It's your candidate, Hillary Clinton, adopting the frames, lies, stereotypes and destructive clichs long embraced by the likes of Lee Atwater and Karl Rove. She has clearly decided that the road to victory runs through scorched earth.

The question is, if she succeeds, what kind of Party will she be left to lead? She's burning down the village to save it -- or to prove that she would make the best fire chief. But the village won't be saved; only one house will be left standing. A house with room for just two occupants. Hill and Bill.

It has been an article of faith in the Democratic Party over the last twenty years that when small town, working class whites vote for Republicans they're voting against their economic self-interest. And why do they do that? Because every four years the Republican Party comes into those small towns and, to distract folks from the worsening economic situation, trots out a bunch of divisive, hot button social issues: "Let's not talk about why you don't have a job, can't afford health care, or can't send your kids to college; let's talk about gay marriage, school prayer, illegal immigration, and flag burning amendments." And Hillary is following the blueprint.

Disgusted is too tame a word to use for expressing the complete lack of honesty we see coming from Clinton and her deranged supporters. The plight of small town America has been a widely talked about reality since the moniker "Reagan Democrats" was coined a generation ago, but because Obama has the audacity to bring it up in the exact same language used by both Bill Clinton and John McCain in the recent past, he's now an elitist and out of touch with the very people he decided to work for your the princely sum of $13,000 per year?

The fact that Hillary is given chance after chance to stab the Democratic Party in the chest with her growing list of rightwing-inspired daggers isn't what's most appalling. Its the mindless drones, called her supporters, who've decided to leave their consciouses on idle while she eviserates the Party that I find most reprehensible of all.

I thought this was notable:

Jumping on the GOP talking points bandwagon, Clinton's new Mark Penn, Geoff Garin said: "These are the kinds of attitudes that have created a gulf between Democrats and lots of small-town and heartland voters that we've been working very, very hard to bridge." Karl Rove, who has devoted his life to making people believe that such a gulf exists, couldn't have scripted it better himself.

but because Obama has the audacity to bring it up in the exact same language used by both Bill Clinton and John McCain in the recent past, he's now an elitist and out of touch with the very people he decided to work for your the princely sum of $13,000 per year?


Nope.


What Obama is being lambasted for is stating that these 'disenfranshised folk' "Cling" to the 2nd Ammendment AND their faith because they are bitter - as if they had a better outlook, their silly adherence to the 2nd Ammendment AND their faith would go away.


You can copy and past thousands of italicized words, Tony. None of that changes the fact that what I just surmised is PRECISELY how he came accross - whether or not that was his intent is mostly irrelevant.

whether or not that was his intent is mostly irrelevant.

This is the result of soundbite politics.

And don't forget the reason he was speaking on this topic to begin with. Someone at the San Francisco fundraiser was planning on going to PA to canvass for Obama and asked him why he thought it was more difficult to gain the votes of PA residents than it had been in other states with rural populations. His response was to answer this question, and one of the more salient points is that Obama dismissed race as an over-riding factor in his difficulties as it portends to biased attitudes.

The only thing Obama did was restate the Democratic position on people voting against their own economic self-interests that brought us 8 years of George W. Bush and the rise of Karl Rove. To call it anything else just isn't the truth.

And don't forget the reason he was speaking on this topic to begin with. Someone at the San Francisco fundraiser was planning on going to PA to canvass for Obama and asked him why he thought it was more difficult to gain the votes of PA residents than it had been in other states with rural populations. His response was to answer this question, and one of the more salient points is that Obama dismissed race as an over-riding factor in his difficulties as it portends to biased attitudes.

The only thing Obama did was restate the Democratic position on people voting against their own economic self-interests that brought us 8 years of George W. Bush and the rise of Karl Rove. To call it anything else just isn't the truth.

This is the result of soundbite politics.

Posted by ness_gadol at 2008-04-14 02:53 PM


No, this about what the man actually thinks/how he views the world, or in this case. God Damn America!

