Edwards gonna drop out...

[oldandslow]

No link...just an insider who I know pretty well.

This will really help Obama.

[memyselfI]

No link...just an insider who I know pretty well.

This will really help Obama.

I don't think so. Unless he endorses him.

[banyon]

I don't think so. Unless he endorses him.

You're wrong.

[Mr. Kotter]

I think it could help--hopefully, anyway. :thumb:

But...if SC is any indicator, many of Edward's supporters were/are redneck good ole boy types, who couldn't get themselves to vote for a woman or an African American.

If McCain wins on the Republican side, those boys won't be voting for a skirt come November. :hmmm:

[Mr. Kotter]

You're wrong.

Eh, she thinks Hillary will get at least half of those votes....which makes sense, unless you break down the demographics of typical Edwards supporters. Duhnise probably thinks she's typical of an Edwards supporter. She's not. Her mistake is understandable.

[penchief]

I don't think so. Unless he endorses him.

I think you're wrong about that. Hillary doesn't have anything to offer Edwards supporters, IMO. She's the corporate candidate in the democratic party and his whole campaign was run against undue corporate influence.

I could be completely off base but I think Edwards suppporters would flock to Obama.

[oldandslow]

I don't think so. Unless he endorses him.

Most of the anti-Hillary's will float to the Obama camp. Bet it breaks 2-1 Obama.

[Mr. Kotter]

Most of the anti-Hillary's will float to the Obama camp. Bet it breaks 2-1 Obama.

Yup. Isn't Hannity running some "Stop Hillary Express" gimmick or something?

Funny that Ted Kennedy and John Edwards may be the way it happens....heh. :LOL:

[HonestChieffan]

Its all about the backroom deal. Who offered Edwards the best deal gets his support. DemoSleze at its finest.

[banyon]

Its all about the backroom deal. Who offered Edwards the best deal gets his support. DemoSleze at its finest.


It's not really up to Edwards where his supporters go.

[memyselfI]

Most of the anti-Hillary's will float to the Obama camp. Bet it breaks 2-1 Obama.

I guess we'll see. His poverty and universal health care message leads me to believe that many voters will go to Clinton vs. Obama. I'll wait and see who he endorses but I'm leaning Clinton now. If his name is still on the ballot on Tuesday I'll vote for him though.

I just hope Elizabeth is ok.

[Mr. Kotter]

It's not really up to Edwards where his supporters go.

An endorsement from him would carry considerable weight with many of them though. Unless you are an older skirt...

[oldandslow]

Its all about the backroom deal. Who offered Edwards the best deal gets his support. DemoSleze at its finest.

Oh, and there was no McCain/Rudy backroom deal...

right.

[memyselfI]

This article echoes my thinking. Also interesting that he called Hillary. I wonder if he called Obama.

Personally, since Kerry is in Obama's camp I have a hard time believing Edwards would go there.


*****************

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hoAvkYTooNMqpzn8fF_3B76ko8eAD8UG9L300

The former North Carolina senator will not immediately endorse either candidate in what is now a two-person race for the Democratic nomination, said one adviser, who spoke on condition of anonymity in advance of the announcement. Clinton said Edwards called her Wednesday night to inform her about his decision.

Four in 10 Edwards supporters said their second choice in the race is Clinton, while a quarter prefer Obama, according to an Associated Press-Yahoo poll conducted late this month. Both Clinton and Obama would welcome Edwards' backing and the support of the 56 delegates he had collected.

Edwards waged a spirited top-tier campaign against the two better-funded rivals, even as he dealt with the stunning blow of his wife's recurring cancer diagnosis. In a dramatic news conference last March, the couple announced that the breast cancer that she thought she had beaten had returned, but they would continue the campaign.

[jAZ]

100% he will endorse Obama... here's why.

Aside from the obvious "change candidate" role they both play opposite Clinton the main reason is this...

Edwards is effectively dropping out as a result of his 3rd place finish in SC. That was on Saturday.

He waited until the day after FL to annouce it. Why?

In order to stomp all over the Hillary's post-FL "victory" free-media spin.

Now Edwards is the story when Hillary really wanted it to be her victory.

[Cochise]

I think that if Edwards' folks felt good about Obama they would already be in Obama's camp.

