obama is. As someone said, "You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time." Let's hope that this is true and Obama is exposed as the anti-American, anti-white racist creep that he is before he is elected to higher office.

He "walks and quacks with ducks," black racists Wright and Farrakhan. Hewalks and quacks with America haters, and consorts with enemies of America and thieves. Wow, what a guy. If it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, it is a duck.

"Nappy, I will agree that delegats should be afforded more weight, but leading in all three gives a candidate a better argument of why they should get the nomination."

Agreed, Taxman. The whole process, on both sides and up and down the aisles, has been gamed to within an inch of its life. Unfortunately it is the only process we've got unless someone comes up with a better one. Which process will, invariably and over time, get gamed to within an inch of *its* life...

"The Rezko deal stinks."

The only that stinks around here are Johnson's posts, which reeks of racism, red-baiting and slander.

"January 1974"

I'll have to look that one up when I am outside the firewall... I assume we're talking good old fashioned shag carpet, and not the buffed Pergo which is today so inexplicably popular?

"As long as you realize that the Electoral Votes counted for the states Obama has won is around 180 something and Hillary is over 240, I think we'll be OK."

California, NY, NJ and Massachussetts, among others, will send their electoral votes to whomever gets the Dem nomination. You could clone Hitler and give him the Dem nomination and those states are voting for 'Clone Hitler - D'. Winning the primaries in those states is next to meaningless when it comes to winning the national election because those votes are pretty much pre-pledged to Any Democrat. Showing an ability to win in swing states like Ohio (which Hillary did) is much more impressive than piling up electoral votes that already belong to the party.

The whole primary process could made much easier and sensible by only holding them in states where voters show an inkling towards free thought. If a state's electoral votes have gone to the same party for the last 4 or more elections there is no reason to hold a primary there. (Sadly, I live in a state where the votes are pre-pledged so this isn't a regional bias thing on my part.)

Just a well trimmed "natural".

Bill Ayers, a member of the Weatherman terrorists, whom Obama describes as his "friend," and Obama, are both members of the Woods Fund Group, an anti-Semitic organization, and their joint membership on its Board further delineates Obama's anti-Semitism as he is in bed with anti-Semites such as his mentor, Rev. Wright and Louis Farrakhan of the nation of Islam.

BothRev. Wright and Mr. Farrakhan have damned America.

While Sen. McCain was in a prison camp in Viet Nam, being captured when his plane was shot down, Bill Ayers was proclaiming his support for a communist victory in Viet Nam and condemning the United States.

The Weathermen were also detonating bombs at the Pentagon, and what have you. Good old anti-American terrorists.

Atta boy Obama. Showing your affiliation with your pals, who are anti-American scum, will come back to haunt you. A man is known by the company he keeps. And Obama associates with anti-Americans, the corrupt, and criminals.

And back to point, the general is still 8 1/2 months away. The fight with McCain hasn't even started. Polls right now are meaningless. Even polls about the outcome of PA are hopeless this far out - wasn't Hillary leading in Texas by 20 points six weeks out?

So, Johnson. I guess you're still on the fence about Obama.

Do we really have to go through the Bush/McCain/ Rove and Bush/Kerry/Rove sleaze yet again to elect a President? Clinton has been beaten by a combination of her own personality and poor campaign tactics. We're all told what brilliant campaigners her and her husband are but they had no plan for after Super Tuesday and having failed to lock up the nomination there they allowed Obama to rack up his insurmountable delegate lead in the next eleven contests.

Somebody who screws up their campaign like that will make a good president? Sure they will, if you want another Bush, that is.

So now she plays the sleaze card hoping against hope that something will work that will somehow nullify Obama's lead in the popular vote, in the number of states won, in the polls and in the pledged delegate count. Suppose, against all the odds, that certain something should happen and she becomes the nominee. How's she going to win without the black vote, the Obamacan vote and the decent, principled Democrat vote a large majority of whom(myself included) will refuse to vote for her?

All she will achieve is to destroy the Democrat party the way that Bush has destroyed the GOP. The GOP stood by and allowed that useless third rate specimen of humanity to become their leader. If the Democrats do the same they deserve everything they get.

What a sleazeball Obama is.

So we have three sleazeballs left in the race. Oh who to pick? Larry, Curely or Moe.

When did Rev. Wright announce his candidacy? Did Obama name him as his running mate?

why can't Hillary close the deal in the states obama is supposed to win?

Savage has a few clips of Obama's preacher's sermons. Really fun to listen to. Enjoy.
michaelsavage.com

Figures Ray's a fan of Michael Wiener.