Stick a fork in this fraud (Obama). He's toast.

McCain is saying he prefers to run against Hillary.

That way it doesn't really matter who wins.

God Damn America!


Obama said that?

News to me.

McCain is saying he prefers to run against Hillary.

That way it doesn't really matter who wins.

Posted by sitdown at 2008-04-14 03:05 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag:

EX FUCKING ZACTLY.

Larry Mohr

Tony-

I've read the entire statement in the context that you insist we all consider. I still find the statements to be offensive to anyone who considers guns or religion to be important. He says that it's "not surprising" that when people get bitter, they cling to those two things. This suggests that guns and religion are only some sort of "refuge" for the downtrodden, and that they are the sort of thing that would be truly important to anyone with a clear mind. That is how I interpret the statement, in its entirety. That is also how the statement has been received by many other Americans. No amount of spin by you is going to change what I think that statement means.

In order for Obama's recent excuse/explanation to be true it would also have to be true that only recently have people flocked to church's or frenzied to buy guns, which would be a blatant fabrication that flys in the face of over 2 centuries of history.

Stick a fork in the fraud. He's toast.

Tony,


Seriously, I slowed WAY down and read through every italcized word that you produced.

I also read through all of your personal commentary.


None of what you offered changes my perception of Obama's criticized comments in any way.


Your translation is desperately needed.

I want to stress that I carefully read every word that you put in italics.


My opinion ia unchanged.

Nevertheless, I really do want to fully understand where you are coming from.

PS - I have to depart soon - more important personal matters are pressing.

My first choice would be to hash this out with you on a public forum such as DR. Nevetheless, if our 'drudging' calendars don't synch, you have my email address.

Thus far, I've made a point of not overly-scrutinizing the Dem hopefuls unitl one emerges as a clear victor in the primary. That said, I find this battle to be so intriguining that I feel that need to educate myself on a more core level because the outcome of this primary is so intriguing.

Joe...

While you and everyone else are entitled to their own opinion of Obama's words, my understanding and that of many others is different than yours.

What I heard Obama reference is that these people have grown to distrust politicians, nee Washington, because every 2, 4, or 6 years people come to them and promise that their election will give these people a voice in Washington, but nothing much ever changes for the better. That is why these people, or anyone would then embrace the things they can rely on, namely their own traditions and beliefs. Its akin to saying the slaves held on because they believed God would eventually deliver them from the hell on Earth they suffered through. This is why the black church has always been more political than the average white church. It was the only place black anger at their forced conditions could be unleased without reprisal. You try being a second class citizen with limited rights for a while and see if you aren't angry too.

This is what Obama was speaking to. I do not see any words expressing negativity about these people's traditions, only an acknowledgement on why they've become more important to so many that the GOP can use wedge politics based on fear to gain their votes, when said votes don't deliver them any economic relief whatsoever.

It isn't spin that changes how one views these words. Its one's understanding of both the speaker as having worked intimately with displaced workers, and its the end of his remarks where he expresses confidence that he can gain their trust if given enough time to earn it. In my opinion, putting all that together doesn't show someone who has disdain for people and their beliefs, it shows someone who understands why these people have come to believe in what they can control and distrust politicians, like Obama, promising them the world and delivering diddly in return. Obama knows he has to prove to them he's a different breed and not just more of the same.

And to anyone else that wants my opinion, just email me!

Jeff...

I will always come down to who we as individuals believe that the person named Barack Hussein Obama really is that colors our judgments of his actions and statements. Many try to say that he's nothing more than a typical politician and will say anything to get elected. I disagree. Obama is most villified whenever he tries to speak intelligently and elaborates on issues and topics other politicians won't even try to speak to for fear of being demonized and saying something opponents will use against them. So far, Obama has been relatively fearless in this area.