Only question is, did he do a good enough just sucking up to one of them to get back on the ticket?

[tiptap]

100% he will endorse Obama... here's why.

Aside from the obvious "change candidate" role they both play opposite Clinton the main reason is this...

Edwards is effectively dropping out as a result of his 3rd place finish in SC. That was on Saturday.

He waited until the day after FL to annouce it. Why?

In order to stomp all over the Hillary's post-FL "victory" free-media spin.

Now Edwards is the story when Hillary really wanted it to be her victory.

It doesn't matter for me who Edwards endorses at this point. My wife and I were going to vote for Edwards but we had begun to look at more detail into Obama's and Clinton's positions as super Tuesday approaches. The result is that I will be voting for Clinton if Edwards drops out before Tuesday. I don't relish Bill being back in the White House even as first gentleman, but I find Obama's position on Universal Health Care pandering to Insurance interest compared to Clinton's position (stolen from Edwards). This is the biggest difference and I realize that neither gets to write the legislation but I will vote for Clinton because of this difference in the planks.

[memyselfI]

100% he will endorse Obama... here's why.

Aside from the obvious "change candidate" role they both play opposite Clinton the main reason is this...

Edwards is effectively dropping out as a result of his 3rd place finish in SC. That was on Saturday.

He waited until the day after FL to annouce it. Why?

In order to stomp all over the Hillary's post-FL "victory" free-media spin.

Now Edwards is the story when Hillary really wanted it to be her victory.

Edwards did it today because it's the day before the next debate and he shares the quitter spotlight with Rudy thus diminishing the sting a bit. NOT to rain on Hillary's parade.

Every recent poll report I've read since the news broke indicates that Hillary was most Edward's supporters second choice. That could change now but as of this minute it would appear Edwards supporters lean Hillary.

[memyselfI]

It doesn't matter for me who Edwards endorses at this point. My wife and I were going to vote for Edwards but we had begun to look at more detail into Obama's and Clinton's positions as super Tuesday approaches. The result is that I will be voting for Clinton if Edwards drops out before Tuesday. I don't relish Bill being back in the White House even as first gentleman, but I find Obama's position on Universal Health Care pandering to Insurance interest compared to Clinton's position (stolen from Edwards). This is the biggest difference and I realize that neither gets to write the legislation but I will vote for Clinton because of this difference in the planks.

Bravo. I'm sure I'll more of this as I talk to other Edwards supporters.

[memyselfI]

Interesting tidbit from the NY Times:


Since the New Hampshire primary, Mrs. Clinton has reached out to Mr. Edwards aggressively, through telephone calls and private meetings. Mr. Obama has spent far less time courting Mr. Edwards, according to people familiar with the talks.

[Mr. Kotter]

Interesting tidbit from the NY Times:


Since the New Hampshire primary, Mrs. Clinton has reached out to Mr. Edwards aggressively, through telephone calls and private meetings. Mr. Obama has spent far less time courting Mr. Edwards, according to people familiar with the talks.

So, Hillary is a manipulative and insincere suck-up? :shrug:

Tell us something we didn't already know, will ya?

[HolmeZz]

My grandmother has also gone from Edwards to Clinton, though in her case it was more about race than anything else.

[HolmeZz]

Interesting tidbit from the NY Times:


Since the New Hampshire primary, Mrs. Clinton has reached out to Mr. Edwards aggressively, through telephone calls and private meetings. Mr. Obama has spent far less time courting Mr. Edwards, according to people familiar with the talks.

Edwards would essentially be selling-out his whole cause if he backs Hillary. He's gone on and on about having to fight the status quo.

[patteeu]

It's not really up to Edwards where his supporters go.

You'll go where he tells you to go and like it!

[Mr. Kotter]

Edwards would essentially be selling-out his whole cause if he backs Hillary. He's gone on and on about having to fight the status quo.

Exactly. Anyone who expects "change" from a third term for the Clintons, isn't paying attention at all.

[Cochise]

My grandmother has also gone from Edwards to Clinton, though in her case it was more about race than anything else.

I think most Edwards types are ultimately going to be Clinton supporters. Maybe they couldn't get over the "ew" factor at first, but they will fall into line.

