Will the Supers listen to the red states that gave Obama the most delegates or the Blue states that voted for Clinton.

Do people want the strongest candidate to represent them in the fall, or the candidate they voted for.

I'm thinking it is the candidate they voted for. Obama supporters don't seem to want the strongest candidate. I guess that's the difference between a dem supporter and an Obama supporter.

Nnnnnnnnnoooooooooo!!!!!!!!!

---Corky

Maybe (finally) they want the candidate of conscience rather than the candidate of convenience.

BBOB

I've been reading your comments on Hillary and I know you to be impartial. as am I, regarding favoritism between the two of them. I do NOT want McCain to win. But the Obamamanics do not seem to get the picture that Obama cannot carry the states needed to win the electoral votes. The number of electoral votes is what counts. Not these stupid little delegate/superdelegate votes they are all whining about now.

EVERYTHING rides on the electorals in November. Ohio is a must win for the Democrats. Hillary can carry Ohio. Obama can't. I don't care which one of them wins -- I just do not want to lose. If Obamamania causes us to put up a candidate who will lose the electoral votes to McCain thereby ensuring the Bush policies for the next 4 years the entire country will be sorry.

You were right when on another thread you said we have not even begun to see the Obama get blasted by the Republicans. If you think Kerry was swiftboated by the Republicans you ain't seen nothing yet when it comes to what is going to come Obama's way.

PROOF I AM RIGHT -- Michael Reagan (Ronald's kid) was on tv the other night and I listened closely to every word as the subject was who would be the best choice for the Democrats to pick and he wanted Obama. ALL the Republicans are putting down Hillary and pushing for Obama to be the Democrats choice for nominee. You don't have to be a member of MENSA to figure out why. The Republicans have something up their sleeve they know they can use against Obama in order to keep the White House.

Michael Reagan is a right-wing hack whose claim to fame is that he was ADOPTED by the actor/governor/president. You really listen to some major douche-bags, dontcha Chris?

There is One God and His Name is Obama! Obama be praised!!!!!

-Anton

"Obama cannot carry the states needed to win the electoral votes."

Really, who says? Even Bob's own link shows Obama overtaking and passing McCain and only 4 EV's shy of enough to win.

There is a lot of time left, things can and will change.

"Hillary can carry Ohio. Obama can't"

I disagree, and I live here.

"PROOF I AM RIGHT -- Michael Reagan"

Proof???????

-the candidate of conscience rather than the candidate of convenience.

Right. The candidate of faux-universal health care and lobbyist's wives rather than the candidate than can best win.

Califchris

I agree with your post completely.

PS: CC, as of this moment, Obama leads McCain in Ohio by slightly more than Clinton.

Sanantoniorogue

Do you think Obama would be the strongest candidate in the fall? I don't see your logic. His strength in the primaries comes from red states--states he won't carry in the fall. Sure he is shown carrying most of the blue states--that's because he is a dem. Kerry and Gore carried those states too. He has a 1% lead in Ohio. That looks strong to you?

It seems to me you don't want the strongest candidate in the fall--you want your candidate--just like CC suggests.

Back to the smokestacks, lunar loon.

"Do you think Obama would be the strongest candidate in the fall?"

I am not basing my support on that. I am backing the person I think will make the best President and will be best for the country. And yes, I think he can and will beat McCain in the fall.

"He has a 1% lead in Ohio. That looks strong to you?"

The campaign hasn't started yet. He actually has a 1.3% lead, which is 1% higher than Clinton's, since that seems to be important to you.

There is One God and His Name is Obama! Obama be praised

Yes, and you have sinned, but the only thing he'll get from you is 5 hell mary's.

Sanatoniorogue

If Clinton should convince the Super delegates to support her--would you vote for her in November?

It would figure too, older middle age female Calichris is found to be and guess what.....sexist too, another hillary dweeb.

shocking I tell ya, just shocking!

Some time women just cause their own problems and its funny, they don't even know it. :}

So a 40 yr old virgin turns out to be a chick?

Do people want the strongest candidate to represent them in the fall, or the candidate they voted for.

----

Sorry but somebody who went into the primary with a big lead while touting her inevitability and is now losing does not make her the strongest candidate.

I hope it's not over next week. Watching the sheeple go from their queen Hillary to BHO has been priceless.

Watching McSame tell gaffe after gaffe without Joe the Jew whispering in his ear has also been a hoot. And apparently will continue.