As you know, I've read numerous articles, biographies, and recollections on Obama written by like-minded and opposed-minded individuals alike. Those who've been around him have a couple universal things to say: He's intelligent, he honest, he has a healthy sense of humor, and he never fails to seek help in understanding issues from the perspective of others even though he might disagree at the same time.

If this is the prism one sees Obama through, its hard to find all the negativity and vitriole so many try to tag him with on a daily basis. His political history isn't littered with salacious stories of his egotistical appetites, nor do respected senior Republicans such as Dick Lugar and Chuck Hagel criticize his judgments as much as Hillary Clinton does. They find common ground of agreement that benefits our nation as a whole. This is part of the person that I see.

No one is saying that he's perfect, but its hard not to give him extraordinarily high marks for his prescience on our invasion of Iraq. Just think how different our current times might be if Obama had been the one making the decision instead of Bush and Cheney. These things matter to me more than political affiliation and many other things that truly don't matter at the end of the day. I just see Obama's biggest critics are those who've been skeptical all along that the package he posesses could be so attractive to the electorate in the first place. They don't care to know him, they only want to tear him down in the public's eye because he dares challenge we citizens to believe that change can occur when the majority pull together.

Tony-

I heard all of those things in his words as well. You seem to pay all sorts of attention to everything he said, other than the comment about guns and religion. If you don't see him expressing "negativity about those peoples' traditions," then you aren't reading. He said "it's not surprising that they cling to guns and religion" when they become bitter toward our electorate as a result of their lost jobs. There are no two ways to interpret that statement. It means that guns and religion are a refuge for the downtrodden, and that nobody with a job and a clear mind would be jaded enough to consider those things important.

Tony,



Check your email.

He said "it's not surprising that they cling to guns and religion" when they become bitter toward our electorate as a result of their lost jobs. There are no two ways to interpret that statement. It means that guns and religion are a refuge for the downtrodden, and that nobody with a job and a clear mind would be jaded enough to consider those things important.

Again, we'll have to disagree. I respect that you interpret it that way, but I don't. We're really walking a finer line than I think you realize. In the case of those Obama was speaking about, its "God and guns". For blacks it could be something completely different. This is where we differ. The specific subject matter isn't what's important, what's important is that these people's economic concerns are never being addressed while politicians play on their emotions while ignoring their plights.

Its human to react most strongly to the things closer to us than those things seemingly out of control. Its Pavlovian in my opinion. Ring the bell, (They want to take away your GUNS! They want to teach your children that Bob and Bill can be parents! Luis and Jose are taking YOUR Social Security money!) and the people react in a thoroughly predictable manner easily exploited by those with no intentions of ever doing much on these hot-button issues except for demagouging and getting elected.

I see no value judgment on whether these things are important. The only thing I see, and please go back and Google Obama's remarks from 2004 when it says it better, but essentially in the same manner, is that those exploiting these realities never deliver economic relief, which is what these people need more than reaffirmation of their 2nd Amendment rights. Now, if Obama's opinion is viewed as wrong, his sin is in wanting these people's economic problems to be alleviated, not wanting them to toss away traditions that resonate so importantly in their lives. There can be both a balance and a trade-off, and Obama sees they're sacrificing potential economic relief for the sake of "clinging to traditions", even though these traditions aren't really at stake at all. They vote against strawmen who never threaten them in the way politicians claim they do to get their votes. They can have both or all if they choose more wisely and more selfishly which is their right as voters and citizens.

Both Bill Clinton and John McCain have elaborated on these same topics saying essentially the same things that Obama did, but neither of them were charged with being elitist for talking about it.

"...neither of them were charged with being elitist for talking about it" - Tonyroma

That's because neither of them are Uppity Blacks.

(or should that say Half-uppity Half-blacks)

Tony-

If Obama meant that right-wing politicians who make promises about guns and religion don't ever provide any real economic relief, then that's what he would have said. That is not what he said. What he said was that he is "not surprised" that bitter, unemployed blue-collar workers cling to guns and religion. That term "not surprised" is where the remarks become condescending. You seem to be avoiding that altogether.