Give me a break Nulli! I read your bullshit too. That doesn't mean I believe it.

-defining downward spiral

downward spiral: losing 3 out of 4 and being 19 points down in the next, when you had just won 11 in a row. downward spiral.

Do you need a definition of: can't close?


Posted by Corky



Sorry corky, but you are beginning to sound as bad as the Bush tools. Obama won't be running against a DEMOCRAT in the fall, so these comparisons of "who can win Penn" between two dems are kind of silly.

Are you saying that Hillary voters in PA will vote for McCain in Nov? Come on, now.

I will vote for the Dem nominee, regardless, but I have to believe that Obam has earned it so far - granted, things could change - but if he's ahead, he wins, and you should be willing to throw your support behind him on the issues, and leave the loyalty to indviduals (as opposed to principles) to the repubs.

He "walks and quacks with ducks," black racists Wright and Farrakhan. Hewalks and quacks with America haters, and consorts with enemies of America and thieves. Wow, what a guy. If it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, it is a duck.

Posted by Johnson



Did you choose the name "Johnson", or did it choose you?

Penn: 'Obama Can't Win the General Election'

So says the genius who didn't plan anything after Super Tuesday. Who also said in January that whoever has the most elected delegates wins.

"Did you choose the name "Johnson", or did it choose you?

Posted by midiman at 2008-03-13 07:17 PM"

Who, Richard? It's not his real name (he was naive enough to have it included on his profile for a few days - weren't you Richard?)

Does this mean that if obama wins in penn then clinton will concede....


not holding my breathe on that one....


jezzzz

these people are the most disspicable pieces of human excrement.....

It is time for the people of PA to stand up and show this woman the door....

Then the people of NY need to do the same...maybe she can find a home in the republican party.///


and btw pleas take j. lieberman with you hill....

Who, Richard?

~mOntecOre

Johnson is really a "Dick"?

Well, that makes nothing but sense!

pleas take j. lieberman with you hill....

~BushBlows

Joe Loserman (I)?

The "I" stands for Israel!

Be Well.

"Give me a break Nulli! I read your bullshit too. That doesn't mean I believe it."

Well, ok, Ray. It's not a big deal.

Oh and another thing.... Is ms. clinton shooting for 100% black vote for obama.... it sure looks as if....


By june; it may well be that only the clouter/limbaugh republicans are voting for this woman....and I guess those phone bank employees that are paid to advocate for her...

What we are witnessing is the deconstruction of the clinton legacy and/or the unmasking of a raging corporatist that the clinton's have evidently always been...

see oil mergers, airline veto of harden cockpits(based on cost..jezzz) , media conglomerates, nafta, china most favored nation status....

It could well be that liberal causes were just a "cost" of doing business on the democratic side for the clinton family...

If any of you read The Cafferty File on CNN, one of his questions a few days ago was something like who would end up winning the nomination for the Democrats...anyway, there were hundreds of responses and I read most of them...I would say that it was pretty much 50/50 who people want, and each of them saying "If Obama gets it.." or "If Hillary gets it..."..I'M VOTING FOR MCCAIN!!..so, looks like this will be a cake walk in Nov for McCain. Like I have said all along: Being a Hillary supporter or an Obama supporter--this does not translate into one side turning and voting for the other. The war this time is not Red and Blue. It is Obama people vs Hillary people.

CLINTONSKIIING

I would like to respectfully disagree with you on your 50/50 thing.

Hillary is getting traditional Democrats, most of whom would vote for whoever the Dem candidate is. Obama, on the other hand, would get those, all the new voters he's brought into the process, and independents Hillary can't win.

I like reading The Cafferty File too. Chuck Todd's 'First Read' is good too. Ah, I'm just a plain old political junkie this year. But, it's probably the most important election in a generation. Much rides on taking America in a different direction than the course we've been on.

PS CLINTON

I too, a few weeks ago when Bill started his racial bullshit, said I'd vote for McCain (I've voted both parties in my life). But, once they cooled that down and I cooled down, I figured that just staying home would be the more honest thing to do if HIllary's the candidate.

I don't want Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton 2.0 or Bush 3.0

It's broke and they can't fix it. They're part of the problem not the solution.

As long as you realize that the Electoral Votes counted for the states Obama has won is around 180 something and Hillary is over 240, I think we'll be OK.

You're just rephrasing the same dumb talking point in new language. The ability to win states in a primary has no correlation to the ability to win them in the general election.

And if you'll stop passing along the Obama Myth that SDs MUST vote with their constituents, and that it doesn't matter if no one reaches 2024, they just win anyway, that would be cool, too.

