Why Hillary Should Be Winning

Discussion in 'Et Cetera, Et Cetera' started by Freddie53, Apr 8, 2008.

  1. Freddie53

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2004
    Messages:
    7,285
    Likes Received:
    60
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The South, USA
    These two articles were a part of the news websites of the Yahoo News. I copied these and have pasted them as is. At the end there is the web site address where you can access the original articles.

    For debates sake, the purpose of this thread is not to debate whether the conclusions that the writers have come to. We will pretend for debates sake that the articles are in fact a correct assessment. The purpose of this debate here is this: If you are a super delegate to the Democratic Convention and your FIRST priority is to win the White House for the Democrats do you:

    1. Go with Obama. He has a very slim majority of the popular vote and is leading in the delegate count.

    OR

    2. Go with Hillary. If the delegates were awarded according to a "winner take all" system, Hillary would be in the lead in delegats according to this article.

    Also consider what the second article concludes.

    In the match up with McCain against:

    Obama. McCain has a slight lead in electoral votes.

    Hillary. Hillary has a lead in electoral votes.

    Keep in mind that while Gore had over a 200,000 lead in popular vote over Bush, Bush barely won the electoral college vote count in 2000.

    To our members outside of the US, the President, the United States does not elect its President by popular vote. This is the way the vote is tabulated. Example:

    Arkansas - six electoral votes. McCain wins Arkansas by one vote, he gets all six electoral votes. McCain wins the popular vote in Arkansas by a very large majority. McCain still just has six electoral votes.

    So it is entirely possible for candidate A to barely win enough states to win a majority of electoral votes but get beat badly in all the other states causing candidate B to win the popular vote handily and still lose the electoral college vote.

    There are pros and cons of the Electoral College. I hope that we will leave that debate out of this discussion. That would best be discussed in a different thread. No matter whether you like the Electoral College or not, we are stuck with it this year for sure.

    Now here is the copy and past version of the first article. The second article is in the first post. (Too long for one post.)


    Why Hillary Clinton should be winning

    Under a winner-take-all primary system, Hillary Clinton would have a wide lead over Barack Obama -- and enough delegates to clinch the nomination by June.

    By Sean Wilentz


    Reuters/Matt Sullivan


    April 7, 2008 | The continuing contest for the Democratic presidential nomination has become a frenzy of debates and proclamations about democracy. Sen. Barack Obama's campaign has been particularly vociferous in claiming that its candidate stands for a transformative, participatory new politics. It has vaunted Obama's narrow lead in the overall popular vote in the primaries to date, as well as in the count of elected delegates, as the definitive will of the party's rank and file. If, while heeding the party's rules, the Democratic superdelegates overturn those majorities, Obama's supporters claim, they will have displayed a cynical contempt for democracy that would tear the party apart.

    These arguments might be compelling if Obama's leads were not so reliant on certain eccentricities in the current Democratic nominating process, as well as on some blatantly anti-democratic maneuvers by the Obama campaign. Obama's advantage hinges on a system that, whatever the actual intentions behind it, seems custom-made to hobble Democratic chances in the fall. It depends on ignoring one of the central principles of American electoral politics, one that will be operative on a state-by-state basis this November, which is that the winner takes all. If the Democrats ran their nominating process the way we run our general elections, Sen. Hillary Clinton would have a commanding lead in the delegate count, one that will only grow more commanding after the next round of primaries, and all questions about which of the two Democratic contenders is more electable would be moot.

    Unlike the Republicans, the Democrats in primary states choose their nominee on the basis of a convoluted system of proportional distribution of delegates that varies from state to state and that obtains in neither congressional nor presidential elections. It is this eccentric system that has given Obama his lead in the delegate count. If the Democrats heeded the "winner takes all" democracy that prevails in American politics, and that determines the president, Clinton would be comfortably in front. In a popular-vote winner-take-all system, Clinton would now have 1,743 pledged delegates to Obama's 1,257. If she splits the 10 remaining contests with Obama, as seems plausible, with Clinton taking Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky, Indiana and Puerto Rico, and Obama winning North Carolina, South Dakota, Montana, Oregon and Guam, she'd pick up another 364 pledged delegates. She'd have 2,107 before a single superdelegate was wooed. You'd need 2,208 to be the Democratic nominee. That would leave her barely a hundred votes shy, and well ahead of Obama. It is almost inconceivable that she would fail to gain the required number of superdelegates easily. No more blogospheric ranting about Clinton "stealing" the nomination by kidnapping superdelegates or cutting deals at a brokered convention.