If Obama meant that right-wing politicians who make promises about guns and religion don't ever provide any real economic relief, then that's what he would have said. That is not what he said.

That is precisely what he said, but for naming right-wingers as the culprits:

Here's how it is: in a lot of these communities in big industrial states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, people have been beaten down so long, and they feel so betrayed by government, and when they hear a pitch that is premised on not being cynical about government, then a part of them just doesn't buy it....

But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there's not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

To ignore the time-worn Democratic view that "wedge issues" have been used to counter populist messages from Democratic candidates is applying willful ignorance to the topic being discussed, even though it wasn't reiterated by Obama during the course of his remarks.

To me, leaving out his reference to "25 years of promises (by politicians) that jobs would return to small town dwellers, but none ever do", is the only honest way of interpreting the quotation you continue to repost but without its necessary introduction setting the foundation for understanding what it means. The bitterness is based on nothing ever changing, not because they "cling" to what they've come to believe and be fortified in. Instead of it being "irrational", Obama is saying its quite rational for them to "cling", based on their experiences of countless promises never being fulfilled.

"So its not surprising" doesn't mean its irrational, it means the logical progression of events leads to this conclusion or type of action based on the human experience under such conditions.

Ahhh...a good day on the DR. We have Corky back worshipping Hillary and Tony back worshipping Obama. Makes for a lot of amusing reading on the threads. Each can't see the warts on his own candidate but has no problem seeing warts on the other's candidate.
One thing for Tony though...can you shorten up those posts a little. I know Obama is the Second Coming and Hillary is the antichrist, but can you say it more succinctly, please?

You cannot look at "not surprising" without referencing why Obama wasn't surprised.

...the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there's not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it's not surprising then that they get bitter,....

Why are they bitter? Because "each sucessive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not."

How is that tied to condesension of people whom he describes their "cause" (lack of economic opportunity) before listing its "effect" (bitterness and distrust of politicians)?

"That is precisely what he said"

No, it is not. What he said was that he is "not surprised" that bitter, unemployed blue-collar workers cling to guns and religion. Again, the term "not surprised" is what is important here. You choose to attach a meaning to his words that is simply not there. I, on the other hand, am looking at the words literally.

"How is that tied to condesension of people whom he describes their "cause" (lack of economic opportunity) before listing its "effect" (bitterness and distrust of politicians)?"

Your question makes no sense. It is tied to condescension because it suggests that only a smart liberal like Obama could have expected those dimwitted rednecks to cling to issues as petty as guns and religion.

"Your question makes no sense. It is tied to condescension because it suggests that only a smart liberal like Obama could have expected those dimwitted rednecks to cling to issues as petty as guns and religion."

It sure is condescension. It's a damn good thing he didn't include NASCAR and grits with guns and religion or we would REALLY be pissed.

You choose to attach a meaning to his words that is simply not there. I, on the other hand, am looking at the words literally.

Taken out of their context as he explains what his perceptions of their reasons for feeling a specific way happens to be.

You are doing nothing but parsing cherry-picked quotes and implying your own biases that simply aren't there if one takes the entirety of his remarks as they're intended.

You refuse to even mention the words preceeding the quote you use, as though Obama was beginning his thoughts with the words " So its not surprising." The use of the word "So" connects his train of thought, linking the source of their bitterness and distrust that you dishonestly ignore as though its irrelevant. If that isn't putting your own spin on something, then the phrase is meaningless.

Interpret all the words Joe, not just the ones that prove your point.

Why does he say that Joe, why does he think "its not surprising"? He lays out the reason in all the words preceeding the quote you misuse. That is reading exactly what he says without pulling out one quote and saying it means other than what he already stated it means. The bitterness is based on the conditions he lists two times before he mentioned his interpretation of its results as to why they "cling" to the things they can control without the help of a government who continues to let them down.

