JESUS! JUST IGNORE TJ AND TEXX ALREADY. by replying all you do is make it worse. just stop already. No, I'm serious. Please stop.
If you cannot refute my posts, then you attempt to stifle and limit my speech. Sounds a lot like the Obama supporters' efforts to make Clinton quit
Here is Hillary decimating Obama. Tell me Obama supporters, why is Obama trying to not allow democratic voters in Michigan and Florida to have their votes be counted? Why is he stripping that right from them? Think about that before you cast your votes, delegates and superdelegates. <object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/kOhto-wLzVw&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/kOhto-wLzVw&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
I just want D&D to be D&D, not "relentless whoring by inarticulate swindlers who make no attempt to even read about that which they post". I mean good grief. It's turning the D&D into a debate with O'Reilly. Everyone with a clue or an opinion gets cutoff or shouted over and the subject is neverendingly turned into a game of "who can refute me easily for the 100,000th time?" Yuck. The worst part? They get quoted all the bloody time, making my ignore lists considerably less useful.
As FB has stated on many occations, it would be helpful if you paid attention. Those states were told that their delegates would not count if they violated Dem rules and moved thier primaries. Both campaigs signed off on the rules and agreed to abide by the changes. Obama is playing by the rules and it is Clinton that is trying to chage them after the fact.
She's also been saying that pledged delegates can switch their vote too. While it's obviously within the rules, it's underhanded and rotten to keep trying to convince these delegates to throw the will of the people out like that.
Again, with new information (how close the race is), it's not an unreasonable thing to do to revisit a decision. Recent polls show McCain doing better vs Obama than vs Clinton....something the liberals might consider http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html
Not if new information has surfaced since the vote was held. The Wright mess happened after most states voted, and would have changed many people's votes, as evidenced by polling done right after the Wright incident
Doesn't matter about your new information. The rules were set and both campaigns agreed to them. You don't change the rules in the middle of the game.
or at least not when they don't benefit your candidate? The fact that the race is so close was not anticipated beforehand. Would it not be a shame for the voters of Michigan and Florida to have no say in the democratic primary?
I'm sure Hillary appreciates your concern! The only reason you care about this is because you know that McCain will be trounced by Obama and the only sliiver of a chance for McCain is if Hillary is the nominee. next
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html Looks like Obama would get trounced by McCain, according to recent polling
or not, according to the newest WSJ/NBC poll: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-03/27/content_7871481.htm Meanwhile, in hypothetical match-ups for November's general election, Obama still edges Republican presumptive nominee Sen. John McCain of Arizona by 44 to 42 percent.
Yep that poll was included in my link. Much smaller sample size than the Rasmussen report that was just released
When five polls show a consistent result, and you have one outlier -- especially one with a checkered history like Rasmussen -- my money is on the five polls that are very similar.
