Hillary dominates Philadelphia focus group. "NYDIA HAN: The real take away is this. We now know who won the debate according to our focus group. Take a look. Senator Clinton is the debate winner, at least according to our focus group. 23% believe Senator Obama won while 50% believed Senator Clinton won." [WPVI Post-Debate Analysis, 4/16/08]

ABC News' Rick Klein 'Clinton is back to the strong presence we saw early in the cycle.' [ABC News Political Radar, 4/16/08]

NBC News' Chuck Todd Obama did not have a good night.' [MSNBC Post-Debate Analysis, 4/16/08]

NBC News' Chuck Todd--Obama's answer on Ayers and the flag were simply weak.' "His answer on Ayers and the flag question were simply weak; He seemed unprepared for them; Kinda surprising because he normally has a decent rant against "old politics" and yet "old politics" questions seemed to stump him." [NBC First Read, 4/16/08]

The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder [T]here's no way Obama could fared worse. [The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder, 4/16/08]

Washington Post' Chris Cillizza -- Obama struggled quite a bit' when asked about Rev. Wright. " ... He struggled quite a bit more when asked to answer for Wright, his former pastor." [Washington Post, The Fix, 4/16/08]

New York Times' Katharine Seeyle: Hillary's in her element as she goes into details.' "She's becoming expansive, seemingly in her element as she goes into details; Mr. Obama does not look as thrilled to be still standing there." [New York Times, The Caucus, 4/16/08]

Talking Points Memo's Josh Marshall Hillary certainly seems more self-assured.' "She certainly seems more self-assured on the Iran question than Obama did. The question of extending an American security umbrella to Israel is very dicey. And he could clearly see he was on delicate territory." [Talking Points Memo, 4/16/08]

Philadelphia Inquirer blog Obama is again less certain, and rambles a bit.' "Obama is again less certain, and rambles a bit when asked about the Washington D.C. gun ban. Gibson asks him to deny that he has ever advocated a complete ban on hand guns in 1996. Obama says no. But whatever the truth, no other answer is possible." [Philadelphia Inquirer Blog, 4/16/08]

NBC News' Matthew Berger Obama tried to have it both ways' with Israel. "Obama's answer on an Iranian attack on Israel tried to seem to have it both ways: highlight his support for Israel but not lock him into treating an attack on Israel like an attack on the U.S. But it may have looked more like a no because it wasn't a firm yes. Clinton's answer seemed more direct." [NBC First Read, 4/16/08]

The funny part is that most of those people quoted have Obama tattoos across their foreheads most days.

Since there is no link to your article, is the headline yours or the original?

Just wondering why it wouldn't have said something positive like "Hillary fares well in debate" or "Good night for Hil", rather than one with a negative connotation.

And for the record, yes, I think she did pretty well last night.

Ding,Ding,Ding!
I win...just knew by the headline who posted this one.

Seriously...keep up the good work Corky. This place is turning into a elitist Obamafest.

SA,

Obama got a few legit questions for once and handled them rather poorly, acting defensive, as if the public already knew him well and had no right to ask.

HRC looked like she did the very first debates, more Presidential than the rest of the boys. But Obama has become a better debater and they both did about the same in the last segments.

I think HRC's knowledge of issues and depth of substance of plans for both Iraq and for domestic policy put her a step above.

When you are the frontrunner you have to expect difficult questions. Each side is going to say their candidate won and the talking heads are going to be divided as well. I did find that there was a nasty feel to last night's debate and while Obama was on the defensive he did respond well to some issue while stumbling on others. Hillary comes out looking even more negative, if that is possible, but that is the route she has to go now. I think George Stephanopoulos and Charlie Gibson did a great job of asking those questions that Hillary wanted to ask but couldn't...how convenient for her, having a former staffer aksing the questions.

It seems that many other news outlets are focusing on the fact that Hillary said "Yes, yes, yes" when asked if Obama could win in November. She essentially closed that door going forward now.

Moreover, it seems that Corky has picked the quotes that favors his candidate and ignored those quotes that spin a negative outlook on the debate last night.

Anyway, I think the debate last night shows that the Dems are going to make it tough on themselves for the general election come fall:

- elitist Obamafest.

I guess over 4 million a year qualifies.

I would have to generally agree with that Corky, although I think what we saw from Obama early on was more frustration than defensiveness. He kept trying to steer the discussion to real issues that will matter to the voters, and Charlie and George wanted to keep playing tabloid gotcha with things like the Wright and Bosnia stuff, both of which have been beaten to death.

If 4 Millio a Year qualifies for elite status then what does 109MILLION Dollars the Clintons made mean?? Super Duper Elite status.

Larry Mohr

"I guess over 4 million a year qualifies.