Yeppers.

Hillary is responsible for whatever stupid comment Obama utters.

This is almost as funny as the wee Spuddish One running all over the site trying to make people believe that Hillary was responsible for Rev Wrong.

Gives new meaning to the term, "pathetic".

Boy you are your usually prolific self today, Cork. Why did you disappear when it was time to defend Hillary's lies about landing under sniper fire?

"Sniper fire"?
Did someone say, "sniper fire"?
What "sniper fire"?
I was just getting my legs waxed, that's all.
Yrs,
Corky McBegnstrip

I find it amusing that the people find it necessary to explain what Obama means when he speaks. One would think that such a orator could express himself more clearly (or did he actually mean what he said and the spin is on?)...

That's try MSGT, I for one had no problem figuring what he meant, but it seems if people want to play politics they will hear what they want to hear.

The truth is people aren't used to hearing the truth from politicians, probably because we are a country are not mature anymore, too much lowest common denominator crap.

Both Bill Clinton and John McCain have elaborated on these same topics saying essentially the same things that Obama did, but neither of them were charged with being elitist for talking about it.

Bill Clinton:
"You know, he [Bush] wants to divide us over race. I'm from the South. I understand this. This quota deal they're gonna pull in the next election is the same old scam they've been pulling on us for decade after decade after decade. When their economic policies fail, when the country's coming apart rather than coming together, what do they do? They find the most economically insecure white men and scare the living daylights out of them.

Barak Obama:

You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.


BTW that is the 2nd time Obam talked smack about the Clinton admininstration in the 1990's so please stop crying when they smack back.


When Obama spoke he spoke about people behind their backs he didnt mean to I am sure or didnt even realise it would be viewed that way. When Clinton spoke he said it to the people and he used words like we and us. He talked about being from the south and being one of the people that where When Obama was talking he was talking about them leaving himself out was probably the biggest difference I can see between what the two men said. If Obama gave that speech in Penn and including himself as one of the people that was bitter he would not have come across as an elitest.

No, it is not. What he said was that he is "not surprised" that bitter, unemployed blue-collar workers cling to guns and religion.

Joe - you also forgot the racist charge in that list. That is the most laughable as the people in these areas blame ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS - not 'different colored' people for the job loses.

That's good because McCain won't do it. He likes Teddy way to much to stur it up.

This is the result of soundbite politics.

Posted by ness_gadol at 2008-04-


even though someone else from my side says this is wrong, I say you may be right, as long as its understood that both sides do it....
but this man who for a long time was the messiah for the people has shown us in his own words and actions that he is just another liberal democrat who we MUST keep from the white house.
this comment sealed the deal on that...
as I heard today from 11 till 2 on the radio.
all dems believe that when someone doesnt agree with thier social issues, that its because of some economical thing or the people are just stupid.
sound familar? here from attacks by the leftist bro's here?????
if you dont believe in abortion, you are just a stupid country hick.
if you dont think we should redefine marriage.. (for the first time in WORLD HISTORY)....then you are a rube who is just a ditto head.
and on and on and on....and here he even puts a little twist into.....with the gun remark.
and what about his other about abortion when he said he didnt want his daughters "punished" with a baby......a true liberal democrat's idea on not being able to just discard that innocent life in the womb...it was a mistake and to NOT KILL It would be 'punishment'..

so now we get a closer look into this man with the middle name and the more he opens his mouth, the more we see...

and with all of these things coming more and more often, is it any wonder that hillary hasnt given up yet??????

Arianna Huffington....who would give this bee-och a serious thought. She ranks up there w/ Alicia Keyes in credability.

And you BusyB, have proved so CREDABLE here, so far.

4/09 Rasmussen poll Obama +8.0 vs McCain in PA

They're obviously outraged.

Some rednecks cling to their guns like pacifiers and preach like hypocrites. Some don't.