A FUCKING MEN Pirate.

Larry

"But somebody who went into the primary touting her inevitability....."

Ah, they've both done that at various times. Head games.

Guess again???

Obama has won, the race is over so now you BB and corky can go work for baghdadbob mccain.

Guess again.

----

You guess again. Clinton was crushing Obama in the polls when the primary began. She was touting her inevitability.

Now she's losing and needs a miracle to win.

You're saying somebody who had a huge lead and blew it is the strongest candidate. Somebody whose campaign stunk and ran out of money.

I don't care what current polls show when the election is 5 months away. Just look at the Dem primary polls from 5 months ago. Polls only take a snapshot of the present...they don't predict the future.

"The race is over now...."

No. Not in any concrete way. I'll wait for the conventions. Mine is next week.

$$$$WAR

another hillary dweeb.

shocking I tell ya, just shocking!

Some time women just cause their own problems and its funny, they don't even know it. :}

Posted by moneywar at 2008-05-30 05:05 PM

You're full of crap. I have had 1000 posts on here this last year saying the very last thing thing this country needed was another 20 years of Bush/Clinton/Bush/and another Clinton. Over and over I said that.

BUT, within the last two weeks or so, I've seen proof of which states she will most likely carry re the electoral votes where Obama would not. I don't care whether it's Hillary or Obama who wins -- it's that I do NOT want to lose to McCain. Got it, yet? If I had to vote for a gorilla in order to carry enough states to beat McCain with electoral votes then that's what I would do.

If it was reversed and most of the Dems were frothing at the mouth with Hillarymania but it was found that Obama was the one who could bring in enough electoral votes to beat McCain then I would be pro-Obama.

PROVE to me that Obama will carry Ohio, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Iowa and a few other key states over McCain and I will change my tune.

Don't you get the picture?
"It's the electoral votes, stupid".

You need to look at this race to the end and see which one can cross over the finishing line. You're too caught up with Obamafever to look at this impartially. I could care less between either Obama or Hillary. Just give me the candidate who can beat McCain in November.

Why isn't one consistent poll used in those electoral maps? Frankly, what they portray often seems a bit strange.

PROVE to me that Obama will carry Ohio, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Iowa and a few other key states over McCain and I will change my tune.

----

That's the whole point. You can't prove Clinton will either. The election is 5 months away.

Chris' view is similiar to my own. I like Obama because he's eloquent and seems able to think on his feet. But I know a lot of people that do that, some better than he can.

"Wrong again. Roll your mouse over Ohio for the News."

Bob - Electoralvote.com is NOT the be all and end all authority in the universe, no matter how many time you post the link.

Like all such instruments, it is a snapshot of the situation at a particular time.

Obama is doing slightly better than Clinton in Ohio in the average of all national polls. He is also doing slightly better than she in some local polls as well.

But again, that is not how I base my support.

The Dems would risk a major political fallout if they were to pick Clinton.

Clinton begins the primary and is in the lead. Her campaign is talking about her inevitability.

Obama comes along...his campaign is smarter while Clinton's is lax. He overtakes her. As time goes on, her chances of winning grow slimmer and slimmer. We'r at the point where it's almost impossible for her to win.

Unless the SD's massively have a change of heart and back Clinton.

That would be so suspicious and would tick so many Dems off. Especially when you look at her inevitability claim at the start. That would just stink massively of back room politics.

It's weird we're having this argument, right in the middle of President Kerry's re-election campaign.

----

Ouch, rcade. Very ouch.

Would love to hear Corky's or Bob's take on that.

Or maybe not...the spin would be so ridiculous that it would probably cause Earth to go off its axis.

I thought Obama won Iowa?

People who accept the Electoral-Vote.Com map as proof of Clinton's superiority should check out how it looked on May 30, 2004:

www.electoral-vote.com

It's weird we're having this argument, right in the middle of President Kerry's re-election campaign.

Posted by rcade

This is exactly what the Hillary supporters are talking about. What changed between May and Nov of 2004? Oh yeah, the Republican machine killed him by actually vetting the guy. Which candidate is likely better to hold up better to the Republican machine - Hill has been in its spotlight for the last 16 years....Obama for only 1 month. The fact of the matter - for those that have a fully functioning brain - is that Obama has already hit his high water mark and will be falling from here on out. The more people learn about him, the more they dislike him - and that is based on the actual facts, not the crap the GOP threw at Kerry....