    But Clinton does not now have 1,743 delegates. According to CNN estimates, Clinton has about 1,242 pledged delegates to Obama's 1,413. Most of that total is based on the peculiar way that delegates are apportioned in 2008. Some of it is because Obama's backers are using the same kind of tactics as George Bush's camp used in Florida in 2000.

    Crucially, Team Obama doesn't want to count the votes of Michigan and Florida. (And let's note that in a winner-take-all system, Clinton would still be leading in delegates, 1,430 to 1,257, even without Michigan and Florida.) Under the existing system, Obama's current lead in the popular vote would nearly vanish if the results from Michigan and Florida were included in the total, and his lead in pledged delegates would melt almost to nothing. The difference in the popular vote would fall to 94,005 out of nearly 27 million cast thus far -- a difference of a mere four-tenths of 1 percentage point -- and the difference in delegates would plummet to about 30, out of the 2,208 needed to win. Add those states' votes to the totals, and take a sober look at Clinton's popular-vote victories in virtually all other large states, and the electoral dynamic changes. She begins to look like the almost certain nominee.

    The exclusion thus far of these two vital states has come about because of an arbitrary and catastrophic decision made last year by Howard Dean and the Democratic National Committee. Two democratic options are available to clean up the mess: Either relent by including the existing Michigan and Florida results or hold new primaries there.

    Yet in this, as has happened more than once this primary season, the Obama camp's reaction has not been to clean up the mess the party has created, but to benefit from it. Given the original primary outcomes in Michigan and Florida, Obama has rejected the idea of certifying the results. Although Obama's supporters conducted a stealth "uncommitted" campaign in Michigan after he voluntarily removed his name from the state ballot, and even though, contrary to DNC directives, his campaign advertised in Florida, Clinton still won both states decisively. This leaves open the option of holding new primaries in both states. National and state party officials have announced that such revotes could be conducted.

    Yet the Obama campaign has stoutly resisted any such revote in either state. In Michigan, Obama's supporters thwarted efforts to pass the legislation necessary to conduct a new primary. In Florida, campaign lawyers threw monkey wrenches to stop the process cold, claiming that a revote would somehow violate the Voting Rights Act, and charging that a proposed mail-in revote would not be "fraud proof." (Obama himself, it's important to note, proposed a bill in 2007 to allow for mail-in voting in federal elections.)

    Instead, Obama's campaign has tendered the startling proposal that he arbitrarily be allotted half of the votes already cast in Michigan and Florida. Of course, a large number of these votes -- more than a quarter of a million in Florida alone -- were not cast for Obama. He simply proposes that the party add these votes to his total, as though they were rightfully his. Saying that votes already cast for other candidates should go to him is a bold power grab, worthy of the Chicago machine organizations that claimed the votes of the recently deceased, their names gleaned from the voting rolls. By any definition of democracy, those votes do not belong to Obama; nor do they belong to Hillary Clinton, nor to Howard Dean. They belong to the voters. Obama can no more lay claim to them legitimately than his supporters can declare he has won the nomination before the remaining primaries take place.