If the shoe fits. Vote McBush

Hillary Clinton is corporately corrupted conservative.

An R-tard in Dem clothing.

A global elitist trying to act like a populist and fooling the least politically informed and most gullible voters out there with her schtick.

She's not only tearing down her opponent but her party as well.

Fuck that biatch.

Fuck her with a stick.

Be Well.

I don't think Hillary is as bad as all that, but she certainly is tearing down her opponent and the party at the same time. That's what takes the cake for me.

Go Hillary...keep tearing baby!

This is typical democrat behavior. They don't want a democracy. Hillary still has a chance to win, democratically.

Which, of course, democrats can't stand, since they hate democracy.

Kuma

Kuma-
The Supreme court, not the ballots, decided the 2000 election. That's a fact, and you can argue that Bush "would've won" until you pass out. The Supreme Court decided the 2000 election, and if you can eagerly accept that, then your words about Democrats "hating democracy" are composed of such blind hypocrisy that it hurts to read it.

"She's burning down the village to save it"

Funny she wrote that.

I've felt that way about Arianna Huffington for a long time.

The Huffington Post has been taking shots at Hillary Clinton and singing the praises of Obama for quite some time.

And now it appears Hillary is not going to get the nomination and there is the growing chance McCain could win the presidency.

So...if McCain wins, wouldn't it be true that Arianna Huffington "burned down the village to save it".

Time will tell.

betel said

The Supreme court, not the ballots, decided the 2000 election


well yes, but not exactly.

the election was decided by the constitution of the united states of america.


and just like the electoral college.....I am sure you want to change it since it(electoral) stands in the way of dems winning......

By cynically twisting Obama's comments

I guess I missed the "cynically twisting".

They are his words, poorly chosen as Obama has admitted.

You can only measure a man by the words he uses and the company he keeps.

This is but a bump in the road for Obama. McCain's out today declaring Gen. Petraus will decide if we move troops from Iraq to Afghanistan. HELLO PETRAUS IS NOT IN COMMAND IN AFGHANISTAN. McCain does NOT have the intelligence to be POTUS. How many intelligence lapses is that? MSM is giving him a free ride but it will all be over once we dispense of the other Repug we are currently battling against--Hillary Clinton.

The MSM is trying all they can to help both of these Repugs (Hillary and McCain) but it just doesn't seem to be working. The American people are more awake and aware than the MSM or Hillary gives them credit for and no matter how they try to manufacture a controversy it just isn't going to work. It's obvious Obama is held to a different standard. No one has had such scrutiny regarding such a simple but accurate phrase not to mention the crap he had to deal with over his Pastor--no one else has been scrutinized like that either. Dare I say it's r_ _ _ _ _, but I won't even go there.

For you all gloating singing this is the end of Obama's campaign--you were some of the same idiots singing that same tune over the trumped up Wright controversy. It didn't happen then and it won't happen now. If you had any intelligence you would understand that it's next to impossible considering the numbers. All of this is smoke and mirrors, Hillary can't win the primary and if she were GIVEN the primary by some miraculous event, AA's would never vote for her in large numbers therefore she wouldn't have a chance in the GE. Now tell us again how Obama is finished--this trumped up controversy is all to do about nothing.

One more thing, I predicted the MSM and Hillary would overplay their hand with the Wright controversy, and they did, the same thing is happening with this BS issue. It has been overplayed and it's already beginning to show. People are sick of theatrics they are looking for solutions to problems that affect them, their children and their grandchildren. Hillary nor McCain are offering anything but the same tired rhetoric--it won't cut it.

Courts decided 2000 election? Wow. See, this proves my point about dems. Again. They are stupid.

They did a re-count. Bush won.

To a dem though, since they are brainless, spineless, evolved from algae, idiots they think the courts decided who the President was.

Um, the voters of Florida decided who won, idiot.

You see? Dems can't argue for shit. And when they can't explain it, and it doesn't make sense for them what do they do?