Posted by Corky"

So by that criteria guess that would make him about 1/3 as elitist as Hil?

lol, the Obamington Post has already declared it the Gotcha Debate, their panties twisted so tight they are crying buckets over there!

Obama needed to go on the record answering those questions and he did, albeit mostly rather poorly.
He did not put to bed his most recent comments in SF, for example.

I have never seen a politician who didn't claim we shouldn't be talking about his controversies, mostly self-inflicted in this case, but should be talking about substance instead.

roflmao! An internet poll from Drudge Report closes the case?

Absurd. Funny as hell, but absurd.

Oops... another Super Delegate for Obama today. Net change since Super Tuesday = Obama +85, Clinton +1. Margin is now down to 25.

Maybe last night's debate will cause a stampede in the other direction?

Polls showed ron paul a contender early on too. what did that prove?

The perception of having the MSM either on your side or against you is a double-edged sword.

I don't know about stampedes, but I know Obama et al got a small taste of what it is like to have the MSM on your case, something Clinton has lived with for a long time.

"Elitism is a belief, not an income.

encarta.msn.com

Posted by Corky"

Then why did you bring up Obama's income as a qualifier?

Polls showed ron paul a contender early on too. what did that prove?

Nothing, but it is not "early on" anymore.

-Then why did you bring up Obama's income as a qualifier?

It's a perception thing. But true enough, there are few poor elitists, lol.

Poor Elitist is an oxymoron. At best you'd be a wannabe who is a joke among the rich and hated by the poor.

Corky's a shill and he's pissed because Obama wouldn't pay out some Condo Cash like the Clintons did.

So Obama got grilled last night, and Clinton was there sticking the fork every chance she had, yet her negatives are higher than Bush and for good reason.

She's a sociopathic liar.

And all that baggage she's toting around involves misdeeds and deceits that go to the core of who she really is behind the scenes. All she has against Obama is guilt by association, and no matter how tenuous she will try to portray him as something he is not.

Zogby has her up by ONE POINT in Pennsylvania and her only option is to use baseless attacks and try to smear him...

just as she's smeared herself with every conceivable dirty deal she's had the opportunity to engage.

She's worse than a cunt -- she's a whore.

"...yet her negatives are higher than Bush and for good reason.

She's a sociopathic liar.....

She's worse than a cunt -- she's a whore."

Posted by OzarkAggie

Wow! Is this guy even a democrat?

Would make my case for why the dem's are screwed in November if he were.

And to claim that Bush is better than Clinton.... *smh

Sorry Sarge, internet polls are notoriously unscientific. We won't know who "won" in the public opinion until later, and maybe until next Tuesday's vote.

Until then, we have our own eyes, and those of others.

Posted by Corky at 2008-04-17 11:26 AM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Jesus fucking Christ dude. How many polls have You posted upon where Your supposed "Darling" was supposedly ahead. My God Dude You are categorically worse than Lokisfur and I didn't even think THAT was possible. WOW You take the cake.

Larry Mohr

-Wow! Is this guy even a democrat?


Mikey is a Hillbillyocrat. And that was, sadly, one of his more intelligent posts.

Larry, even you know there is a big difference between internet polls and the polls we see here every day.

So I guess the MSM will be talking about the Weather (underground) the next few days. That ought to chap Obama's ass nicely.

Larry, even you know there is a big difference between internet polls and the polls we see here every day.


Posted by Corky at 2008-04-17 11:31 AM | Reply


Unfuckingbelievable. Last time I checked the Drudge Retort was on the Internets. Seems to me polls seen here or posted here are internet polls. DUH

Larry Mohr

Whatever you say, Lar.

You know the bumper sticker slogan where the person asks Jesus for protection from his followers?

That's the way I'm starting to feel about ally'all.

The theme is becoming, lets throw a hammer party and bash everyone's brains in.

I pray that the general population is not represented by the posters here, because we've got a President "Torture is when it happens to me" McCain come November if it is.

Good move Cork.

Corky,

Dickerson's Slate article is ignorant. He completely misses the point when he tries to suggest Obama was using moral equilvalency when he exposes the ridiculousness of slapping others positions, opinions, or action on someone else because of some loose association.

If we want to look at what politician has served on what board and with who no one will be left standing. Certainly not JM.

You are only kicking in his general direction.

I could even vote for Obama if he would call for re-votes in FL and MI. And I would vote for him as VP. But until he does that, I am going to continue to kick his scrawny ass.




Posted by Corky at 2008-04-17 11:47 AM | Reply

They broke the fucking rules and now You want to sweep it under the rug ehhhhhhhhh. Obama is doing the Honourable thing and sticking with the original game plan You know the one that states that since they broke the rules and moved up their primaries then they shouldn't count. Seems to Me Hellary said the same exact thing till She got stuck in the Big Muddy now She is all in a huff including Her KRUSTS Members. It's painfully obvious.