    Next page: Clinton would defeat McCain in the Electoral College because of her lead in big, electoral-vote-rich states such as Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania -- and McCain would beat Obama



    The case for Hillary Clinton's electability | Salon
     
  2. Freddie53

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2004
    Messages:
    7,285
    Likes Received:
    60
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The South, USA
    Clinton would defeat McCain in the Electoral College because of her lead in big, electoral-vote-rich states such as Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania -- and McCain would beat Obama


    Now consider the delegate count and its connection to the popular vote. In Nevada, Clinton also won a popular majority, despite pressure from union officials on the rank and file attending the caucuses to vote for Obama. Yet Obama claims, on the primary electoral map posted on his official Web site, that he actually won Nevada -- presumably because rules that gave greater weight to rural than urban votes mean he won a marginal edge in the Byzantine allotment of the state's delegates. Why, in deference to the clear-cut Nevada popular majority, doesn't Obama cede the majority of the state's delegates to Clinton? Because, according to the rules, he's entitled to those delegates. But why are the rules suddenly sacrosanct and the popular vote irrelevant? Might it be because the rules, and not the popular vote, now benefit Obama? And what about Texas, another state where Clinton won the popular vote but has not been awarded the majority of pledged delegates? Once again, for Obama, the rules are suddenly all-important -- because the rules, and not the popular majority, now favor him.

    Obama's totals thus far have come in great part from state caucuses nearly as much as from actual primaries. (Eleven out of the 30 states and other entities he has won held caucuses, not primaries. Washington held both, as did Texas, where Obama won the caucuses and lost the popular vote.) Of the two systems, caucuses are by far the less democratic -- which may be why there will be exactly zero caucuses in this fall's general election. By excluding voters who cannot attend during the limited times available, the caucuses skew participation toward affluent activists and students, and against working people, mothers and caregivers, and the military. Clinton's victories, by contrast, have come overwhelmingly in states with primaries, not caucuses. Obama is certainly entitled to the delegates he won in the caucuses. But he can hardly, on that account, claim that he is clearly the popular favorite.

    In 2004, Democrats lost most of the states where Obama's delegates come from now. The Democrats are likely to lose most of those states again in 2008, no matter how much his supporters speak of winning crossover votes. (Idaho and Wyoming, for example, where Obama won caucuses, are not going to vote for either Clinton or Obama come fall.) Of the remaining states that Obama has won, only one is a large state with a considerable number of electoral votes -- his home state of Illinois. Clinton has won the popular vote in all of the other large states -- and has done so in primaries, not caucus decisions. The arithmetic here is simple: Because of the flawed system, the delegates from the states that Obama has won, many of which vote strongly Republican, represent far fewer Democratic voters than those from the states Clinton won.

    Finally, there is the disquieting question of acknowledging what kind of democracy will determine who wins the presidency in 2008. Strong arguments could be made that, in a thoroughgoing democracy, voters choose presidents with a direct, plebiscitary system. The candidate who commands a majority (or, perhaps, a plurality) of the popular vote nationally wins the election. But, interesting as they might be as an academic exercise, such musings are irrelevant to the politics of 2008. We have a winner-take-all system, but it operates on a state-by-state basis (except in Maine and Nebraska, where it's winner-take-all by congressional district). Like it or not, we will choose the president under the indirect and fractured democracy of the Electoral College.

    Obama has tried to reinforce his democratic bona fides by asserting his superior electability, and by claiming that Clinton's supporters are more likely to back him in November than vice versa. The polls, however, show otherwise. And even more important, the polling data on the electoral vote totals show an outcome very different from the one suggested by Obama. The latest state-by-state figures (as of late March) updated from SurveyUSA, indicate that if the election were held today, Clinton would defeat McCain in the Electoral College because of her lead in big, electoral-vote-rich states such as Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania -- and McCain would beat Obama.

    In the final analysis, though, the fights inside the Democratic Party aren't really about either an ideal American democracy or the American democracy that actually exists. According to the Obama campaign, democracy is defined as whatever helps Barack Obama win the Democratic nomination. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with a candidate arguing this way. But everybody should see it for what it is -- not something new or transformative, but one of the oldest ploys in the playbook of American politics.


    The case for Hillary Clinton's electability | Salon
     
  3. MCA

    MCA Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2005
    Messages:
    360
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    223
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    KC
    You sure write a lot. Hillary is a lame republican clone like her husband. I refuse to vote for the same royal families so many times in a row. Consolidation of power leads to abuse. Get the Clinton clan out, get the Bush clan out.