[RJ]

My wife and I were both going to vote for Edwards next Tuesday. Now I'd say we both lean towards Obama but it's not etched in stone.

I would number myself among the "change" voters and Hilary does not represent that in my view.

[Saggysack]

Color me from Edwards supporter to Obama supporter.

If Hillary gets the nomination, color me a McCain supporter.

[memyselfI]

From Newsweek:

As for his endorsement plans, they remain unclear. His representatives had been reaching out to Obama's high command for weeks, but I am told that they rebuffed him. A top aide to Edwards cautioned not to assume that Edwards would endorse Obama. "He's gained a lot of respect for Hillary, for her toughness in all that she has been through." That could just be a negotiating ploy on Edwards's part. We'll see.

[memyselfI]

Regardless of who he endorses if you are a Democrat you should support the nominee. That is what wins elections.

[HolmeZz]

Regardless of who he endorses if you are a Democrat you should support the nominee. That is what wins elections.

There's no reason to reward the Democratic Party for their stupidity.

[Saggysack]

I'm sad we had 2 of the Bush family but...1 Bush was enough, 1 Clinton was enough. This country needs to learn to move the **** on from these 2 families, fast.

[tiptap]

But we could the Republicans for 8 years. Sure more of the same from the Republicans will be beneficial.

[Archie Bunker]

There's no reason to reward the Democratic Party for their stupidity.

QFT

If its Clinton I'll be voting Republican.

[Ultra Peanut]

**** **** **** **** ****.

The only reason Edwards dropping out now makes any sense, to anyone, is if the Clintons offered him a deal too good to refuse.

[memyselfI]

There's no reason to reward the Democratic Party for their stupidity.

Remember when we had the luxury of such superficial thought in 2000? Punish the Dems and fugg the Clintons...

Look at how that toddler type of thinking turned out. Dems need to support the candidate or they will end up with 4-8 more years of CONS in power.

I am not crazy about either Hillary or Obama but neither of them scare me like McCain and Romney, more civil liberties lost, or the prospect of more CON SC justices.

[Ultra Peanut]

I find Obama's position on Universal Health Care pandering to Insurance interest compared to Clinton's position (stolen from Edwards).AAAAARGGGGGGHHHHHHHH

Do you want us to ever get closer to single-payer UHC, or do you want to just keep throwing something up there that half the country considers completely unpalatable and getting it shot down before it can get started?

But yeah, if there's one thing we can trust Hillary on, it's health care.

[HolmeZz]

Remember when we had the luxury of such superficial thought in 2000? Punish the Dems and fugg the Clintons...

Look at how that toddler type of thinking turned out. Dems need to support the candidate or they will end up with 4-8 more years of CONS in power.

I am not crazy about either Hillary or Obama but neither of them scare me like McCain and Romney, more civil liberties lost, or the prospect of more CON SC justices.

The Democrats have an easy choice to make and ultimately have their general election fate riding on the decision. If they can't even do that right, they deserve to get crushed in the Fall.

[memyselfI]

The Democrats have an easy choice to make and ultimately have their general election fate riding on the decision. If they can't even do that right, they deserve to get crushed in the Fall.

Agreed, if the Democrats are full of spineless hatahs that cannot support policy and principle over personality then they deserve to lose. And they deserve to live in a country that is headed in the wrong direction another 4-8 years.

[Ultra Peanut]

Agreed, if the Democrats are full of spineless hatahs that cannot support policy and principle over personality then they deserve to lose. And they deserve to live in a country that is headed in the wrong direction another 4-8 years.Obama's an empty suit, and Hillary's the principle candidate?

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

[HolmeZz]

I'm not a Democrat, but the rest of your point still stands.

[memyselfI]

Obama's an empty suit, and Hillary's the principle candidate?

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

No, I'm saying no matter who is the nominee.

I'm talking voting McCain over Hillary if she's the nominee. If you are a Mr. Kotter 'Democrat.'

[memyselfI]

My wife and I were both going to vote for Edwards next Tuesday. Now I'd say we both lean towards Obama but it's not etched in stone.

I would number myself among the "change" voters and Hilary does not represent that in my view.

I'm not sure when changing from CON to a Dem stopped being considered a change. Any candidate from the Dem party who isn't voting the CON platform will be considered a 'change' candidate.