Larry Mohr

"I could even vote for Obama if he would call for re-votes in FL and MI. And I would vote for him as VP. But until he does that, I am going to continue to kick his scrawny ass."
Posted by Corky

Does this mean that you'll vote McCain or Nader if HRC doesn't win the nomination?

FL and MI are really my only two problems with Obama because he's placing greater value on arbitrary rules than on the enfranchisement of voters.

His platitudes about a new kind of politics ring hollow in this light.

Sounds more like a by any means necessary campaign rather than by the most noble means possible to me.

I have no illusions about politicians, but Clinton never made that claim, so I don't hold her to that standard.

Larry,
You have to admit that sticking to rules that disinfranchise the voters of two states is taking the low road to the nomination, right?

Rules are only rules, and when their net result is the disenfranchisement of a few million, the legitimacy of those rules and those who wish to adhere to them must be called into question.

If Obama could come up with an argument why the Voters of Michigan and Florida don't matter, I'd like to hear it.

Then I'd remind Michigan and Florida and the rest of the country of that reason every thirty seconds until November if I were McCain.

Tiger

Yeah, I think the Weatherman thing pretty much a loose association, although having a fundraiser at the guy's house for his Senate run is more of a question of good judgement to me.

More worrisome may be his penchant to fudge the truth when in trouble, as Dickerson mentions he did last night. He did the same when not mentioning that he and Rezko walked that property weeks before he had told Chicago papers it was a "coincidence" that Rezko was involved.

Now, his campaign is denying that he attended a function with Rezko and the Iraqi Auchi, whose money apparently financed part of his home purchase, even after testimony in court by a prosecution witness that he was there.

Fuck Florida...McCain has that in the bag.

Michigan wanted a "firehouse primary" that would have been open for voting between 10 AM and 4 PM. Now how would that have enfranchised the voters? Clinton's argument against the caucuses was that not everyone could attend because of work schedules. So she proposes a 6 hour window...and collars some big buck donors to make it happen. Sorry.

Even Koolaid doesn't make people this delirious. You guys must be smoking crack.

You have to admit that sticking to rules that disinfranchise the voters of two states is taking the low road to the nomination, right?

If Obama could come up with an argument why the Voters of Michigan and Florida don't matter, I'd like to hear it.

Then I'd remind Michigan and Florida and the rest of the country of that reason every thirty seconds until November if I were McCain.

Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2008-04-17 12:01 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e




Absolutely NOT. It is sticking to ones principles and if the voters in Florida and Michigan have a problem with it they only need to look to Their party's leadership in each State. This ain't Obama's problem. The Leadership disenfracnchised them. Oh and Hellary CLinton already said those States didn't matter so why are You not questioning Clinton's declaration that they did not matter?? Funny dat Be.

Larry Mohr

Newsworthy Flag and Moment of Clarity Award for H Celine!

(12:01 post)

-Fuck Florida...McCain has that in the bag.

Uh, yeah.... NOW!

53 to 38 against Obama, much closer with Clinton who could win here. Giving away FL and MI to McCain, being weaker in Ohio and PA then Clinton, is a losing proposition for the fall.

Actually it was Celine's 11:56 that I tagged as Newsworthy.

Actually it was Celine's 11:56 that I tagged as Newsworthy.

Pandering like a good clintonite.

Corky,
I am paying attention to those inconsistencies, but they have not reached the bar to cause alarm. I consider them mostly trivial like Hillary's Bosnia hyperbole. Those are just not real issues. The country is in to much need of good leadership to allow the media to put a ring through our nose.

The Leadership disenfracnchised them
Posted by LarryMohr

Larry, disenfranchisement should be repugnant to any candidate regardless of how the disenfranchisement was carried out.

Now, the burden should fall on Obama for demonstrating why it's acceptable that its occurring beyond the fact that he personally benefits from that disenfranchisement.

We were sickened in 2000 and 2004 when people's votes werent counted, why is it okay that they're not counted now?

Vince Foster's so-called suicide and the encumbent paperwork coverup. Aren't all you Hillary supporters so proud?

Mina, Arkansas. What really happened out there in the piney woods?

DNC rules allow for re-votes, but Dean will only move if both candidates call for them and Obama refuses.

He's holding on to my vote, and 1.7 million other FL Dem votes. If he doesn't let go, he can forget about being President.

Funny how some Dems think that they are justified in re-running all the hysterical VRWC Hillary Hater BS from the 90's.

It's one of the first things that turned me off to Obamites.

Making the taxpayers of Florida pay for a revote will earn a lot of Dem votes in Nov.