What do they do fellow right wingers? You know?

If they can't explain it, its AUTOMATICALLY a conspiracy.

LOL. You idiots.

All I can say is, when the Republicans win again in 08, all I can say is..

"cry more bitches"

Kuma

Didn't the courts order a stopping of the recount?

and just like the electoral college.....I am sure you want to change it since it(electoral) stands in the way of dems winning......

Posted by bushlovertwo at 2008-04-14 11:08 PM

I'd be in favor of changing it if the Repubs won. In the declaration of independence and in some states constitutions it states that all men are created equal.

But the we have the college that makes some peoples votes count more than others. That bothers me to no end, it's a type of reverse discrimination, just like requiring someone to hire someone based on gender or race.

Thank you for your intelligent comments Kuma. Its nice to see smart people on this board gathering unique ideas and relying on civil discourse. You are a true patriot.

They did a re-count. Bush won.

They didn't finish the recount, the SC ordered them to stop the recount. Couldn't really have done a complete recount anyway because Jeb had made sure there was no paper trail, wouldn't let there be one for 2004 either. Finally got a bill passed to create one this past year, same bill that moved the primary date. Kuma is a fucking liar.

"well yes, but not exactly.

the election was decided by the constitution of the united states of america."

Perhaps you want to point out the article of the Constitution which gave the SC jurisdiction. Clue; there isn't one.

danni...the whole thing shook out by the rule of law and any other sort of proceedure you want to bring up.
GET OVER IT.........

and....

But the we have the college that makes some peoples votes count more than others

please explain further how this happens. I thought it evened things out more than the popular vote. but rememeber its a states rights issue and it works today as well as it has worked for the length of our history and we shouldnt be monkeying with it even when it meant we got blowjob billy by that same method.

and on jon stewart he is showing the film of her drinking.......and I have to tell you. I think she is pandering for sure, but it does seem that its not the first time for her to have a little crown royal and a couple of beers.......I may be gullible but I have a newfound respect for her....thats my kind of woman......hhhhhhmmmmmmm wonder what bar she will be hanging at this weekend???????????

Those who are blindly ambitious often make good tools for those who are aware of the ambition.

Months ago most talking heads assumed a Democrat is guaranteed to occupy the White House after King George leaves office.

Months ago the media told us Hillary was being cautious in protecting her INEVITABILITY. Now she is on life-support --- and hunting down Barack Hussein Obama.

Now we find people giving second thought that it is not impossible for a Republican to be the next White House tenant again.

Ah, who cares for the VP. Right? Watch out America, you're going to live under the administration of the next Veep in a very significant manner for a bit longer than you may wish.

God Bless America.

"danni...the whole thing shook out by the rule of law and any other sort of proceedure you want to bring up.
GET OVER IT........."

Then show me the article in the Constitution.

I am over it, but I won't forget the time when American democracy was perverted. The question is, will AMerica ever really recover??

Get over it--They counted the votes 3 times! And each time Bush won!

Then the press counted the votes a fourth time and confirmed Bush won that again by 537 votes.

America recovered--it is just to loons on the left who won't let it go!

I say you folks are "bitter" and need to go buy a gun or attend church or smack an immigrant! 'o)

Murphy

And another thing--HRC is going to do her best to make sure McCain wins in the fall.

That way she can run in four years.


Murphy

@Mato
You can only measure a man by the words he uses and the company he keeps.
-----
You can only measure a man by his deeds. Words are cheap.

Posted by Viz

Agreed, but Obama is pretty light on deeds, so no help there.

Our next president will probably be John McCain. Somehow, the Democrats are going to manage to lose this one too. And I can't say this is necessarily a bad thing given our current options. Despite how amazingly destructive the current Republican administration has been, it is hard to say the Democrats would do any better. With few exceptions, they went with Bush all the way. And the fact that they are almost compulsively self destructive during these elections doesn't speak well for their intelligence or overall competency.