[kuanteen]

The Clintons are just slimy, greasy politicians, in my view.

Obama will definitely change things, whether for better or worse, I don't know. But if I could vote, I'd be voting for that risk of change.

BTW, I hate it when someone votes for Hillary just to be a good feminist. I thought feminism was about the equality of the sexes, and not women are better at everything, men suck, let's choose women for everything regardless of whether they are actually trustworthy or not. Girl power! Go Hillary!

[Ivor Ballokov]

Originally Posted by kuanteen

The Clintons are just slimy, greasy politicians, in my view.

Obama will definitely change things, whether for better or worse, I don't know. But if I could vote, I'd be voting for that risk of change.

BTW, I hate it when someone votes for Hillary just to be a good feminist. I thought feminism was about the equality of the sexes, and not women are better at everything, men suck, let's choose women for everything regardless of whether they are actually trustworthy or not. Girl power! Go Hillary!

Indeed, people basing their voting on sex is wrong, they should base it on personality instead like you do

[FresnoBob]

My wife is again excited about the election, now that H. Rodham-Clinton has picked up a little bit of ground in Pennsylvania. In the absence of money, however, those gains might be short-lived. I suspect the primary in North Carolina will depress her once again. Still, she is going to vote for whoever wins the Democratic nomination, as I and our oldest son will be voting against the same.

[Nistelrooy10]

Originally Posted by FresnoBob

My wife is again excited about the election, now that H. Rodham-Clinton has picked up a little bit of ground in Pennsylvania. In the absence of money, however, those gains might be short-lived. I suspect the primary in North Carolina will depress her once again. Still, she is going to vote for whoever wins the Democratic nomination, as I and our oldest son will be voting against the same.

You and your wife should just stay at home since you cancel each other out. Let the son vote

[Red Dreams]

Originally Posted by FresnoBob

My wife is again excited about the election, now that H. Rodham-Clinton has picked up a little bit of ground in Pennsylvania. In the absence of money, however, those gains might be short-lived. I suspect the primary in North Carolina will depress her once again. Still, she is going to vote for whoever wins the Democratic nomination, as I and our oldest son will be voting against the same.

she will be voting for Obama in November...no worries...pity you and your son will be overiding her vote

[FresnoBob]

Originally Posted by Nistelrooy10

You and your wife should just stay at home since you cancel each other out. Let the son vote

There are also state, county, city, and local issues on the ballot--so I have an obligation to save the rest of the voters from their bad judgment.

[Red Dreams]

[kuanteen]

Originally Posted by Ivor Ballokov

Indeed, people basing their voting on sex is wrong, they should base it on personality instead like you do

Nah, I realize people vote for candidates based on a million reasons, many of which are illogical.

But the thing I hate is when you say you'll vote for Hillary just to be a feminist. Just because I can hate feminism sometimes if it goes over and beyond equality. Its like female chauvinism.

[jasonrh]

Originally Posted by FresnoBob

There are also state, county, city, and local issues on the ballot--so I have an obligation to save the rest of the voters from their bad judgment.

Just tell your wife that you're not voting and get her not to.

Then nip down to the polls and cheat on her with an 800 year old man.

[Plechazunga]

Originally Posted by kuanteen

Nah, I realize people vote for candidates based on a million reasons, many of which are illogical.

But the thing I hate is when you say you'll vote for Hillary just to be a feminist. Just because I can hate feminism sometimes if it goes over and beyond equality. Its like female chauvinism.

There's never been a female president. It's a wrong that needs righting. The president doesn't govern the country alone - he or, theoretically, she is the head of an administration. So if there's a candidate who's capable and highly intelligent, like Hillary, and you generally trust the other members of the administration, it's not unreasonable to vote for the candidate because she's a woman.

Fresno, stop voting Republican. After the last two terms, how can you even think about it?