If - and it is not 100% certain - Rush or Hannity actually have a Michelle Obama 'whitey' rant tape, it is over already. As an Obama supporter, you should be pushing for him to deny that he or Michelle has ever used the word 'whitey' - a single instance caught on tape will sink the Dems....

I have already stated that I will vote 3rd party - I would not mind if that 3rd party is Hillary...

Aw hell CalifChris you could vote for the white half of Obama... and then you wouldn't be confusing him with the terrible brown horde from the south (shudder).

Hill has been in its spotlight for the last 16 years....Obama for only 1 month.

One month? He's been running for more than a year and has been the subject of massive media coverage since Iowa in early January.

JACQUE gets to the quick. If Obama gets the nod, I'm one of those that will vote for him even if he and his wife have said "whitey".

But I expect to be an exception if that happens.

I mean, I've already survived "hillbilly" (though not from Obama himself, just a few of his fans)---"Whitey" holds few terrors.

Hill has been in its spotlight for the last 16 years

----

Hillary was also supposed to win the nomination. Just because she's been in the spotlight for 16 years doesn't mean she's an automatic win.

One month? He's been running for more than a year and has been the subject of massive media coverage since Iowa in early January.

Massive media since Iowa - I would say that is correct if you are referring to the unrepentive praising of his messiah status. The negative sure did not start immediately after Iowa. How many years ago were the 'Wright rants' - when was it brought to media attention? How about Rezko - oh yeah, it has not even been covered yet. Stop huffing spraypaint for a minute and think about what has happened to Obama since the media actually started vetting him - hint, it is the main reason for him dropping every major primary since his string of caucus victories.

If Obama gets the nod, I'm one of those that will vote for him even if he and his wife have said "whitey".

Yes, you will very much be in the minority. I have been pretty clear in my prediction - McCain by 20%+ over Obama after the Republican smearing....of course, in a 3 horse race, I see Hill squeaking out a victory.

He's been running for more than a year and has been the subject of massive media coverage since Iowa in early January.

----

I remember him making an impression at the 2004 convention. He was supposedly a rising star in the Dem party back then.

Hillary was also supposed to win the nomination. Just because she's been in the spotlight for 16 years doesn't mean she's an automatic win.

Posted by Pirate

No, but it does mean it is less likely that the Republicans have any new dirt on her. Barring a Hillary Clinton lesbian sex tape with Rosie O'Donnell, we have already seen the worse that the Reps have. Hell, they have already trotted out the 'murder' line even....although some pious Obama fans are now spewing that garbage for them anew.

So Is That Enough About Rezco ?

Damn Ever Since Super Tuesday And Rev Wright Obama Has Been Taken To Task Period !

-Sarge


Posted by Sarge

Let me know when Olbermann covers the full extent of Obama's lies with regard to Rezko and Auchi, then I will be satisfied. Hell, even a segment on the ABC, NBC, CBS or asked about it in a debate would be nice.

As to your Super Tuesday comment - I agree, Obama has finally started to be vetted, but we have no idea what is left to uncover. We know that Obama was not very honest or forthcoming about Wright so what else is lurking? Also, you should note Obama's polling and win % for the primaries since the media started to do its job....it is all downhill from here.

I thought Obama won Iowa?

Posted by LetUsPrey at 2008-05-30 06:16 PM

Alaska, Idaho, Washington,Montana, Oregon, Wisconsin,Wyoming,North Dakota etc....

Oh But He Has A Problem With White Working Class Voters, What A Fucking Joke !!!

Those 8 States Have The Lowest Black Populations In The Country !!


-Sarge

"No, but it does mean it is less likely that the Republicans have any new dirt on her." Piffle absolute piffle, besides the fact that the republicans don't need any new dirt on her, they could just recycle the tons of old dirt on her, does anyone in their right mind not think that the Republican machine doesn't have a war chest of "new" dirt on Hillary and Bill and they are just salivating at the thought of bringing it out should HIllary be the (IMHO illegitimate) nominee. In normal circumstances (in other words if she were not Hillary Clinton) being fired from the Watergate team for lying, unethical behavior and out and out fraud would sink anyone else's campaign, seems everyone is ignoring that because a) Obama is too classy for that and b) almost everyone except Hillary and Bill know its over, why kick a woman when she's down?