I have never said once that superdelegates must do it. I've said they should do it, and if they don't, they should face a real Democrat the next time they run for public office.

I know you want your candidate to win. But you do her no favors by shoveling from the same manure pile as Mark Penn and Clinton's other flaks.

I'm just wondering here, now that we're all tied up in this argument about experience and judgement, does anyone agree, we probably ignored the best candidates like Biden and Dodd. Now, we watch as the most ambitious but least qualified two of the four slug it out in a battle that will split the party. I say we start emailing the delegates personally, find out who they are and tell them to ignore the front runners and select a candidate that really does have experience and judgement. At the convention, I believe, after the first ballot the delegates can vote their conscience. This time we need a Democrat in the WH, these two can't stop fighting so we should find someone else who wants to win as a Democrat. Let's take it to the convention but realize going in this time it will be different than any time in history because of the internet and blogging. This time individuals like us can virtually be there and aware of how our candidate is selected.

This remark "he cant win the general election" was made by a Clinton supporter and as again her camp is trying to down play all his advanbtages over her. He leads in states won, popular vote and leads Clinton in all polls by an average of 10% to win the nomination. The Billary campaign machine will do anything, say anything, even burn down the village to win. She in devious and not trustful. She lies about her foreign policy experience and trys to downplay a good man at every turn. She is in a corner, up against the wall and her charcter in moving on should be a lesson to the undecided Superdelagates and the general public of just what type of person she is.

Hillary has no experience in foreign policy making as she has never been on assignment for the Stae Department which is the wing of the government entrusted with the ability to relate the Presidents wishes towards other governments. Since she is being so secretive and her records of just what type of experience she is talking about will not be released until November it sounds like she has hoodwinked the American people into believing her. This woman will try to gain the nomination even if it means lyinng to the American public.

Barak Obama can not only win the nomination of his party, he can be the next President of the United States. At a time when this country is at war, our dollar is at a all time low, the lending industry has scammed the American homeowner out of their dream and our poor lines are growing daily he has the cool head, the tested judgement and he is a good man. He does not try and destroy an oponent but is vigilent this country has enemies that would do us harm and has expressed he would not hesitate to use our might. However he is aware our countries name is hated throughout the world because of George Bush's arrogance. He has not lied to the American people as Hillary has (non-existent experience)and will be honest with us.
WE THE PEOPLE need to support the best person to come along in years.

I would like to respectfully disagree with you on your 50/50 thing.

Hillary is getting traditional Democrats, most of whom would vote for whoever the Dem candidate is. Obama, on the other hand, would get those, all the new voters he's brought into the process, and independents Hillary can't win.

Posted by AMERICANUNITY

I still believe that neither can win in Nov. I have never voted Republican in my life, but this year may be the first. And every Hillary supporter I know feels the same way. Among my friends, family and co-workers, I don't know one who would support the other when it comes down to it. Very deep divide. And I think I know a broad spectrum of people. It is not that I love Hillary or believe everything she says; it's just I don't trust Obama at all. Way to swarmy of a character. At least we know up front what we get with Hillary or McCain.

to = too

Obama has a better chance in the geneal election that Billary. As I keep on saying she will say anything, do anything including burn the village to win the nomination. A true Washington insider that has no chance of making any true changes for the American middle class.

"Obama can't win general election."

Barring some disaster with the War...I agree.

Neither can Billary, simply because everyone knows here and most people hate her.

Hmmmmmm.....who does that leave?

Ralph Nader or John McCain.....

Close call, that...

Rogers

- I've said they should do it, and if they don't, they should face a real Democrat the next time they run for public office.

Soooo.... SDs who fulfill their role as defined by the rules, that they are there as 20 percent of the total vote to determine who is the best Dem candidate in the fall if no one reaches the Magic Number, should be penalized if their conscience dictates a choice other than their constituents choice?

If Ted Kennedy votes for Obama against the MA vote for Clinton, he should be run out of office?

If you don't like the rules, change them after the election. What you advocate is basically changing the rules in the middle of the game, which, to measuring scientifically here -- has exactly 2.5 shits to do with fairness.

And, btw, I will take a demonstrated ability to hold blue-collar Reagan Dems, seniors, women, and Latinos over a supposed ability to do so any day.


-Are you saying that Hillary voters in PA will vote for McCain in Nov? Come on, now

Are you familiar with the term "Reagan Democrats"?

Yeah, some Dem blue-collar workers will vote for McCain, along with some seniors, some scared soccer moms and some Latinos if Obama is the nominee, and not only in Pennsylvania.

ClintonisKing's post just a short scroll up is indicative of the sentiment I mentioned.

