Hillary beats Obama in 3 out of 4 States today

U R A Crazy Breed

Nevermind wrote:

Hillary/Obama. Cant help but laugh at the poeple who thought Obama was going to be president.

i can't help but laugh at the people who think this whole charade ISN'T totally controlled and the "winner" hasn't already been chosen.

(laughter soon followed by crying,sorrow,disgust and heartache)


all major candidates are sacks of shit,Republican & Democrat.

America you've been sold down the river!!!!!!!

FinsburyParkCarrots

I always thought Hillary would win these states. It's still not enough, though. She won't get Wyoming and she won't get Mississippi, and she can no longer rely on the superdelegates. I think Obama will get the nomination, but when Hillary does bow out, she'll have gained grudging respect from her adversaries, for staying in the race so tenaciously until the end and in spite of all forecasts of imminent doom.

FinsburyParkCarrots

Hollyweird wrote:

At least he is passionate about his beliefs.........

"The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity." - WB Yeats, from "The Second Coming"

whitepants

Hillary is going all the way with this! she has outright WON Texas and most importantly, OHIO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The DNC needs to sort out the shit storm mess of Florida and Michigan's delegates because she won those states too.

She will surely fight for every delegate and she has the states of: CA, TX, FL, MI, NY, OH, etc, on her side.

ONLY future Presidents win those states folks!!! You can't deny that.

The Superdelegates who have been threaten by their contigency to vote for Obama, will see the light and fall back on Hillary's side. She's the Democrats best person to beat McCain, and the republicans know this.

Anon

Hollyweird wrote:

At least he is passionate about his beliefs.........

this was passionate too....
and it was only a couple of weeks ago....

Im still here wrote:

Clinton, to be honest, I don't know that much about.
and
That brings us to Obama. I don't like the man but out of the evil I see it seems to me he is the lesser of all the evils.

http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272676

FinsburyParkCarrots

I can't help but notice, that the Clinton supporters get up earlier than the Obama supporters. Or is that just an illusion created by time zones across America? Are the Clinton supporters go-getting early risers, the Obama supporters not too fussed about punctuality, and the Nader slackers finally surfacing at about four in the afternoon?

Anon

FinsburyParkCarrots wrote:

I can't help but notice, that the Clinton supporters get up earlier than the Obama supporters. Or is that just an illusion created by time zones across America? Are the Clinton supporters go-getting early risers, the Obama supporters not too fussed about punctuality, and the Nader slackers finally surfacing at about four in the afternoon?

You could be right there but i think it's more likely that a couple of them are banned users from the past and they are still working through their 85 user names , signing in and out, and replying, then answering themselves, then replying again. That would get very tedious and time consuming!

At least that's my theory!

inmytree

well...good for her...

if she gets the nod...I'm voting for McCain...

Pegasus

FinsburyParkCarrots wrote:

I always thought Hillary would win these states. It's still not enough, though. She won't get Wyoming and she won't get Mississippi, and she can no longer rely on the superdelegates. I think Obama will get the nomination, but when Hillary does bow out, she'll have gained grudging respect from her adversaries, for staying in the race so tenaciously until the end and in spite of all forecasts of imminent doom.

what she will have accomplished is doing a good lot of McCain's job for him.. the longer this goes on, attacking each other instead of the guy they'll end up facing, and the better it's for him.

I'm not voting of course, but if I was and it came down to Clinton vs McCain, then I'd vote Nader!
not that have have any illusion about Obama being perfect, he's a politician, we're very cynical about that breed over here, but he's REPRESENTING change and he'll have to make at least some to survive.

Hillary is just power-hungry. Don't believe for a second she's got anyone's interest at heart but her own.
Hell, I trust McCain more than her! (but I don't trust the rest of the republicans so wouldn't vote for him)

g under p

It's Never Over Till It's Over.....