In normal circumstances (in other words if she were not Hillary Clinton) being fired from the Watergate team for lying, unethical behavior

Are you under the impression that Hillary supporters don't know that she has lied in the past? Hell, every man woman and child in America knows that she has lied and is a total politician - that is why she is not running on 'hope and change'. Being proved a further liar has no material effect on her - Obama is proving that over the last month. However, one 'whitey' tape on Obama or any additional lies and he is sunk with the American people. He doesn't have a resume so he is running on character - that is one easy thing for the GOP to destroy. I take it that you are new to American politics....welcome to America n00b

Take a hint. Those states won't be voting blue in November. They probably had millions of republicans cross over voting for Obama to get Clinton out of the picture. Even Wisconsin is going Red with Obama.

Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2008-05-30 07:52 PM

Hey Bob I'm Referring To The Democratic Primary !!!

A Democrat VS A Democrat Period

Those 8 States Have The Lowest Black Populations In The Country !!

CASE CLOSED !!!

-Sarge

JACQUE is doing a fine job of stating my deepest concerns. Clinton supporters do tend to accept their candidate without special illusions, as a flawed being.

Obama supporters seem to want to find some star quality to the man that, I'm sorry, I just don't perceive.

It's not that Obama does not have the native ability to be a fine president. I assume he does. But the resume is held by his Republican opponent, not him.

But the "assume" part still worries me. Bush got in over his head in part because he had millions telling him he was up to the job.

Take a hint. Those states won't be voting blue in November. They probably had millions of republicans cross over voting for Obama to get Clinton out of the picture. Even Wisconsin is going Red with Obama.


Come On Bob The GOP Always Wanted Clinton Over Obama !!!

Even Before Rush's Operation Chaos To Keep Hillary In The Race Bob, So Give It A Rest !!

-Sarge

"Take a hint. Those states won't be voting blue in November. They probably had millions of republicans cross over voting for Obama to get Clinton out of the picture."

You folks need to co-ordinate your talking points. Are Republicans voting for "Obama to get Clinton out of the picture", or voting for Clinton to keep her in under "Operation Chaos"?!?

A Democrat VS A Democrat Period

Those 8 States Have The Lowest Black Populations In The Country !!

CASE CLOSED !!!

-Sarge

Posted by Sarge at 2008-05-30 07:58 PM |

With only democrats voting in a republican state. Meaningless. Get a clue.

Posted by Sarge at 2008-05-30 07:58 PM |

With only democrats voting in a republican state. Meaningless. Get a clue.

Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2008-05-30 08:14 PM | Reply

What The Hell Are You Talking About ?

Are You Loopy Or What ?

Then Why Have Fucking "Primaries" At All Bob ?

You Are One Strange Dude, And You Get A Clue Because You Could Not Find one If Your Name Was Holmes !!

-Sarge

Then Why Have Fucking "Primaries" At All Bob ?

I don't think anybody is saying that they should not have a primary - just that you are deluding yourself if you think Obama will win a blood red state in the general just because he could beat Hillary in a primary (usually cacaus). I think Bob's other point is that the causus is probably the worst indicator of the actual candidate support. Caucuses are dominated by the few really passionate people in the state who tend to have an ideology that is not in line with the main stream of the party. The general is won by the person that gets the support from the semi-disinterested voter that really doesn't want to take the time to find out if Obama is truly a muslim terrorist like his friends have been telling him. Only a small minority of voters actually take the time to really learn about the candidates which is why swiftboating works so well. Sad but true. Obamites are living in a fantasy world that is crashing in around them.

There is One God and His Name is Obama! Obama be praised!!!!!

-Anton

Posted by Corky at 2008-05-30 04:47 PM | Reply |

That's odd. I sent Bob Barr $25.00 today.

I must be committing idolatry.

Hillary lost.

Get over it.

Are you under the impression that Hillary supporters don't know that she has lied in the past? Hell, every man woman and child in America knows that she has lied and is a total politician -

And they are still rabidly supporting her? Okay, nuff said. I am so done with this thread, if a Hillary supporter can happily say "Are you under the impression that Hillary supporters don't know that she has lied in the past?"

Done, toast, stick and fork, you name it, we is done, can I has a cheeseburger I wonder if my kitten picture made it?

Still championing electoral-vote.com after it's shown to be an inaccurate indicator?

Guess you gotta stick the only guns you got left.