[FresnoBob]

Originally Posted by Plechazunga

There's never been a female president. It's a wrong that needs righting. The president doesn't govern the country alone - he or, theoretically, she is the head of an administration. So if there's a candidate who's capable and highly intelligent, like Hillary, and you generally trust the other members of the administration, it's not unreasonable to vote for the candidate because she's a woman.

Fresno, stop voting Republican. After the last two terms, how can you even think about it?

Gender has nothing to do with the election, or at least my vote in it. I've voted for females for Governor, the US Senate, state offices, district attorney, judge, sheriff, and a host of lesser offices. I also rarely, if ever, vote a straight party ticket and often disagree with the official party line on the numerous other issues that surface on the California (and previously, Alaska) ballot.
I have my own opinions about whether my fellow attorney Hillary Rodham Clinton is "capable" or "highly intelligent" but, most importantly, whether I want her in the position she currently seeks. The mere fact that there has never been a female president doesn't mean she should be the first.
There has never been a male African American president either, and that voting block received the vote before women in this country. Failure to make Jessie Jackson the first (when he ran back in 1988) doesn't mean many of us wouldn't vote for a qualified candidate. In fact, among (white--I wax redundant) Republican males back in 2000, General Colin Powell was more popular than Dubya.

[Cal?]

Originally Posted by kuanteen

The Clintons are just slimy, greasy politicians, in my view.

Obama will definitely change things, whether for better or worse, I don't know. But if I could vote, I'd be voting for that risk of change.

BTW, I hate it when someone votes for Hillary just to be a good feminist. I thought feminism was about the equality of the sexes, and not women are better at everything, men suck, let's choose women for everything regardless of whether they are actually trustworthy or not. Girl power! Go Hillary!

and all of the African Americans voting for Obama are based entirely of his policies and not his skin color?

[Cal?]

Originally Posted by Red Dreams

she will be voting for Obama in November...no worries...pity you and your son will be overiding her vote

We'll see about that... Obama just doesn't seem able to close the deal.

He spent records sums in the last few weeks yet came a distant 2nd, if ever anyone is going to choke, it looks like being him.

[kuanteen]

Originally Posted by Cal?

and all of the African Americans voting for Obama are based entirely of his policies and not his skin color?

Read my reply to a similar question.

Originally Posted by Plechazunga

There's never been a female president. It's a wrong that needs righting. The president doesn't govern the country alone - he or, theoretically, she is the head of an administration. So if there's a candidate who's capable and highly intelligent, like Hillary, and you generally trust the other members of the administration, it's not unreasonable to vote for the candidate because she's a woman.

I still don't think she's the best choice. But what I definitely dislike are militant feminists who go above and beyond just "equality". Not that equality is possible anyways, since there still physical differences between men and women. In sport, for instance.

[ooeat0meoo]

Originally Posted by Cal?

and all of the African Americans voting for Obama are based entirely of his policies and not his skin color?

I would bet there are plenty more women in the USA than there are Black voters.

But to your point, the educated Black voters that understand the candidates and the history of Hillary's fiscal conservativism (more like: tendencies to take money from a corporate lobbyist and couldn't give a fuck about the voter) would not care about his skin color.

[Red Dreams]

Originally Posted by Plechazunga

There's never been a female president. It's a wrong that needs righting. The president doesn't govern the country alone - he or, theoretically, she is the head of an administration. So if there's a candidate who's capable and highly intelligent, like Hillary, and you generally trust the other members of the administration, it's not unreasonable to vote for the candidate because she's a woman.

Fresno, stop voting Republican. After the last two terms, how can you even think about it?

he wont have the choice to vote for a woman...Hillary is done. She is too corrupt and devisive.

[Red Dreams]

Originally Posted by Cal?

We'll see about that... Obama just doesn't seem able to close the deal.

He spent records sums in the last few weeks yet came a distant 2nd, if ever anyone is going to choke, it looks like being him.

you need to understand the Democratic nomination process....they will never overturn the pledged delegates.

[Nick 0208 Ldn]

But if Hillary has the popular vote to her name [which is not beyond the realms of possibility yes?] does tha not leave the super delegates in a bit of an awkward position?