Great idea.

Yeah fuck the rules I mean shoot they don't matter anyways. If I break the rules here and do so repeatedly RCADE should drop kick My ass out of Here faster than I can type a complete sentence without errors. True it's not on the same league as voting. Yeah lets just say have a free for all voting.

Larry Mohr

My point is this Ms Lieberman. You spam all of these threads you start up with dubious information and opinion pieces. You trash Obama as if that had any influence over the fact that Hillary is sunk.

If, in fact, you are a Democrat you're a very poor one.


Oh yes, Hillary says that Obama CAN win in November. She can't even keep her lies straight anymore.

Pandering like a good clintonite.

Posted by OzarkAggie

Oh, my mistaken southern cousin.....

I've stated before that I don't really have a dog in this fight, I just think that whoever wins the nomination should deal with these issues now rather than later when they could cost the Democrats the election.

"Newsworthy Flag and Moment of Clarity Award for H Celine!

(12:01 post)"

Is it okay to flag yourself, albeit an alias?

larry,
If we err on the side of disenfranchisement, however it is justified, we have failed ourselves. I don't care which of these two gets the nomination.

If we err the other direction and it means McCain, war, economic polarization, global isolation. Who have we served. The bathwater is gone, but we still have the baby.

Florida and Michigan still have Nov.

-Is it okay to flag yourself, albeit an alias?

The paranoia is palpable around here.

Just to keep the score updated...

Yet another Super Delegate for Obama (that's 2 today and 5 this week)- former Clinton supporter Harry Thomas Jr.

Super Delegates net change since Super Tuesday: Obama +86, Clinton +1. Clinton margin now shrinks to 24.

MI and FL Both Knew What The Consequences For Trying To Be Special, The People Of Both Those States Should Have Impeached The Politicians That Put Them In This Disenfranchised State.

Posted by Sarge

Riiiight. Just like we should have impeached bush/cheney for.....

They were disenfranchised because they dared challenge the kingmaker status of New Hampshire and Iowa?!! Please. Why TF are they so important that they must come first?

"Newsworthy Flag and Moment of Clarity Award for H Celine!

(12:01 post)"

Is it okay to flag yourself, albeit an alias?

Posted by LetUsPrey at 2008-04-17 12:50 PM

No, but I am honored that CorkyCelineMcBegginstrips decided to bestow my award upon him/herself.

Either that, or way creeped out by the implications therein.

-former Clinton supporter Harry Thomas Jr.


'Nother black guy folds. I'm shocked I tells ya!

Have you seen what they have done to Tavis Smiley? Disgusting.

Is it okay to flag yourself, albeit an alias?

Posted by LetUsPray

I am not corky!

the only other handle I flew by around here included the termns angry and ny. but that was years ago.

"'Nother black guy folds. I'm shocked I tells ya!"

'Nother Corky deflection and refusal to address the point. I'm shocked I tells ya!

"I am not corky!"

Or that McBegginstrip fella either!

ROC

Sorry if I stole your Award. It was too good not to!

But Celine is another poster, not me.

Sometimes I put my keyboard in my mouth here, and regret something I've said, but I've not posted under any other name here for a couple of years.

But it would be useful to Obama supporters if they could believe that all criticism was coming from one, albeit one mightily schizophrenic, poster.

Apology accepted Corky, and if my diagnosis of Dissociative Blog-Identity Disorder was incorrect, my apologies to Celine as well.

It was too fun a shot to pass up.

Posted by SanAntonioRogue at 2008-04-17 10:44 AM

I think what we saw from Obama early on was more frustration than defensiveness. He kept trying to steer the discussion to real issues that will matter to the voters, and Charlie and George wanted to keep playing tabloid gotcha with things like the Wright and Bosnia stuff, both of which have been beaten to death.

They were disenfranchised because they dared challenge the kingmaker status of New Hampshire and Iowa?!! Please. Why TF are they so important that they must come first?

Posted by Hagbard_Celine

Exactly !!!

So Guess What? They Do Not Have To Belong To The DNC and Have Their. So Rules Are Rules If You Don't Like Them Do Not Play.

-Sarge

Seems like I took Your word for it on Obama Corky so I have been doing The Google and it looks like I errored in trusting You. Michigan House democrats must approve of a revote before one can happen. Oh and the Florida deal is basically the same thing. So when You trash Obama You should be focusing Your energy upon the Florida folks like I thought. I will never trust You again THAT is for certain.

Larry Mohr

Corky, the real benefit of those books is the political philosophy.

Fernando Poo is the Iraq of the story.

"Please. Why TF are they so important that they must come first?"

The ultimate irony is FL and MI wanted to move up their primaries to be relevant, whereas had they remained on the original dates, the votes would've had a greater national spotlight.