[tiptap]

AAAAARGGGGGGHHHHHHHH

Do you want us to ever get closer to single-payer UHC, or do you want to just keep throwing something up there that half the country considers completely unpalatable and getting it shot down before it can get started?

But yeah, if there's one thing we can trust Hillary on, it's health care.

The next President will have a filibuster proof Senate so the strength of the beginning of the discussion on Universal Health care will go a long way to setting agenda. It will not be whether there is Universal Health Care but how effective it will be or how diluted money concerns of the Insurance industry foil getting a good product. One like what Congressman and Senators now get for all.

[Mr. Kotter]

The next President will have a filibuster proof Senate...

:spock:

That is, at best, premature....and probably wishful thinking.

[RJ]

I'm not sure when changing from CON to a Dem stopped being considered a change. Any candidate from the Dem party who isn't voting the CON platform will be considered a 'change' candidate.


Four years of Bush followed by eight years of Clinton followed by eight years of Bush. No, I don't consider Hilary Clinton much of a change.

[dirk digler]

As an Obama supporter there is no way in hell I will support Clinton if she gets the nomination. I will vote McCain or 3rd party

[memyselfI]

Four years of Bush followed by eight years of Clinton followed by eight years of Bush. No, I don't consider Hilary Clinton much of a change.

She's not a Republican. She will support Democratic principles unlike any CON. That is change from what we have now. Perhaps not the change YOU seek but it is a change from the disaster we've lived through the past 8 years.

Same with Obama. He will support Democratic principles and apparently appease alot of people who find their disdain of a person more important than the direction of the country.

I'm trusting the people who feel this way are not loyal Democrats but independents or people who've voted Democratic in the past. I think most party loyalists will do what is best for the party and the country and support the nominee even if it's not who we wished it were.

I know I'll be doing that for Obama if he get's it. I won't be thrilled about it but I know he's the less evil than any Republican. So too is Hillary if you are over 13 years old and know how to deal with your emotions.

[HonestChieffan]

Obama and Hillary represent so much that is wrong with the democrats that moderate dems will flee the party before they would vote for either.

[noa]

As an Obama supporter there is no way in hell I will support Clinton if she gets the nomination. I will vote McCain or 3rd party


I know a lot of people who feel the same way. Have to cast a protest vote to punish the Dems for putting her up instead of Obama.

[BucEyedPea]

I know a lot of people who feel the same way. Have to cast a protest vote to punish the Dems for putting her up instead of Obama.

Join the club. Only I will be doing it because of McCain.

[memyselfI]

I know a lot of people who feel the same way. Have to cast a protest vote to punish the Dems for putting her up instead of Obama.

Well it's a damn good thing that some of the American electorate has evolved past Junior High STUCO. :rolleyes:

[HolmeZz]

Well it's a damn good thing that some of the American electorate has evolved past Junior High STUCO. :rolleyes:

Yeah, why don't they blindly vote for the Party they feel just betrayed them?

[HolmeZz]

Obama and Hillary represent so much that is wrong with the democrats that moderate dems will flee the party before they would vote for either.

I haven't heard anybody say they'd leave or vote against the Democratic party if Obama is elected.

[noa]

I haven't heard anybody say they'd leave or vote against the Democratic party if Obama is elected.

Me neither. Not sure why he is so repellent to Dems in Honestchieffan's mind.

[Mr. Kotter]

Well it's a damn good thing that some of the American electorate has evolved past Junior High STUCO. :rolleyes:


Too few to save the witch from going down. :)

[patteeu]

I understand that Lew Rockwell has said that if Ron Paul drops out of the race, Lew's going to vote for anyone but the black guy, the mormon, or the guy who wears dresses.

[penchief]

I'll agree with one point. Nothing can be worse than what we have now unless it is more of the same (i.e Romney, Giuliani, Thompson), who are corporate candidates. McCain and Hillary are about the same, imo. Hillary would probably be more liberal on social issues but they are both establishment candidates, too.

I have always considered Obama lacking in substance but I'm at the point where I would rather take a chance with him than I would with either of the status quo candidates. The fact that he embraced Teddy Kennedy impressed me more than the fact that the Kennedys embraced him.