    There.
    That seems to sum it up.
     
  4. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    10,516
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    Thanks for posting this. Finally, something that IS newsworthy about the election that we should be paying attention to. Although I can sense the negative banter coming in to sway this thread towards the wrong areas.
     
  5. yurkon

    yurkon New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2008
    Messages:
    286
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Florida

    Well put!
    Maybe we should try a term without a president and see how that works....
     
  6. HazelGod

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    Messages:
    7,531
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    9
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Other Side of the Pillow
    :yawn:

    Better Thread Title:
    When the real world doesn't reflect my fantasy, I try to draw everyone else into my fantasyland with me!

    Personally, my own fantasyland rule changes start with suspension of both gravitation and Newton's 3td law of motion, not party delegation apportionments...but to each his own. :rolleyes:
     
  7. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    10,516
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    *SIGH* Right on cue. And it only took how long? About 22 minutes? Is that some kind of record? For once HazelGod, try to stick to the issue and not obsess about the bullshit?
     
  8. Freddie53

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2004
    Messages:
    7,285
    Likes Received:
    60
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The South, USA
    You may be entirely correct. However, this thread isn't really about Hillary, Obama, or McCain so much as your opinion how a super delegate should vote if their first priority is to both the party and to winning the White House.

    As far as how much I wrote. I didn't write the bulk of it. It was copied from the Yahoo News. I figured people would rather read it here, then do a research for it.

    I'm sure some will disagree with the conclusions of how certain states would go with McCain/Hilllary or McCain/Obama. That is certainly understandable as well.
     
  9. Freddie53

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2004
    Messages:
    7,285
    Likes Received:
    60
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The South, USA
    Hazel, I'm surprised at you. I was sure you would do a dissertation on why the author of this editorial has drawn different for sure and possibly incorrect conclusions from the evidence available.

    I really was expecting a point by point analysis of the two articles by you.

    If I were a super delegate and I for whatever reason was convinced that candidate A would beat McCain and candidate B would not, I would vote for candidate A. That is why if I were a super delegate still uncommitted, I would stay that way until August when I would have a better understanding of how the land lays.

    But then that is the critical difference between you and me Hazel. I will vote for the Democratic nominee regardless who he/she is come November. From what you have written in the past I have concluded that should Clinton be the nominee, you would not vote for her.

    If the convention became deadlocked, I would as a super delegate consider the idea of going with Gore or someone else if I saw that Obama and Clinton had pretty much destroyed each other and both were not electable.
     
  10. HazelGod

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    Messages:
    7,531
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    9
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Other Side of the Pillow

    Nope, not interested in such mental masturbation. They're playing a game of numbers, as though the candidates were equal in all respects. That premise is false, so nothing built atop it interests me. The fact is, I believe HRC to be a despicable and untrustworthy human being unfit for any public office, least of all the Presidency of the United States.


    Not much of a reach, considering that I've explicitly stated on multiple occasions that (a) I'm not a party loyalist of any sort, and (b) I most certainly would not vote for HRC come hell or high water.
     
  11. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    10,516
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    Hmmmm... let's get this straight.
    An article which analyzes the Electoral College, a process that actually DOES select the president of the United States, and gives possible scenarios of potential outcomes is "mental masturbation". Yet factioids linked to various biased blogs and news articles that go against Clinton is what you pay attention to? The problem is, the process doesn't judge candidates based on character like you do. So this story has more importance about the election and its process than what you feel about a particular candidate.

    Which basically means you vote for the prettier and more popular candidate. Yeah, we got that loud and clear in your "Hilary Clinton cares nothing about democracy" thread. Now let's stick to the topic and prevent this one from being a spinoff of your other thread.
     
  12. Freddie53

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2004
    Messages:
    7,285
    Likes Received:
    60
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The South, USA
    I find this interesting. You did a similar assessment yourself on why the way it is being done is the only democratic way to do it. Of course it favors Obama as it is.