Peace

ledvedderman

Yeah, Obama loses three states that he was down 20 points to a couple of weeks ago. Big deal. The fact that he made a race out of Texas, which should have easily been Clinton's, shows that this thing is far from over.

mca47

Yeah, too bad she's still losing and has to pull off over 60% off all the states left to TIE him.

my2hands

Im still here wrote:

(neck and neck, and no I don't mean Chicken Neck either Obama)

i knew it...

you're a racist...

i knew you were not the sharpest knife in the drawer when i saw you rant on about "ferricon" for 3 days like a fool... and i assumed from your undertones that you were a racist idiot... and now i know for sure...

good luck with that

anotherclone

whitepants wrote:

Hillary is going all the way with this! she has outright WON Texas and most importantly, OHIO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Please to be defining your use of the word "outright".

3% more of the votes does not mean "outright". To me that is squeeking by.

Early results of the caucus in Texas has him ahead by 5%. I believe there are somewhere in the neighborhood of 70 delegates to be divvied-up after the caucus results are tabulated.

If anything, I'd say its pretty much going to be a "draw".

Yes, I am an Obama supporter. But I am not anti-Hillary either.

Ohio was a big win for Hillary, no doubt.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

The system screwed Ron Paul.
Now it's about to fuck Obama in the face.

lol...f-cking hilarious...

ledvedderman

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

lol...f-cking hilarious...

When all else fails, blame the system---not the fact that < 10% of the voters showed up to support your guy. Just because I'm curious and would like to see Dr. Paul stay in Congress, how did he do last night?

RolandTD20Kdrummer

ledvedderman wrote:

When all else fails, blame the system---not the fact that < 10% of the voters showed up to support your guy. Just because I'm curious and would like to see Dr. Paul stay in Congress, how did he do last night?

I don't blame the system I blame the invisibles behind the system. The guys with all the money nobody knows about.

If Obama is in fact Ron Paul lite (except for the copious spending part), then you can practically bet Hillary or McCain is going to face mount Obama at some point...the media will screw and convert people minds and fudge the numbers if necessary. Diebold is actually looking at being bought out by United Technologies right now prior to the 08 election....nice eh?

In any event the electoral system is, by and large, corrupt how can it not be blamed to a certain degree as well?

DriftingByTheStorm

ledvedderman wrote:

When all else fails, blame the system---not the fact that < 10% of the voters showed up to support your guy. Just because I'm curious and would like to see Dr. Paul stay in Congress, how did he do last night?

You mean for a guy that has had ZERO press in two months?

HE got a huge 10% of the vote roughly, all though i have stopped following it, admittedly.

He also came in second in 3 or 4 states, and the reality was he WON Washinton and Louisiana and there was outright fraud in one and blanket media denial in the other to deprive him of even those victories.

If you really think there wasn't some fucked up manipulation to keep Ron Paul out of the sphere of influence you are delusional.

When you have one debate that is 1 hour long with 5 candidates and Ron Paul gets 7 minutes to speak, and then the next debate is an hour and a half long with only 4 candidates and he gets even LESS time ... i don't see how you can argue that there isn't fucking manipulation.

Please.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

spacekaddette wrote:

Hillary all the way!

your name precedes you...thoroughly.

ledvedderman

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

You mean for a guy that has had ZERO press in two months?

HE got a huge 10% of the vote roughly, all though i have stopped following it, admittedly.

He also came in second in 3 or 4 states, and the reality was he WON Washinton and Louisiana and there was outright fraud in one and blanket media denial in the other to deprive him of even those victories.

If you really think there wasn't some fucked up manipulation to keep Ron Paul out of the sphere of influence you are delusional.

When you have one debate that is 1 hour long with 5 candidates and Ron Paul gets 7 minutes to speak, and then the next debate is an hour and a half long with only 4 candidates and he gets even LESS time ... i don't see how you can argue that there isn't fucking manipulation.

Please.

I really do think that there was no vast conspiracy to hold Ron Paul down. Why? He didn't stand a chance. Not because of the media, but because he is not going to win the Republican nomination with the stances that he has. He would have had much better luck running as a Libertarian in the general, but he didn't want to lose his primary in his congressional district.