I want to be inspired again. We have been taken on such a long ride by greedy corporate interests and self-serving ideologies that someone who is capable of inspiring the people of this country to think beyond their own prejudices and bank accounts is a welcome breath of fresh air, IMO.

[Cochise]

Lew also says that Paul would be winning if they would hold these primary elections on the first of the month, while people were out collecting welfare checks.

[memyselfI]

Yeah, why don't they blindly vote for the Party they feel just betrayed them?

The party didn't betray them. The party has fielded many candidates and the voters have decided who is left standing and who will remain standing. It's juvenile to think that the party was somehow how fair and a magical place if Obama wins it and full of betrayal and evil if he doesn't.

Unless you can prove that it was a staged election or somehow rigged then if Hillary beats Obama she did it fair and square. Likewise, if Obama beats Hillary he beat her fair and square. Thus, the party has not betrayed anyone.

I swear, I feel like I'm on the ivillage.com bulletin board with all the irrational emoting going on here.

[memyselfI]

I want to be inspired again. We have been taken on such a long ride by greedy corporate interests and self-serving ideologies that someone who is capable of inspiring the people of this country to think beyond their own prejudices and bank accounts is a welcome breath of fresh air, IMO.

You have presented yourself as a loyal Democrat. Will you support the nominee regardless of who it is?

I'm not talking preferences. My preference is hammering nails in New Orleans this afternoon. Actually, my real preference is saving the environment but that is another story...

I know how the Kottercrats (fake one time/'lifelong' Democrats) are in a tizzy about how they will not support the candidate if it's not Obama but what about the hardcore Dems?

[noa]

The party didn't betray them. The party has fielded many candidates and the voters have decided who is left standing and who will remain standing. It's juvenile to think that the party was somehow how fair and a magical place if Obama wins it and full of betrayal and evil if he doesn't.

Unless you can prove that it was a staged election or somehow rigged then if Hillary beats Obama she did it fair and square. Likewise, if Obama beats Hillary he beat her fair and square. Thus, the party has not betrayed anyone.

I swear, I feel like I'm on the ivillage.com bulletin board with all the irrational emoting going on here.

The Democratic PARTY will have betrayed them, not the individuals. The party will have betrayed them because the ultimate goal, in the mind of Dem voters, is to get a Dem in the White House.

After Gore and Kerry lost, it should be abundantly clear that the safe, establishment candidate is not the way to go. And yet here the Dems are, prepared once again to nominate the safe, establishment candidate. And this in the face of a candidate who has more viability than any other Dem who has run in a long time. Obama appeals across party lines. He's not going to get that many Repub voters, but the entire election is about the middle. 40% will go Dem, 40% will go Repub, that is a given. What is up for grabs is the 20%, and if anyone out there actually thinks that Hillary Clinton has a better shot at getting that 20%, they are out of their minds. Just look at the thread about hating Hillary. You can see exactly how much ammo there is for the Repubs if she is the nominee. They are drooling at the prospect of destroying her (and by association, the entire Clinton legacy). She will be on defense throughout the entire campaign and that won't help her appeal to a substantial portion of that 20%. Obama, on the other hand, doesn't have a shady past or a long list of enemies. He can appeal to that 20% with ease. The polling numbers already show that.

Thus, for the Democratic party, as a whole, to put up the establishment candidate once again, will be a betrayal to its ultimate goals, and that's why voters should vote against Hillary in protest if they feel the party has again failed to put up its best candidate.

[memyselfI]

Thus, for the Democratic party, as a whole, to put up the establishment candidate once again, will be a betrayal to its ultimate goals, and that's why voters should vote against Hillary in protest if they feel the party has again failed to put up its best candidate.

The Democratic party did not 'put up' one candidate. It offered it's members, what, 9 different options to choose from. Again, if the remaining person left standing is someone that you do not like it's not the DNC's fault. It's your fellow Democrats who put Hillary in place and NOT the DNC.

No one from the DNC has forced any Democrat to vote for anyone to the best of my knowledge. I swear, the way this is being portrayed by the Hillary Hatahs you would think the DNC was the Politburo and that it's members have been whisked away in the middle of the night and forced to vote for Hillary against their will.

As far as ammo for the CONS, trust me we have heard it all about Hillary before. If you think they are going to tread lightly on Obama you are nuts.