Corky,

Mostly, a lot of democrats are going to stay home if the War is going ok and they've watched Billary and Obama steadily smash all their delusions about them being wonderful people and perfect candidates.

That Trillion-dollar tax hike Obama has finally been forced to reveal is not gonna sell very well either. However, Hillary can't hurt him on it, because she's proposing the same sort of crap.

McCain, on the other hand, is anti-tax and anti-spending, at least in his campaign and a lot of his history. He has also promised to at least attempt to win the War. Solid Republican bread and butter issues. They work every time. The Republicans will come out and vote.

Jon

Actually, HRC differs with BHO on the Trillion dollar hike, and has said so in debate. But I take your point about the war possibly becoming even less significant in people's decisions. We are already seeing that in the polls.

Methinks "It's the economy, stupid!" portends better for Clinton than McCain, however.

As long as you realize that the Electoral Votes counted for the states Obama has won is around 180 something and Hillary is over 240, I think we'll be OK.

You really expect either dem to take FL or TX?

Not very likely.

One of the biggest myths is that Florida is a swing state.

I dont think neither one of these canidates has a chance to win in the General unless the Democrtaic party pulls itself back together. Hillary will not win with out Barak supporters and Barak will not win without Clinton supporters. I guess this fall we are going to find out who (besides me) supports the Democratic party

Corky,

If it's economy, then Democrats peddling massive tax hikes and further growth of a bloated, corrupt bureaucracy is not going to sell.

If the economy perks up for some reason, the Republicans will get the credit.

Either way, Dems lose unless the War goes bad.

Corky,

If it's economy, then Democrats peddling massive tax hikes and further growth of a bloated, corrupt bureaucracy is not going to sell.

If the economy perks up for some reason, the Republicans will get the credit.

Either way, Dems lose unless the War goes bad.

The Dem's should just lie like the Republicans do ever general election. Just tell the people you are for smaller government and less spending. Then just pull a George Bush and grow our government to its largerest size it has ever been and then spend money like a drunkin salior. This plan works for the Republicans and it got George Bush re-elected so why not the Democrats.

Stuart,

Well, Bill Clinton did that. Problem is, Dems just aren't credible on cutting taxes or shrinking government. People wouldn't believe it, but just as importantly, George Soros wouldn't allow it.

you know since this is a thread about the clinton machine going after obama let me tell you what I heard yesterday on rush.
his first TWO callers were liberals. they both were voting for obama and the 2nd was a late 30's black woman who had voted for gore and kerry and was a delegate to the dem convention and she made some really harsh remarks about hillary and the ferrero thing.
as she said, the ferrero comment was because hillary is a white women's liber and is annoited to be president and this black man got in her way...heard that before havent we, and she went on to pour venom on poor vitim hillary and then rush put it right on.....as he then said......liberals are all about seeing to it that AFFIRMITIVE ACTION is all out and that it doesnt matter if someone is qualified or not, they should get things.....UNTIL IT HAPPENS TO THEM.......and he is RIGHT AGAIN.....as he is 97.9 % of the time....so libs dont care if a black person gets a job they arent the most qualified for because we had slaves 200 years ago..
UNTIL IT HAPPENS TO THEM...........should I say that again....no.
so can he win? hell yes he can.
will he.....well you know me...I NEVER MAKE PREDICTIONS!!!!!!!!!

Dems just aren't credible on cutting taxes or shrinking government


That is a good point. It raises the question as too why the American people beleive the Republcians on these issues when their record doesnt match ther actions.

Stuart,

Certainly, their recent record would not make the Republicans out as low tax, low spend people...I agree.

However, McCain's personal record on this is pretty good, and most voters can still remember a time when Republicans DID cut taxes and spend less.
Normally, a performance this weak would get the Republicans nuked...well, it did two years ago.

However, people are faced with a concrete choice here and only McCain is offering low taxes low spending and has some reason to be believed.

This is another year where the Dems should have won an election in a landslide and will not because most people just don't like their big tax, big spend, lose war combination. They should move off this, but so far, they're unwilling. It will cost them yet again.

Yeah, those 22 million new jobs and a budget surplus during those terrible Clinton years were "incredible".

The only way HillBilly wins anything now is with Rush Blubberbaugh's help. That ain't gonna happen in November.

The only way HillBilly wins anything now is with Rush Blubberbaugh's help. That ain't gonna happen in November.

Posted by bellaspapa at 2008-03-14 12:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

Rush's best years were when the Clintons were in office. His greatest victory may be getting HRC the nomination.

Yeah, those 22 million new jobs and a budget surplus during those terrible Clinton years were "incredible".

