Has Obama shot his wad? Clinton rebounds...

[HazelGod]

Their platforms do seem similar, but Clinton has laid-out, concrete plans. Obama just has words.

I have three retorts for this oft-regurgitated idiocy:

1. It's asinine for any presidential candidate to have "concrete" plans of any sort. The job in question is that of leader and facilitator, not dictator. Despite what Clinton might desire, the POTUS does not establish policy nor implement changes by fiat...he only attemps to direct and influence the actual seat of power (read: Congress).

2. Where, precisely, are these concrete plans of Clinton's? For all her harping about Obama's campaign of "just words", I haven't seen anything of any substance coming from her. Put up or shut up.

3. What do you call this?

 

[VeeP]

She was losing pretty bad earlier in the evening. She had a significant rally toward the end. Still... the race in Texas was really close, and in all these states it is not winner take all. Even though she "won" in these States, she may only end up with barely more than half the delegates. Obama's still going to come out on top. But it will be even closer than it was before.

I heard she was losing big in the early going because they counted absentee ballots first. Late deciders broke 2-to-1 in her favor, just as they did in NH. The Machine managed to shove a stick in his spokes and I suspect the proportionate delegate system may end up biting them all in the ass.

 

[Principessa]

Then stop! There is no American federal law which demands that you pay Federal Income Tax.

Actually, Federal Income Tax evasion is a federal crime, you can go to a federal prison for a very long time. That's how they finally caught Al Capone.

 

[Principessa]

I'm a little disappointed, I thought by the title someone had finally dug up some interesting dirt on a candidate and we would all be treated to the Obama sex tape.

 

[VeeP]

Actually, Federal Income Tax evasion is a federal crime, you can go to a federal prison for a very long time. That's how they finally caught Al Capone.

...and Wesley Snipes. :biggrin1:

 

[swordfishME]

I think Obama is the stronger and more electable candidate than McCain, and that McCain is the stronger, more electable candidate than Hillary.

I totally disagree. Obama only looks stronger because of "Obamamania". Obama is like the flavor of the month. His massive support is routed in that he has been hyped beyond belief. Once this hype dies down, a significant percentage of his supporters will jump ship. This has nothing to do with Obama per say, but more to do with the fact that we have the attention span of gnats. Hillary and McCain don't have this problem. Their supporters are more hardcore and will stick with them no matter what.

 

[VeeP]

I'm a little disappointed, I thought by the title someone had finally dug up some interesting dirt on a candidate and we would all be treated to the Obama sex tape.

I suppose I'd better qualify that's not what I meant by "dee-licious primary".

 

[Gillette]

3. What do you call this?

I haven't been following American politics recently but just wanted to say how impressed I am that the first issue addressed in his blueprint is ethics.

 

[simcha]

still liking Obama personally.

if Hillary beats him... I still think McCain will win.

Yes, it's looking more and more like it's going to be McCain's General Election.

Get ready to salute President McCain, especially if Hillary wins.

 

[HazelGod]

I totally disagree. Obama only looks stronger because of "Obamamania". Obama is like the flavor of the month. His massive support is routed in that he has been hyped beyond belief. Once this hype dies down, a significant percentage of his supporters will jump ship. This has nothing to do with Obama per say, but more to do with the fact that we have the attention span of gnats. Hillary and McCain don't have this problem. Their supporters are more hardcore and will stick with them no matter what.

First of all, it's per se. It's not English, it's Latin for of itself.

Second, with regard to the bolded nonsense above, you need to stop regurgitating the predigested opinions being fed to you by whatever media outlet you're latched onto. It's rhetorical nonsense, with no basis in fact or figures.

Here's the truth: most people believe that McCain has substantially better odds of beating Clinton (66%) in a general election than beating Obama (18%). Read the numbers for yourself here. Or here.