"So when You trash Obama You should be focusing Your energy upon the Florida folks like I thought.

Posted by Larry Mohr

How small of a person are you trying to claim obama has a right to be simply because he isn't the one who is directly responsible for the disenfranchisement of the voters of MI and FL?

Win by any means necessary, I guess.

How different is that from what Bush was willing to do to be elected?

Leisure Suit Larry

Obama supporters in the MI legislature were ready to agree to a re-vote, then killed the motion when Obama backed out. Florida has awaited Obama calling for a re-vote, according to DNC rules, which he has refused to do.

Posted by Sarge at 2008-04-17 10:50 AM

Case Closed !!!

-Sarge

"The ultimate irony is FL and MI wanted to move up their primaries to be relevant, whereas had they remained on the original dates, the votes would've had a greater national spotlight."
Posted by Danforth

So irony is your way of saying screw you, FL and MI, Danforth?

The problem is with New hampshire (who's state const. says they must be the first national primary) and Iowa thinking they have the only right to relevence.

Yawnnnnnnnnnnnnnn more bullshit. Quite expected now.

Larry Mohr

-I am still angry at what I just witnesses (sic), so angry that it's hard to even type accurately because my hands are shaking.

Obama finally gets asked a few direct questions, about things that are his own doing, and not only does he react defensively, as if it is no one's business, but his fans are outraged.

Really, really funny.

"Obama supporters in the MI legislature were ready to agree to a re-vote, then killed the motion when Obama backed out."

I keep seeing you post that, but haven't seen any evidence that it is factual. Could you link us up on that please?

Larry,
seems like 8 years of bushit have corrupted some. now they can disregard dissent just like theirs had been for so long.

I remember hearing about how now that the Bush/Cheney/Rove playbook was in the public domain, that no candidate, not even a democrat would be willing to put it away.

Slippery slope indeed.

-How different is that from what Bush was willing to do to be elected?


Key point there, as FL was screwed over by Rethugs disenfranchising voters in the last two elections.

Obama's opposition to our votes counting this time is all the more egregious after that, and all the more likely to be punished.

Posted by LarryMohr at 2008-04-17 11:35 AM

Unfuckingbelievable. Last time I checked the Drudge Retort was on the Internets. Seems to me polls seen here or posted here are internet polls. DUH

Come on Sarge, you're not the Sergeant-at-arms, and you've responded prematurely. Open that door! Open that case!

Ok So Drudge The # Internet News Website (Right Leaning) Means Nothing ?

I Listed Others.

MSNBC's Poll Means Nothing ?

ABC News Poll Means Nothing ?

WSJ Poll Means Nothing ?

They All Have Him Ahead Why ?

You Deny Them Because You Don't Like The Results, Period.

-Sarge

These lackeys of Obama want to put the lid on the garbage can that is his background and remove his actual self from consideration. They want him to be considered for the presidency based on a scripted role that he's playing rather than who and what he is.

He's beginning to flub his lines.

Oh, oh.

"Obama's opposition to our votes counting this time is all the more egregious after that, and all the more likely to be punished."

posted by Corky

It is embarrassing, that's for sure.

I just don't get how anyone could claim the high road telling two states they don't matter.

My favorite Obama Response that he uses anytime he gets asked a tough question is;

"I would not be running for President if, ( fill in the blank )", to which he will get a resounding applause from Obamites, as if that in itself answered whatever question was put to him.

"Obama finally gets asked a few direct questions, about things that are his own doing, and not only does he react defensively, as if it is no one's business, but his fans are outraged."


It doesn't have anything to do with Obama's "fans".

It's far more important than any one candidate or any one election.

It has everything to do with a gotcha sound-bite corporate media that has become so dumbed down and tabloid that it won't ask any substantive questions to any of the candidates. It's the democratic process morphing into the Jerry Springer show.

This "democracy" is becoming a sham, and apparently some people don't care as long as their myopic little partisan interests are being momentarily served.

Why does everyone keep referring to "elitist" in monetary terms, elitist is a state of mind not a state of financial worth.

Intrade Real Time Quotes

Penn
Clinton 78 Obama 21

National
Clinton 17.2 Obama 81

When Obama finally gets a few tough questions on things that are his own doing, his remarks, his friends and supporters, then suddenly, '"democracy" is becoming a sham'. I get it.

Are Obama's supporters just adulators? Or are they obsequious adulators?

Grovellers. Idolators.

They certainly elevate Obama by their display of unquestioning servile adoration. But then, these fawning members of the society recognize their place in the hierarchy.

You folks are not even elevated to the status of sycophants, who at least seek some reciprocation. You are gratuitous worshippers of politicians whom you raise to the status of demigods, and whom you assign the role of valuing you.