[HolmeZz]

I was blaming the voters. If you're dumb enough to want Hillary as the party's nominee, you deserve to get crushed in the General. Maybe one of these days the Democrats will learn their lesson.

[noa]

You're playing semantics. The party will have put up the establishment candidate if Hillary is the nominee. If you want to parse language, fine, but I'm done with this. I agree with HolmeZz, I want no part in a party that sets themselves up for Hillary as the candidate. Even if she doesn't get destroyed, its going to be one of the nastiest campaigns ever, and I have no interest in that.

[memyselfI]

I was blaming the voters. If you're dumb enough to want Hillary as the party's nominee, you deserve to get crushed in the General. Maybe one of these days the Democrats will learn their lesson.

I don't want Hillary as the nominee just as I don't want Obama. I'm stuck with one or the other. The only hating I will be voting is against the CONS because they've had the last eight years and have destroyed much of what is so good about this country.

Maybe, after the country is in more debt and with more dead Americans lost in war the country will have learned it's lesson.

[memyselfI]

You're playing semantics. The party will have put up the establishment candidate if Hillary is the nominee. If you want to parse language, fine, but I'm done with this.

The party will have offered who IT'S MEMBERS SELECTED...

be it Obama or Hillary.

[dirk digler]

The party didn't betray them. The party has fielded many candidates and the voters have decided who is left standing and who will remain standing. It's juvenile to think that the party was somehow how fair and a magical place if Obama wins it and full of betrayal and evil if he doesn't.

Unless you can prove that it was a staged election or somehow rigged then if Hillary beats Obama she did it fair and square. Likewise, if Obama beats Hillary he beat her fair and square. Thus, the party has not betrayed anyone.

I swear, I feel like I'm on the ivillage.com bulletin board with all the irrational emoting going on here.

I don't know about staged but it is definitely a huge uphill battle that Obama has to fight with the Democrat establishment because the Clintons had alot of those people in their pocket. It has only been in the last couple of weeks that some of that establishment has come over to the good side.

The only thing Hillary represent is the status quo and if that is what you want then vote for her but don't come here and complain a year or two later wishing she was never POTUS or that she lost because she is not electable. I don't want to hear it.

[dirk digler]

I was blaming the voters. If you're dumb enough to want Hillary as the party's nominee, you deserve to get crushed in the General. Maybe one of these days the Democrats will learn their lesson.

Yep. Totally 100% agree

[RJ]

She's not a Republican. She will support Democratic principles unlike any CON. That is change from what we have now. Perhaps not the change YOU seek but it is a change from the disaster we've lived through the past 8 years.

Same with Obama. He will support Democratic principles and apparently appease alot of people who find their disdain of a person more important than the direction of the country.

I'm trusting the people who feel this way are not loyal Democrats but independents or people who've voted Democratic in the past. I think most party loyalists will do what is best for the party and the country and support the nominee even if it's not who we wished it were.

I know I'll be doing that for Obama if he get's it. I won't be thrilled about it but I know he's the less evil than any Republican. So too is Hillary if you are over 13 years old and know how to deal with your emotions.



I didn't say I wouldn't vote for her in the general if she's the nominee. I said I would likely vote for Obama in the primary. That is all.

[memyselfI]

I don't know about staged but it is definitely a huge uphill battle that Obama has to fight with the Democrat establishment because the Clintons had alot of those people in their pocket. It has only been in the last couple of weeks that some of that establishment has come over to the good side.

The only thing Hillary represent is the status quo and if that is what you want then vote for her but don't come here and complain a year or two later wishing she was never POTUS or that she lost because she is not electable. I don't want to hear it.

I'm voting for Edwards because he'll still be on the ballot.

Again, I'm not supporting either Clinton or Obama. But I'm not stupid enough to let my dislike for either of those two fool me into thinking the CONS pose a preferable alternative.

[penchief]

You have presented yourself as a loyal Democrat. Will you support the nominee regardless of who it is?

I'm not talking preferences. My preference is hammering nails in New Orleans this afternoon. Actually, my real preference is saving the environment but that is another story...

I know how the Kottercrats (fake one time/'lifelong' Democrats) are in a tizzy about how they will not support the candidate if it's not Obama but what about the hardcore Dems?