    Not much of a reach, considering that I've explicitly stated on multiple occasions that (a) I'm not a party loyalist of any sort, and (b) I most certainly would not vote for HRC come hell or high water.[/quote]I already knew that. So in reality, this question isn't even for you to debate is it? You would never be in the position of a super delegate as you don't consider yourself a party person. The criteria of the question is that you as a super delegate want to honor the people that voted in the primaries and you want to insure that a the Democratic nominee wins in November. You can't fulfill the second part of the question.

    Let me use an analogy, A thread is started about whether someone prefers vanilla or French vanilla ice cream. Is it really necessary for someone who despises any type of vanilla ice cream to get that involved in the discussion? I wouldn't think so. How could you really intelligently discuss the minute differences in flavor of these two ice creams and why one taste so much better than the other when you are gagging on both? That can't be done.

    There is a question to debate here. You have made it clear that you have no interest is debating or challenging the contents of the article. You are simply denouncing it out of hand. Fine. I have no problem with you making those statements. Since those are your positions, you really don't have a dog in this fight concerning this thread. This thread is really for people who are able to in their mind put themselves in a position of being a super delegate to the Democratic Convention. You have made it clear that you don't qualify and have no intention of qualifying in the future.

    The premise of this thread is that you are a for the purposes of debate a super delegate to the Democratic Convention and have to weigh the two different concepts. The opening part of the thread made it clear that we weren't discussing if the articles are valid. We are debating the issue of what would you as a super delegate do if indeed you knew that the articles were indeed valid.

    I respectfully ask you to stay on the topic of the thread and not try to hijack it into a how much I hate Hillary thread. You have spoken that concept on multiple threads here over a period of months. If people don't know by now how you feel about Hillary Clinton, I doubt you telling them one more time will help them understand.

    The fact is that if Hazel were a delegate or super delegate to the Democratic Convention he would be there solely to support Obama. Hazel has made it clear he is not a Democrat so if Obama for some reason were to falter, the the Democratic Party has no relevance for Hazel according to what Hazel himself has written here.

    On the other hand, if it has the word Democrat by it and it is the Presidential election, you can bet your sweet ass that that person will get my vote unless some viable third party candidate were to appear. McCain will not get my vote for President. I will vote for the Green Party candidate before I vote for McCain.

    Now back to the action on the thread, It is August and YOU ARE A SUPER DELEGATE TO THE DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION AND ONE OF YOUR GOALS IS FOR THE DEMOCRATS TO CAPTURE THE WHITE HOUSE IN 2008. You have some decisions to make. Now what would you do? How would you vote?
     
  13. HazelGod

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    Messages:
    7,531
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    9
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Other Side of the Pillow
    I'd appreciate your fixing your post above and removing all that blather that's currently presented as being quoted from me, when it most assuredly IS NOT. My input ends with the words United States. Where you got the rest of that shit, I have no idea.

    My only input on such hypotheticals has been dismissive...you can't alter the rules of the system in the midst of the selection process. I'm sorry if you feel the DEM delegate selection process of apportioning representatives according to actual votes received to be less fair and democratic than the GOP's winner-take-all system. Personally, I believe the DEM system to be much more representative of the electorate's will.

    So, what you're saying is that we have watched you make both a Big Mac and a Whopper out of pure bullshit, but you're telling us they're made of beef. Now we're only allowed to say whether we'd prefer the taste of the Whopper or the Big Mac...we aren't allowed to discuss the fact that both choices are built on bullshit. We're just supposed to pretend that they're actually ground beef. Nice.



    First you anticipated a detailed deconstruction from me, and now failing to see that, you've decided I'm not qualified to participate at all? Because I can't fulfill your requirement in your little hypothetical exercise? Pretty fucking childish, man. Wouldn't it be a nice place for the Hillary Clintons among us if those who didn't share our narrowly warped view of the world were so easily silenced? Don't count on it, Jack.