And they are still rabidly supporting her? Okay, nuff said. I am so done with this thread, if a Hillary supporter can happily say "Are you under the impression that Hillary supporters don't know that she has lied in the past?"

This is exactly why people think the Obama supporters are fanatic morons. Do you honestly think Obama does not lie? If so, I am sorry but you are retarded. He is a politician and his is looking out for himself and his pocketbook - him and his wife....

Say, how's her gas tax holiday legislation going?

Read on further in the article...

Clinton, who has been fighting financial woes in her campaign since February, has argued that she knows more about financial issues than her opponents.

This coming from a somebody who had a letter written and signed by over 200 economists about how bad one of her policies was.

Sorry, Hillary has made way too many mistakes for somebody who says they are so experienced.

/end rant

hey hillary, who's NOTHING in the democratic party now? egotistical, evil, stupid bitch.

Still championing electoral-vote.com after it's shown to be an inaccurate indicator?

Guess you gotta stick the only guns you got left.

Posted by Pirate at 2008-05-30 09:42 PM | Reply


Yeah, well, electoral vote just posts the polls--it doesn't take them. Do you think Obama has a chance on Idaho in November? He carried it big.

;-)

just that you are deluding yourself if you think Obama will win a blood red state in the general just because he could beat Hillary in a primary (usually cacaus).

Posted by Jacque_Strap at 2008-05-30 08:46 PM

Ok I Will Say It Once Again I was Referring To P-R-I-M-A-R-I-E-S AND P-R-I-M-A-R-I-E-S ONLY !!!!

Obama vs Clinton In P-R-I-M-A-R-I-E-S Not General Elections.

So All This Attempt To Reshape The Meaning Of My Statement Is Wrong I Have N-E-V-E-R Stated Obama Could Win A General Election In A Red State.


Dem vs Dem Period !!

-Sarge

.........Obama is the best person in the race......

.......head and shoulder over the others...........

.....it will be America's loss if someone thwarts the will of the people.......

......Bush managed to finaigle the Presidency twice.....

......look what this lesser man produced........

.......lets not have a replay..........

Clinton supporters do tend to accept their candidate without special illusions, as a flawed being. Obama supporters seem to want to find some star quality to the man that, I'm sorry, I just don't perceive.

The perception that Obama supporters are stupid dreamers, while Clinton voters are intelligent realists, is annoying.

He's got millions of votes and has just beaten a tough, experienced candidate who had a giant monetary and name recognition edge going into this race. He outorganized Clinton and executed a 50-state strategy while she wasn't prepared beyond Super Tuesday. He raises an astonishing amount of money from a huge number of individual small-money donors.

Maybe, just maybe, it's possible he can defeat the weakest Republican presidential candidate in decades, a candidate whose positions on immigration and other issues are anathema to the conservative base.

Rcade only proves that the best campaigners make the worst presidents. Watch and learn.

For the record, I think the three survivalists are among the worst this country has to offer.

If the best campaigners make the worst presidents, that means the best presidents were bad campaigners. How did those bad campaigners get elected, exactly? I don't follow.

Bad campaigners don't get to be president. They have a sense of integrity and moral conscience presidents don't have. That applies to politicians in general.

If you are interested in more detail, see "The Road to Serfdom" by Friedrich Hayek. It has an illuminating chapter, "Why the worst get on top."

Ray - is there anybody you'd vote for, running or not?

Another way to look at it is from a Darwinian point of view. Of those with political aspirations, the most deceitful convincing liars, the most ruthless and cunning get to hold political office. On the whole, people with integrity and moral conscience don't have political aspirations. If they do, the system weeds them out fast as heretics. I'm amazed Ron Paul is still in office.

Yeah, well, electoral vote just posts the polls--it doesn't take them.

----

Exactly. As we've seen during the primary, polls change over the course of months.

Plus look at the percentage totals in the polls.

Florida has Hillary 47% to 41%. That totals 88%. There's still 12% who could go either way.

Ohio's 49% to 42% with 9% unaccounted for.

PA 50% to 39% with 11% unaccounted for.

I started voting as a Goldwater Republican and gave up after my disillusionment with Reagan. Our political system has a dynamic with too much momentum to constrain. I fear it is going to take a lot of suffering before Americans come to their senses that the State is not their friend; it is their enemy.

From my experience on this site, I've come to understand why the Jews of Nazi Germany didn't see mortal danger until it was too late.