Pledge delegates vs the people.

Oh and by the way, is it nailed on that Rice will be McCain's pick for the VP ticket?

[FresnoBob]

Originally Posted by Nick 0208 Ldn

But if Hillary has the popular vote to her name [which is not beyond the realms of possibility yes?] does tha not leave the super delegates in a bit of an awkward position?

Pledge delegates vs the people.

Oh and by the way, is it nailed on that Rice will be McCain's pick for the VP ticket?

Not really. The primary system is probably unique to the US, as well as somewhat bastardized by having so many states employing different methods of conducting the operation. The alleged purpose is to permit each party to decide which candidate to put forward in the general election, yet in some states there is no true "popular vote," while in some others, people not affiliated with the party are allowed to vote in the primary (often with the intent of supporting the least electible of the choices in an effort to assist the opposing party). Couple this with such set-ups as Texas where a portion of the delegates were chosen at local caucases while others were selected in the state-wide "popular vote," and you need to decide whether any given candidate spent more time and effort going after the voters, or the votes that count in the convention.
This b.s. about "the popular vote" is another rhetorical device that, in truth, should mean little or nothing. The numbers aren't really relevent when all the other factors are thrown in.

A quote from the election process some years ago: "Who cares which candidate got 25% of the 6% of the voters who bothered to show up in a state that the party won't carry in the general election anyway?"

[Cal?]

Originally Posted by FresnoBob

Not really. The primary system is probably unique to the US, as well as somewhat bastardized by having so many states employing different methods of conducting the operation. The alleged purpose is to permit each party to decide which candidate to put forward in the general election, yet in some states there is no true "popular vote," while in some others, people not affiliated with the party are allowed to vote in the primary (often with the intent of supporting the least electible of the choices in an effort to assist the opposing party). Couple this with such set-ups as Texas where a portion of the delegates were chosen at local caucases while others were selected in the state-wide "popular vote," and you need to decide whether any given candidate spent more time and effort going after the voters, or the votes that count in the convention.
This b.s. about "the popular vote" is another rhetorical device that, in truth, should mean little or nothing. The numbers aren't really relevent when all the other factors are thrown in.

A quote from the election process some years ago: "Who cares which candidate got 25% of the 6% of the voters who bothered to show up in a state that the party won't carry in the general election anyway?"

If you were so sure about the superdelegate will follow pledge delegate thing, how come everybody involved in the election aren't so fucking sure like you are? How come those superdelegate won't just come out and declare their vote and get Hillary to quit?

As for you final statement, that's probably Hillary's biggest argument, Obama wins all these pledged delegates in all those caucus state which will go to McCain come November. Hillary has been winning all the swing states and big states...

[Cali Red]

But the poll I just saw shows she's not winning the popular vote or the super delegates. Neither candidate is going anywhere.

[Wibble]

Originally Posted by FresnoBob

Not really. The primary system is probably unique to the US, as well as somewhat bastardized by having so many states employing different methods of conducting the operation. The alleged purpose is to permit each party to decide which candidate to put forward in the general election, yet in some states there is no true "popular vote," while in some others, people not affiliated with the party are allowed to vote in the primary (often with the intent of supporting the least electible of the choices in an effort to assist the opposing party). Couple this with such set-ups as Texas where a portion of the delegates were chosen at local caucases while others were selected in the state-wide "popular vote," and you need to decide whether any given candidate spent more time and effort going after the voters, or the votes that count in the convention.
This b.s. about "the popular vote" is another rhetorical device that, in truth, should mean little or nothing. The numbers aren't really relevent when all the other factors are thrown in.

A quote from the election process some years ago: "Who cares which candidate got 25% of the 6% of the voters who bothered to show up in a state that the party won't carry in the general election anyway?"

It sounds like there needs to be a serious overhall of the system. Surely if a party has candidates it is official members of that party who should decide in one way or another who is their candidate. if you want a vote then join the party if not express you like/disloke at election time. Fat less messy and inexpensive.