    You've got every right to start this little charade of suppositions, and I've got every right to point out why its premise is flawed and the entire exercise ultimately meaningless. Particularly because what the boneheads who write for Salon didn't take into account is that most Clinton supporters are like you, Freddie...when she loses the nomination, they'll back Obama because he's the party horse. So all those "big, traditionally DEM" states that they tally up in her column for the nomination? They go DEM in November no matter who's on the ticket. They also don't take into consideration just how many people who voted for HRC in the primary have become so utterly disgusted with her revelations and behavior in the ensuing months that they'd sacrifice a pound of flesh to rescind their support.

    The point being, there are far too many factors to be accounted for in presupposing the will of so many. No matter how you try it, the result is the same: mental masturbation.




    Since we're in imaginationland, guess what? That's right! I AM IN FACT A SUPERDELEGATE AT THE DNC IN 2008!

    I cast my vote for Barack Obama, and I do my level best to encourage my fellow superdelegates to do the same.
     
  14. D_Kaye Throttlebottom

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2008
    Messages:
    1,543
    Likes Received:
    0
    Fred: I don't see any mention of "SUPER-SUPER Delegates" you know the whole monkey wrench that some Superdelegates can appoint 4 other superdelegates under them, where there is no presumptive nominee before the convention. Those "Super-superdelegates come from states that have a higher population."
     
  15. simcha

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2007
    Messages:
    2,242
    Likes Received:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Over The Rainbow
    Super Delegates seem undemocratic to me. It smacks of the old days when the Democratic Party made deals in smokey back rooms. It's nepotism at its finest.

    And, the analysis is bunk in all respects none of the major polling organizations have been able to be at all accurate in trying to predict this race. Who knows what will happen once the Democratic nominee is named? John McCain might find himself very far behind by that point no matter who wins on the Democratic side just because of the resentment in the country against a Republican President...
     
  16. B_Nick4444

    B_Nick4444 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2007
    Messages:
    7,002
    Likes Received:
    12
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX
    Could I get an elaboration of this?

    You've always seemed like an intelligent, careful & balanced thinker, so this surprises me a bit.
     
  17. HazelGod

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    Messages:
    7,531
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    9
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Other Side of the Pillow
    I think you mean oligarchy, as the term you used denotes the practice of hiring or favoring family members.

    In any case, I actually favor the superdelegate practice as a counterbalance to what Mills called the "tyranny of the majority." In a more direct fashion, I prefer the caucus to the primary election, though I think my own state probably has the most workable idea with its hybrid system. Here, everyone has a vote in the open primary, but those who truly care about the processes enough to educate themselves and participate in the system of caucuses have a greater weight lent to their voice. As it should be...if you're comfortable enough in your knowledge and conviction to attend a parliamentary meeting with your neighbors to discuss and vote on the issues, then your opinion should carry more weight than Bobbi Sue Bonbon who just showed up and pushed a button labeled for a party.

    The caucus system is also open to participation by all...while the events are certainly put on by the DEM party, the delegation itself can include anyone who voted for a party candidate in the primary...plus there are at-large delegates who don't even have to meet that requisite.

    I'm all in favor of carrying out the will of the people, but everything requires a check and balance...because if slavery taught us nothing else, it's that the majority of people agreeing with your position doesn't necessarily make it right.
     
  18. D_Kaye Throttlebottom

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2008
    Messages:
    1,543
    Likes Received:
    0
    remind me to punch you in the face, if Hillary tries to use that line of reasoning that her quest for power does not require "majority of state votes, pledge delegates and the popular vote" because like slavery, just because the majority of voters think it Obama is their nominee, doesn't make it right.
     
  19. HazelGod

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    Messages:
    7,531
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    9
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Other Side of the Pillow
    Only if you promise to take a shot in your face afterward... :biggrin1:
     
  20. TinyPrincess

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2008
    Messages:
    7,181
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    2,471
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    London (GB)
    LOL, worth a try!!! At least you wouldn't need to be starting a new war every four years then...
     
Draft saved Draft deleted