Futhermore, when Obama supporters were asked if they would support Clinton in the general election were she to be the nominee, most said no...yet when Clinton supporters were asked if they would do the same for Obama, most said yes. Also, with Obama as the nominee, more GOPs are likely to cross party lines to vote for him in the general election.

The numbers don't lie. Dems who like Hillary basically like Obama about as well. Those who like Obama tend to despise Hillary. Or at least dislike her enough not to vote for her against the GOP.

I haven't been following American politics recently but just wanted to say how impressed I am that the first issue addressed in his blueprint is ethics.

I'm glad someone actually clicked it. As many months as that's been up on his site, and as many times as he alludes to points detailed within, I'm still amazed at the sheer number of sheep still bleating this "all words, no plans" nonsense. Then again, it makes for a quick litmus test of whom one should not bother discussing these things rationally.

 

[deleted213967]

For anyone who's bothered to look closely at their stances on issues, it comes as no surprise that there are few differences of any significance. They are both DEM, after all.


On the other hand, we have a muckraking, duplicitous, self-aggrandizing, disingenuous cunt who will pander to any audience and stoop to any level if she believes it will serve her purposes.

Most policy issues being the same, there's no question who I'd prefer to reside on Pennsylvania Avenue.

EDIT:



Yeah...and I've got some oceanfront property in Arizona to sell you, too.

IMO, it's way too early to even think about calling Texas...probably OH, too.

She actually won OH, RI, and TX, the latter by a slimmer margin.

It is becoming evident that the nation’s largest states support her, while Barack clearly dominates in caucus states.

IMHO the caucus system is heavily slanted towards the activist crowd which doesn’t always represent the general voting population.

In WA, Obama won the caucus round by a landslide, but his margin was far less significant in the primary.

BTW, I know that some old-guard Neanderthal schweinen can’t fathom the concept of a woman who aspires to something higher than the life of a Hausfrau, but wouldn’t such a conniving “cunt” (to use your vulgarity) have switched to the GOP by now to that end?

Would such a “cunt” pick the welfare of kids and women’s rights to get to the top?

 

[Quite Irate]

I'm getting tired of the negative media coverage of Clinton. Since the very beginning, it's been, "Obama Triumphs," "Obama clinches victory" - regardless of the margin. Every accomplishment of the Clinton campaign is marginalized. Well, speaking of AP at least. I don't get to see every media outlet's report on the situation here in Europe, but it's clear that AP has a major bias in this democratic nomination race. Clinton flat out wins, and the AP headline reads something to the effect of: Is there still hope for Hillary? It's tiring. From a photographic point of view, all the AP images of Obama are set up to portray him as some sort of iconic figure. Most lead images of Obama include some sort of stadium lighting and striking pose. Images of Clinton are usually taken from the side to make her look tired, and to be so ambiguous they can be used whether she wins or loses. The unflattering-angle-from-below photo style has been a popular one lately for Clinton. When it's clear that Clinton is winning Ohio by a substantial margin, news outlets consider the poll numbers "too close to call." MSNBC did just that with this morning's (for those in the U.S., last night's) results, and yet they've declared Obama the winner in past state primaries with 0% of the vote in. Many commentators made note of Clinton's attack ads when announcing the latest results. They equated Clinton wins with proof that her malicious attacks and ads had been successful. Because it somehow goes without saying that she wouldn't have won through legitimate politics.

Even if you don't like her, you can't possibly say that such biased media coverage is justified.

 

[swordfishME]

First of all, it's per se. It's not English, it's Latin for of itself.

The numbers don't lie. .

If you believe that one line (in red) there is no point in having any further discussion with you. Everyone has lost count on how many times, "the numbers" have been wrong.

 

[HazelGod]

She actually won OH, RI, and TX, the latter by a slimmer margin.

Wishful thinking at this point. At this moment, Texas has reported 88% of its primary results, and only 34% of caucus results. Many of the unreported precincts are in dense metro areas where Obama has been winning by margins approaching 2:1.