They despise you, you little people. Leona Helmsley's ruth surpassed that of politicians. You are pathetic tools for people whose ends are self-aggrandizing in terms of status based on power and wealth.

Grow up.

Joecrit....

because you can't be an elitist without some basis for superiority. Usually its money. Often, its some other kind of achievement.

Like I said before, if you're poor with an elitist mindset, you're a joke to the truly elite, and an apostate to the poor.

InTrade Quotes haven't changed much, maybe Vegas is more hopeful for The Hildabeast.

2008DEM.NOM.OBAMA = 81.5
2008DEM.NOM.CLINTON = 17.2
Possible = 100

"Grovellers. Idolators."

Cult of personality...

"So irony is your way of saying screw you, FL and MI, Danforth?"

No...the irony is FL and MI screwed themselves. Slow on the uptake?

Ah, now that we have a Roma cut 'n paste to tell us the truth of all things, the thread is complete.

"I just made it all up San An....."

I didn't accuse you of making it up.

But let's see. Your links include opinion blogs, and unnamed sources. In the best of your sources it does lay out a few concerns that Obama had about how the re-vote would work, yet I don't see anything about the legislature addressing those concerns.

So the bottom line still seems to be that Obama's stated position was that he would go along with anything the DNC approved, but did ask for some clarifications on what Michigan was proposing.

Posted by Sarge at 2008-04-17 01:45 PM

You Deny Them Because You Don't Like The Results, Period.

-Sarge

-Slow on the uptake?

The DNC approved re-votes in those states, if only both candidates agreed. One did, one refuses because he might well lose with an honest vote from all states.

Slow on the uptake?

We've had a President we can go have a beer with. FUCK THAT

I want an elitest. I want someone better than me--not some mook I want to have a beer with as President.

I should have said, "pointing out that irony...."

The thing is, Dan, that NOBODY should be screwed when it comes to an election. If rules (arbitrary ones at that) have to be bent or broken to be sure that doesn't happen, so be it.

Who's rights are more important to you? Obama's or the millions disenfranchised?

And be careful how you answer, because next time it could happen to your state.

"I want an elitest. I want someone better than me--not some mook I want to have a beer with as President."

Posted by Buffalo_Bob

No Bob, I'm sure you don't. You may want someone who is better than you, somebody who is superior, elite, but not somebody who believes they are more important than you due to any real or imagined superiority (i.e. elitist).

-If rules (arbitrary ones at that) have to be bent or broken to be sure that doesn't happen, so be it.

They don't have to be bent or broken, as DNC rules allow for a re-vote, and re-votes in MI and FL were OK'd by the DNC as long as both candidates agree.

As it turns out, one candidate has a pussy and one candidate is a pussy.

And be careful how you answer, because next time it could happen to your state.

If it happened here in Az. I'd accept it as the known consequence of Dem leadership's foolish actions. I wouldn't be sniveling. Case closed.

I want someone better than me--


Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2008-04-17 02:02 PM | Reply

Wow, such low expectations.

I have news for you, the shit I left in the McDonalds restroom this morning is better than you.

That's right, I'm the guy that doesn't flush my shit at the public restroom.

"If it happened here in Az. I'd accept it as the known consequence of Dem leadership's foolish actions. I wouldn't be sniveling. Case closed."

Posted by tigerbalm

glad to know your vote means that little to you.

Posted by SanAntonioRogue at 2008-04-17 02:01 PM

So the bottom line still seems to be that Obama's stated position was that he would go along with anything the DNC approved, but did ask for some clarifications on what Michigan was proposing.

-the known consequence of Dem leadership's foolish actions

Perhaps you weren't aware that the penalty was unknown at the time the GOP in FL refused to let the Dems move their Primary to a DNC approved time, and was only handed out after the fact?

Or that the GOP penalty was a loss of half their delegates, not a Howard Dean pro-Obama massacre of all delegates?

So lets just say that Az decides that you can simply phone in your vote for the primary. The Dem leadership says unacceptable. Az does it anyway. Your saying the votes should have to be counted. Rules are there for a reason.

Moving up the primary dates was determined to be detrimental to the process by the DNC. At what point would you allow their authority to stand?

We All Lost

100%

-Rules are there for a reason.

The Rules allow for re-votes, which the DNC approved in both these states.

"That's right, I'm the guy that doesn't flush my shit at the public restroom. Posted by 101Chairborne"

I think we all pretty much assumed that, without it being said.

You're in FL right Corky. What are you doing to make the revote happen? Blogging on an obscure political junkie site?

So Obama has a nightmare night and most people think he did as well or better than Clinton? Even if you think Clinton won, but closely, how is that a nightmare?
Well besides ex Clinton staffers asking questions and trying not to deal with issues but tabloid stuff? That I get as nightmarish.