Posted by Corky at 2008-03-14 12:53 PM | Reply

Why do You continually use Bill's record in Your support of Hellary?? It's like You know Hellary doesn't have the necessary goods to run therefore You have to interject Bill into it. Let's face it without Bill Hellary would not exist PERIOD.

Larry Mohr

Corky,

As far as Clinton's accomplishments, it certainly helps to have Republicans controlling both houses and shoving good ideas down your throat, like Welfare Reform....

Yeah, those 22 million new jobs and a budget surplus during those terrible Clinton years were "incredible".

Posted by Corky at 2008-03-14 12:53 PM

That is a major plus coming from the Clinton admin. They should be harping on that type of thing instead of going negative.

Omaba's mentor, minister Wright is no minister. He is a discussing racist! He has a sick sense of what the world is really about. I just watched him humping the podium as he talked about Bill Clinton and Monica. He is part of the problem, not the solution. And Obama associates with this guy?

We haven't even begun to see the Democratic Presidential campaigns yet. The Repubs are ripe for the pickins with scandal after scandal after scandal... didn't think we forgot about those did ya conservs?

OH and PA will go Democrat. FL and CA too quite possibly.

Obama should be the choice because he's got no baggage, is smart, and has charisma and a personality. He'll destroy McCain on TV and in the debates.

Obama's got no baggage?

Black racist associated with Wright and Farrakhan..
Commie mother.
$300,000 land payoff
Friend of Weatherman terrorist bomber Ayers
Associate of Rezko, Arab-American businessman, now under trial for political corruption.
Associated with the other Hussein's rep, Auchi.

That's for starters.

Geez! where have they been keeping uyou locked up and isolated?

Posted by Ray at 2008-03-13 06:48 PM

What a sleazeball Obama is.

So we have three sleazeballs left in the race. Oh who to pick? Larry, Curely or Moe.

"Black racist associated with Wright and Farrakhan..
Commie mother.
$300,000 land payoff
Friend of Weatherman terrorist bomber Ayers
Associate of Rezko, Arab-American businessman, now under trial for political corruption.
Associated with the other Hussein's rep, Auchi.

That's for starters."

I could give two shits who wins... its all the same anyway. But the general public doesn't know this stuff... and quite frankly no one cares as it all sounds like made up shit anyway.

The fact is, this election will be about Democrat or Republican... little else. And the Republicans don't have much to stand up on...

Johnson,

You should be the LAST person to speak down to anyone about being locked up in isolation. It sounds like you've spent every year after 1960 locked up a basement listening to nothing but Rush Limbaugh reruns.

Nobody sane believes this bullshit you're peddling, and if they do they I hope they haven't had children yet.

Omaba's mentor, minister Wright is no minister. He is a discussing racist! He has a sick sense of what the world is really about. I just watched him humping the podium as he talked about Bill Clinton and Monica. He is part of the problem, not the solution. And Obama associates with this guy?

Posted by KBM at 2008-03-14 02:12 PM


Bin-Obama has decided to finally denounce that crazy SOB. Not sure why after 15 years his eyes became open. Not that this will go away. But at least he has responded.

At least we know up front what we get with Hillary or McCain.

Posted by CLINTONISKING

Are you talking about the John McCain v1.0 or 2.0?

v1.0 - the maverick I respected
v2.0 - Bush v3.0 I don't recognize

That is a major plus coming from the Clinton admin. They should be harping on that type of thing instead of going negative.

Exactly. Instead of running on her strengths, Hillary Clinton is campaigning on a bogus claim of experience, praising McCain's commander-in-chief credentials and trying to tear down the frontrunner. I think this is why she's losing. Throwing the kitchen sink at another Democrat and relying on superdelegates convey desperation.

"Yeah, those 22 million new jobs and a budget surplus during those terrible Clinton years were "incredible".

Posted by Corky at 2008-03-14 12:53 PM

That is a major plus coming from the Clinton admin. They should be harping on that type of thing instead of going negative."

First of all, taking credit for the accomplishments of anyone she's ever associated with and claiming their experience as her own IS part of Hillary's strategy. That's the only way you get the "35 years" figure she's been tossing out there. I'm sure on some level all of you realize that Hillary was not co-President with Bill and can't rightfully take credit for anything he did as president. You are only willing to pretend you believe this and other fantasies because if you deny the truth, you don't have to face the fact that you support a habitual liar.

Secondly, Bill deserves credit for running a budget surplus but to give him credit for the bubble economy created by the 90's internet boom is a bit silly. Al Gore deserves more credit for that (seriously).