Even if the current returns were the final results, he'd still be ahead in delegates by dozens.

but wouldn’t such a conniving “cunt” (to use your vulgarity) have switched to the GOP by now to that end?

Funny you mention this...since she grew up a card-carrying member of the Young Republicans in suburban Illinois. She's already done her flip-flop to the other side. Then there's the whole NY carpetbagging issue...

I say again...stop regurgitating meaningless rhetoric and spoon-fed opinions.

 

[deleted213967]

Funny how some self-admitted parasites on this site will use the word "cunt" to refer to a person whose educational, career, political and personal accomplishments exceed theirs by an order of magnitude, but wouldn't tolerate such blatant bigotry towards Barack who is, has always been, and will always be genetically 50% black only.

I don't buy the notion that Clinton can't beat McCain. He is getting The Kiss of Death from Li'l Bush tomorrow (poor thing) and will have a hard time shaking off the W legacy. Clinton masters the economy which clearly is numero uno to all Americans these days and her work on the Senate Armed Committee and legendary tenacity and toughness make her at least credible as Commander in Chief.

 

[VeeP]

Second, with regard to the bolded nonsense above, you need to stop regurgitating the predigested opinions being fed to you by whatever media outlet you're latched onto. It's rhetorical nonsense, with no basis in fact or figures.

Here's the truth: most people believe that McCain has substantially better odds of beating Clinton (66%) in a general election than beating Obama (18%). Read the numbers for yourself here. Or here.

Futhermore, when Obama supporters were asked if they would support Clinton in the general election were she to be the nominee, most said no...yet when Clinton supporters were asked if they would do the same for Obama, most said yes. Also, with Obama as the nominee, more GOPs are likely to cross party lines to vote for him in the general election.

The numbers don't lie. Dems who like Hillary basically like Obama about as well. Those who like Obama tend to despise Hillary. Or at least dislike her enough not to vote for her against the GOP.

Likewise, you need to stop espousing polls that are eight months out from the general election. They not only can, but have been dead wrong (e.g., exit polls of the '04 general and the '08 NH primary). Polls had Kerry/Edwards cruising to victory in '04, lest we forget.

Anyone who's observed American politics knows that sometimes -- for who knows what reason -- it takes precious little to sink a campaign's soufflé (e.g., Gary Hart '84, Mike Dukakis '88, John McCain '00).

Personally, I love when pollsters miss the mark. No amount of 'number running' can fully estimate the impact of an unexpected shift in dynamics. :smile:

 

[D_Tintagel_Demondong]

Actually, Federal Income Tax evasion is a federal crime, you can go to a federal prison for a very long time. That's how they finally caught Al Capone.

This may not be the best source, but I see conflicting arguments on this issue. IS there a law that says people must pay income tax? Where can I find and read the law on this? - Yahoo! Answers

 

[HazelGod]

If you believe that one line (in red) there is no point in having any further discussion with you. Everyone has lost count on how many times, "the numbers" have been wrong.

About the level of pedantry I expected from you.

First, what I said was they don't lie...I didn't say they were infallible.

That's beside the point, however...I linked the polls to demonstrate that, unlike you, the contentions I put forth have some quantitative factual basis and weren't simply pulled out my ass or upchucked from some newswire service.

Make any claims you like, but have the dignity to at least try to substantiate them with something approaching a link to reality.

 

[deleted213967]

Funny you mention this...since she grew up a card-carrying member of the Young Republicans in suburban Illinois. She's already done her flip-flop to the other side. Then there's the whole NY carpetbagging issue...

I say again...stop regurgitating meaningless rhetoric and spoon-fed opinions.

Meaningless rhetoric and spoon-fed opionions, coming from a hopeless chauvinist pig who falls for the simplistic message of "hope" and "pick-your-own-change" (yeah my change and your change might be mutually exclusive but doesn't "change"...like...sound so totally kewl?)

 

[handsome_anselm]

How big is Barack Obam's cock? Does anyone know?