"He (Obama) can defeat the weakest Republican opponent in decades....."

The difference between you and me is that I don't see McCain as weak at all.

I think he can take this election, and I think relying on a perception of weakness as a reason to nominate your guy is a good way to assure McCain does become president.

The difference between you and me is that I don't see McCain as weak at all. -- Zed

I don't either, in one sense -- I think most voters are oblivious to the train wreck he has turned into the last couple years. He's still the McCain of 2000 to them.

I think his candidacy could be undone by his own party and the right-wing media, though.

You get the picture. She saw the popularity of the change message and jumped on it. -- Pirate

Why not? Hope and Change were Bill Clinton's campaign themes.

I think millions might vote for McCain simply because they hate Bush enjoy the irony. Yes, that's not rational, but I'll bet it's true.

The difference between you and me is that I don't see McCain as weak at all.

I don't see the Republican base turning out in huge numbers for a nominee with his position on immigration. I also think his position on the war is a giant Achilles heel in the general. How many Americans want four or eight more years in Iraq?

It's obviously true many Republicans despise McCain and that the war generally is a leaden weight.

You and I see outselves as rational men. Rationally, any Democrat takes the election this year.

But people are much more than their logic. As soon as I realized this Party contest would come down to a choice between a Black and a woman, I suspected what we were in for.

How many Americans want four or eight more years in Iraq?

Posted by rcade at 2008-05-31 12:45 PM | Reply


Millions. Millions upon millions. That's why the election is even competitive. We are two countries.

who cares what clinton expects? she doesn't matter and only morons and her media care about her; the living,breathing piece of shit that she is.

***** Clinton Expects Race to End Next Week *****

.........but it was over weeks ago.........

.......just goes to show that her supposed "experience" does not trump good judgement.....

LETUSPRAY
(that maybe one day you will raise your IQ by 30 points)


Michael Reagan is a right-wing hack whose claim to fame is that he was ADOPTED by the actor/governor/president. You really listen to some major douche-bags, dontcha Chris?

Posted by LetUsPrey at 2008-05-30 04:45 PM

As usual the point I was making went right over your head. Michael Reagan is a total party hack. He is given his marching orders and does as he is told by the GOP. Precisely the point and why I made this comment in my post above:

Michael Reagan (Ronald's kid) was on tv the other night and I listened closely to every word as the subject was who would be the best choice for the Democrats to pick and he wanted Obama. ALL the Republicans are putting down Hillary and pushing for Obama to be the Democrats choice for nominee. You don't have to be a member of MENSA to figure out why. The Republicans have something up their sleeve they know they can use against Obama in order to keep the White House.

Political leanings aisde, when it comes to how each side plays their political machinery campaign games and go about spinning, the opinion of BuffaloBob, who understands just how these games are played, carries more weight with me.

Califchris

I agree with your post completely.

Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2008-05-30 04:51 PM

Florida and Michigan both get 1/2 votes.

It's "Over"

I don't see the Republican base turning out in huge numbers for a nominee with his position on immigration. -- Rcade

Does either candidate want to make this an issue? To exploit this, Obama would have to take an anti-immigration stance.

I also think his position on the war is a giant Achilles heel in the general. How many Americans want four or eight more years in Iraq? -- RCade

Straight Talk McCain tells Americans he's telling them the truth, and then runs lots of ads featuring Samantha Powers' statements to the British media. (Powers is the former Obama aide who was fired after telling the Brits Obama wasn't serious about pulling out of Iraq immediately.) QED.

Does either candidate want to make this an issue? To exploit this, Obama would have to take an anti-immigration stance.

Obama doesn't have to exploit it. A lot of Republicans (and some others) are fired up about it and won't be quiet. Lou Dobbs covers the issue non-stop.

I will bet any amount of anything that with six months of the nation being exposed to Obama fully, and people coming to grips with his nomination that he will win this election. Any Hillary supporter who says that he or she will vote for McCain in November is bluffing. McCain is pro-Bush policy, pro-life, and kinda has a questionable history with women...


Are you people that numb?

"Clinton Expects Race to End Next Week"

Somebody, anybody, nudge her out of her Crown Royale stupor and hand her the news. Gently. Very gently.

"Somebody, anybody, nudge her out of her Crown Royale stupor and hand her the news. Gently. Very gently."

Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2008-06-01 06:43 AM


Then let's get behind our second best candidate like we always do.

Enjoy McCain