Yes, I will. It is the only logical thing to do. That said, I am very very disappointed and disillusioned by Hillary and Bill Clinton.

But the ultimate truth is that the republican party has been bought-and-paid-for entirely by corporate interests. The republican party IS 1984. If Cheneyburton wants a war, they give it to them. If Enron wants to gouge customers, Cheneyburton will oblige in exchange for a republican governor (albeit, not exactly the one they wanted).

The corporate media provides the elitist agenda within the republican party the bogeyman that meets the requirement of being both elusive and enduring (bin Laden). The kind of enemy that ensures an endless Orwellian War and justifies voter manipulation (imo, a contributing factor to the ultimate end of American democracy, as we know it).

[patteeu]

Yes, I will. It is the only logical thing to do. That said, I am very very disappointed and disillusioned by Hillary and Bill Clinton.

But the ultimate truth is that the republican party has been bought-and-paid-for entirely by corporate interests. The republican party IS 1984. If Cheneyburton wants a war, they give it to them. If Enron wants to gouge customers, Cheneyburton will oblige in exchange for a republican governor (albeit, not exactly the one they wanted).

The corporate media provides the elitist agenda within the republican party the bogeyman that meets the requirement of being both elusive and enduring (bin Laden). The kind of enemy that ensures an endless Orwellian War and justifies voter manipulation (imo, a contributing factor to the ultimate end of American democracy, as we know it).

Well if you'll compromise your principles that much, how would you vote if Edwards somehow won the nomination but named Dick Cheney as his running mate?

[penchief]

Well if you'll compromise your principles that much, how would you vote if Edwards somehow won the nomination but named Dick Cheney as his running mate?

How am I compromising my principles when the only hope I have is someone that doesn't trash my principles? Your question is emblematic of what the elitist forces within the republic party have come quite adept at doing; providing false choices to the American public.

You know as well as I do that Edwards would never choose Cheneyburton as his running mate. The fact that you would even propose such a false choice to me is a perfect example of how the right resorts to manipulation and insinuation as diversions rather than relying on sincerity.

[penchief]

You have presented yourself as a loyal Democrat. Will you support the nominee regardless of who it is?

I'm not talking preferences. My preference is hammering nails in New Orleans this afternoon. Actually, my real preference is saving the environment but that is another story...

I know how the Kottercrats (fake one time/'lifelong' Democrats) are in a tizzy about how they will not support the candidate if it's not Obama but what about the hardcore Dems?

By the way, I hope you weren't using the Hillaryesque tactic of challenging my liberal credentials by providing me with a false choice like republicans always do? That's exactly why I am uncomfortable with the way conservatives have behaved ever since Ronald Reagan.

It really sounds like you are trying to corner me. I am a liberal and a progressive. Which is exactly why I supported Biden, and then Edwards, and will probably end up supporting Obama over Clinton.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

You have presented yourself as a loyal Democrat. Will you support the nominee regardless of who it is?

I'm not talking preferences. My preference is hammering nails in New Orleans this afternoon. Actually, my real preference is saving the environment but that is another story...

I know how the Kottercrats (fake one time/'lifelong' Democrats) are in a tizzy about how they will not support the candidate if it's not Obama but what about the hardcore Dems?

You are such a f*cking Chiefs fan.

Rather than protest what you feel to be a horrible direction, you would rather have us blindly support someone who we don't believe in, instead of protesting the direction that said candidate/organization would have us go in just because they happen to be Democrats or the Kansas City Chiefs.

[patteeu]

How am I compromising my principles when the only hope I have is someone that doesn't trash my principles? Your question is emblematic of what the elitist forces within the republic party have come quite adept at doing; providing false choices to the American public.

You know as well as I do that Edwards would never choose Cheneyburton as his running mate. The fact that you would even propose such a false choice to me is a perfect example of how the right resorts to manipulation and insinuation as diversions rather than relying on sincerity.

You've called Hillary "the corporate candidate" and a member of "the establishment". You're against that sort of thing. That's how you're compromising your principles. It's OK, it happens. I'm willing to compromise some of my principles to vote for McCain if he gets the nomination. If Mr. Kotter had any principles, he'd compromise them them all away at the drop of a hat because he thinks compromise for the sake of compromise is an end in and of itself. In the scheme of things, you're not guilty of selling out the love of freedom or social justice to the power quo or anything.