-What are you doing to make the revote happen?

More than you are.

Do you always try to make things personal when you are losing an argument?

Does it ever help?

Uhm sarge, I'm not sure you meant to do so, but your post just demonstrated that Obama is more important to you than the voters. Good work.

Do you always try to make things personal when you are losing an argument?

No, it varies.

-specious and gossipy trivia

Like calling much of the Dem base gun-toting, Bible-thumping, xenophobic bigots? That kind of trivia?

Or like why anyone would sit thru 20 years of anti-American rhetoric, or hell, like staying in the church as a US Sen after what his Pastor said about 911? That kind of trivia?

Or like having a Sen fundraiser at the home of an unrepentant ex-Weatherman? That is about judgement, or the lack thereof, not trivia.

OK, the flag pin was trivial.

But he'd make a great Vice President, right Corky?

Yep SA, he would. And after a couple of terms, he would make a much better President than he would now.

Why, too warm in the cooking area for you?

Not at all. Wanna check the scoreboard again?

I just hope that everyone remembers Obama's promise about raising Federal Taxes. Nobody affected under $200k/year.

As no one has 2024, or can have without SDs, the scoreboard is about even.

You remind me of the Pats in the Super Bowl. You wanna stop now, don't you?

The closer we get to April 22, the more feverish the spinning gets. Up is down black is muslim. Oops, Clintonian slip.

Corky Lieberman,

I'm betting that you're feeling pretty peachy about the fact that you're right on the same page with Tiny Johnson and many of the other most egregious Rightwing nutters.

"As no one has 2024, or can have without SDs, the scoreboard is about even."

Well, not in the real world. And since all of your eggs are in the SD basket, care to explain why Hillary has made virtually no headway in that arena since before Super Tuesday? (Reminder: net change since then is Clinton +1, Obama +86)

Reagan (enter IQ here)

When I have had to listen to so-called Liberals hypocritically dig up all the old VRWC Clinton-bashing rhetoric from the 90's to use against a good Dem?

Naw, doesn't bother me at all.

Reminder: Clinton is still ahead in SDs.

"Reminder: Clinton is still ahead in SDs."

Is she as ahead as she was last month? Or last week? Or even yesterday? Why does she only have a net gain of 1 Super Delegate in the last 2 1/2 months? Meanwhile, the pool gets smaller and smaller.

Ok, good. From this point forward, I'm lumping you with the Wisgods, Rob The A Holes, Johnsons, TIMBCIs, Kerrin57s and all the rest of the right wing trash. I'll also encourage the rest of the fine left wing folk to do the same.

BTW, it takes a whole lot of hypocritical nerve to post what you've posted and then bitch like a four year old when it comes back to you.

- I'll also encourage the rest of the fine left wing folk to do the same

How impressive. You must have a lot of influence around here.

Can you get me Rogers autograph?

Corky Lieberman,

Why don't you get out of the single wide, take a walk, go to the beach, visit a synagogue or almost anything else that'll help you get over your obsessions and prepare your mind for the following:

Ladies and Gentlemen, it's my pleasure to introduce the next President of the United States, Senator Barack Obama!

-Meanwhile, the pool gets smaller and smaller.

A few more gaffes like Rezko, Wright, Bittergate, and Ayers.... and you'll see the pool overflow in one direction, honey.

God, I'll be glad when this is over and Porkly McBeggard Celine can just STFU. Some days, it just gives me a headache.

"A few more gaffes like Rezko, Wright, Bittergate, and Ayers.... and you'll see the pool overflow in one direction, honey."

Yeah, that just doesn't really seem to have had any effect, much to your consternation sugar plum.

Net +1.

- I'll also encourage the rest of the fine left wing folk to do the same

How impressive. You must have a lot of influence around here.


Can you get me Rogers autograph?



Posted by Corky at 2008-04-17 02:58 PM | Reply | Flag:


I can't speak for Rogers but if I had to guess, I'd think he's at least as appalled by your actions as I am. That probably makes your acquisition of an autograph somewhat as likely as Hillary getting the nomination.

As for influence, hell, I'll just start a Corky Lieberman Sucks thread every few days and spin my ass off just as you do with these attack threads. About the same effect.

Aunt Jomama has a headache?

Considering where you keep your head, it's prolly just hemorrhoids.

Reagan (enter IQ here)

Personal? Um, pot calling.

She is a good Dem. But not the better Dem in the race. The nastiness amped up when it became evident that he was the stronger candidate and she refused to get onboard. But that's politics.

I think it really hurt her yesterday when Obama acknowledged that She was misrepresented as elitist after the "home cooking" comment in the nineties. He gave her the floor to give him the same acknowledgment, but instead she piled-on. Baaad form Hillary.