[ooeat0meoo]

It's amazing how the corporate fascists keep filling the positions of staffers that jump ship from the unethical campaign of Hillary.

This past week another top level fundraiser told the Hillary campaign that he is leaving because of the racist tactics used to catch up with Barak Obama.


I would bet there are other reasons having to do with corruption... but it's not the stuff making the news.


For example, Hillary gave one of her speeches from a military contractor fundraiser... CNN didn't speak a word of it, but the washington post slipped with a mention. She keeps saying she is not for war, yet she keeps taking money from the war contractors ~ and distracting everyone with her rants about crazy Preachers that, in the most vagueness of terms, knows Obama.

It's racist and classist...

Oh, and God please someone get google to remove Newt G. from the advert below.

---------------------------------------------------------

1 May, 08


Former DNC Chair Switches Endorsement To Obama



(RTTNews) - In a major defection Thursday, Hillary Clinton lost a superdelegate and Barack Obama added to his count as former Democratic National Committee Chairman Joe Andrew switched his support.

"No amount of spin or sleight of hand can deny the fact that where there has been competition, Senator Obama has won more votes, more states and more delegates than any other candidate," Andrew wrote in a letter to superdelegates. "Only the superdelegates can award the nomination to Senator Clinton, but to do so risks doing to our party in 2008 what Republicans did to our country in 2000."

The endorsement provides a much-needed boost to Obama as he comes off a loss in Pennsylvania and a resurgence of the Reverend Wright problem.

"If we win Indiana, we've got this nomination," the Illinois Senator proclaimed last night in Indianapolis.

The next set of major primaries will be on May 6 in North Carolina and Indiana. Obama is heavily favored to win North Carolina, but it is a tight race in Indiana.

Andrew, who was appointed DNC chairman by former President Bill Clinton, also commented on the length and contentious nature of the Democratic primary, which he said is bad for the Democratic Party.

"I am convinced that the primary process has devolved to the point that it's now bad for the Democratic Party," Andrew told the AP.

Clinton still leads Obama in superdelegate support, 269 to 245. However, according to the Associated Press, Obama is ahead in pledged delegates 1,488 to 1,334.
http://www.nasdaq.com/aspxcontent/Ne... 20To%20Obama
-------------------------------------------------------------

CNN is getting their panties all in a twist with Wolf Blitzer leaning into the Gov. of N. Carolina repeatedly saying, 'ARE YOU GOING TO DELIVER N. CAROLINA TO HILLARY?!'

The N. Carolina Gov. looked at the interviewer like he was maddman.

The momentum of the Barak Obama campaign is huge. The media appears to becoming unhinged at the possibility that Obama might defy the tidal waves of propaganda that they spew day and night.

[Giggsy PO]

So Hillary would wipe out iran. Nice.

[ooeat0meoo]

Originally Posted by Giggsy PO

So Hillary would wipe out iran. Nice.

I believe the odds-makers might put like this...

Odds are that this person will either initiate or support a massive attack on Iran;


McCain 95%

Hillary 85%

Obama 35%


Depending on how Ahmedinajad plays his cards. The American Neo-Cons are saying that Obama is too soft for the times. But the American public is clearly stating that the Neo-Cons have gotten us into enough shit with their trigger-happy bullshit.

Hey - Raoul, ^ sound about right?!

[Frosty]

Hillary Clinton failed to close the gap on Barack Obama in their marathon race for the Democratic nomination early today in the last two big primaries, Indiana and North Carolina.

Clinton needed to win big in both states to stand a chance of reining him in.

CNN and other television stations, based on exit polls, made Obama the clear winner in North Carolina. Exit polls were too close to call in Indiana, though the Clinton team expressed confidence that she would take it.

With only six primaries left, Obama remains the favourite to win the Democratic nomination and face the Republican John McCain in November's general election.

With 23% of the vote counted in Indiana, Clinton had 145,596 of the votes and Obama 110,265.

The two primaries came after Obama had been on the back-foot for the last two months.