Well, Zombie Reagan, we HAVE had a couple of posters start attack threads on other Members when they couldn't compete on open threads, Gnubsy and AU, as I recall.

But most Members here aren't quite the feebs those two are.

-Personal? Um, pot calling.

I retort in kind, I rarely attack first. Reagan dropped his Corky Leiberman bullshit long enough to ask me a question the other day and I replied in kind.

"The nastiness amped up", right after the first debate when Obama, having lost, called HRC "Bush-lite" and "untrustworthy".

"she piled-on"

He was looking for sympathy and got none. Which is what he deserved.

But she deserves the kid-glove treatment.

He wasn't looking for sympathy you doofess. He was giving her the opportunity to rise above the fray. But she is such a coached and scripted politician that she missed the chance. She bedded down Snufalupagus.

Why hasn't the Hillary supporters in the Michigan and Florida legislatures do something about the primary? Why does it have to be Obama's supporters?

"Funny how some Dems think that they are justified in re-running all the hysterical VRWC Hillary Hater BS from the 90's.

It's one of the first things that turned me off to Obamites.


Posted by Corky "

It's what the Republicans will be doing if Hillary is the nominee. We will re-live the Clinton years - especially everything Hillary was a part of.

If Obama's past associations can be used to discredit him, then Hillary is a mistake - she has way too many during Bill's term.

Uhm sarge, I'm not sure you meant to do so, but your post just demonstrated that Obama is more important to you than the voters. Good work.

Posted by Hagbard_Celine

No Rules Are !!

They Broke Them !

-Sarge

I understand that we jump all over anything any public figure says that is even slightly controversial because we have been trained to show fake outrage anytime we hear anything unexpected.

But if you go beyond that training and really think about what Obama said, I say he's giving one-issue voters way too much credit. Anyone who bases their voting decisions entirely on gun control, a candidate's "faith", abortion, protecting social security, gay marriage, family values or any other single, divisive issue is a total retard. Obama was actually trying to assign these idiots a thought process that explains their behavior somewhat rationally. He was wrong. The real reason so many idiots latch on to one issue is that they are too lazy and stupid to look at the larger picture with an open mind.

Maybe Obama was giving these people too much credit in a patronizing way or maybe he really thinks more of these imbeciles than they deserve. I don't know. It came across as patronizing and elitist because the specific "hot button" issues he named are typcially associated with the working class. He most likely is a bit elitist. But by that standard, every candidate - particularly those who play up to these narrow minded voters - is elitist. The push the hot button and expect the monkeys to act exactly as expected. You can't tell me that people who manipulate others for a living (which is who major politicians are) don't consider themselves better than those they are manipulating. It is impossible for them not to.....

Anybody else hope the media keeps slamming Obama about flag pins on his lapel?

from the article --

...Unless you paid attention, you might have missed a few firsts: the first time the candidates debated gun control....

Well, I paid attention and I learned last night that without a doubt BOTH Hillary and Obama want super strict gun control (which will only affect law abiding citizens as criminals could care less about gun laws) and they both want gun registration. Add that to Obama's condescending "bitter" remark about white, rural, blue collar Americans "clinging to their guns" and the Democrats are now history as far as taking the White House in 2008.

Why are they so damn dumb! Now we'll be stuck with McBush because the Dem candidates can't ever shut up about wanting to get rid of the Second Amendment.

Ohhh Corky????

Guess you're too busy flitting about on other threads to return when another of your absurd excuses is laid waste to.

This was not a debate, this was a planned ABC ambush of Barack Obama. For those of you here be aware George Stephenopilous was on the FOX republican right wing news network the nite before this ambush and fieled questions from FOX laughing and making fun of Obama. Very professional hah when the next nite your supposed to be conducting a fair debate. It was 45 minutes ( halfway into the ambush) before Stephy (a Hillary ass kisser) and ex professional news anchor Charley Goon Gibson asked a question us comon folk even carred about. ABC News left some things out of the ambush such as questions about Iraq, Healthcare, Jobs being shipped overseas and rising gas and food prices, the credit crunch and people losing there homes. I have lost all respect for ABC News and so has most of America. It was a 3 on 1 planned ambush.

Joel who are you to speak for most of America. How do you know the opinions of most of America. Are you a mind reader?

I have no found respect for ABC news for taking the gloves off and hitting Shapton-lite

FF for Chairborne.

Nice skat insult. Good double down on the self deprecation.

Joel, we all would much rather know what their favorite color might be, eh? The Dems have gotten all the softball, set-up speech questions in the past debates. Politics? Issues? Both are relevent. I want to get a feel for the character of the person I consider for the highest office in this land. Don't you?