But what I'm asking you isn't a false choice. It's just a hypothetical I made up. Would you compromise your principles enough to vote for the Edwards/Cheney ticket against, for example, a Romney/McCain ticket? I'm just curious. :shrug:

[penchief]

You've called Hillary "the corporate candidate" and a member of "the establishment". You're against that sort of thing. That's how you're compromising your principles. It's OK, it happens. I'm willing to compromise some of my principles to vote for McCain if he gets the nomination. If Mr. Kotter had any principles, he'd compromise them them all away at the drop of a hat because he thinks compromise for the sake of compromise is an end in and of itself. In the scheme of things, you're not guilty of selling out the love of freedom or social justice to the power quo or anything.

But what I'm asking you isn't a false choice. It's just a hypothetical I made up. Would you compromise your principles enough to vote for the Edwards/Cheney ticket against, for example, a Romney/McCain ticket? I'm just curious. :shrug:

That's like asking me to choose between a M.L. King/Jesse Helms ticket over a Spiro Agnew/Bob Dole ticket. What kind of choice is that for a moderate like me?

If I knew that Cheney would suffer an artificial heart attack within the first 100 days and Edwards would be able to replace him with Joe Biden, then I might be able to go along with that scenario.

[patteeu]

That's like asking me to choose between a M.L. King/Jesse Helms ticket over a Spiro Agnew/Bob Dole ticket. What kind of choice is that for a moderate like me?

If I knew that Cheney would suffer an artificial heart attack within the first 100 days and Edwards would be able to replace him with Joe Biden, then I might be able to go along with that scenario.

Well, of course, you can't know the future, but you can go off the board and select either "vote 3rd party" or "stay home".

[penchief]

Well, of course, you can't know the future, but you can go off the board and select either "vote 3rd party" or "stay home".

I understand that an elitist ideology, such as your own, would like for the masses to obey by not participating. But how does that equate to making a positive difference for the future of our country or our own children's future?

I mean, after all, we are supposed to be making progress, right? How is that possible when greed has proven that it always takes the easiest route, starting with exploitation and misrepresentation.

[patteeu]

I understand that an elitist ideology, such as your own, would like for the masses to obey by not participating. But how does that equate to making a positive difference for the future of our country or our own children's future?

I mean, after all, we are supposed to be making progress, right? How is that possible when greed has proven that it always takes the easiest route, starting with exploitation and misrepresentation.

I'm disappointed that you couldn't answer my silly question, but I won't press you any more.

[memyselfI]

Yes, I will. It is the only logical thing to do. That said, I am very very disappointed and disillusioned by Hillary and Bill Clinton.

But the ultimate truth is that the republican party has been bought-and-paid-for entirely by corporate interests. The republican party IS 1984. If Cheneyburton wants a war, they give it to them. If Enron wants to gouge customers, Cheneyburton will oblige in exchange for a republican governor (albeit, not exactly the one they wanted).

The corporate media provides the elitist agenda within the republican party the bogeyman that meets the requirement of being both elusive and enduring (bin Laden). The kind of enemy that ensures an endless Orwellian War and justifies voter manipulation (imo, a contributing factor to the ultimate end of American democracy, as we know it).

I'm disappointed as well. The absolute best candidates are now sitting at home while two token 'minority' candidates 'make history.' It makes me want to barf.

I'm not trying to corner you into shit. WE as Democrats are cornered into shit. But from where I sit the shit on our side smells a helluva lot better than the shit on theirs...

thus, I'm staying with the party and going to vote for one of these two clowns because I have no where else to go.

[memyselfI]

You are such a f*cking Chiefs fan.

Rather than protest what you feel to be a horrible direction, you would rather have us blindly support someone who we don't believe in, instead of protesting the direction that said candidate/organization would have us go in just because they happen to be Democrats or the Kansas City Chiefs.

I don't have you blindly supporting anyone. You know the history of the Clintons and the history status quo maverick McCain supports-see DUHbya. If this is the choice then you will make it based on whether you found the Clinton Administration more evil than DUHbya or vice versa.

I'm trying to be pragmatic about this. I have no vested interest in either Hillary or Obama. I don't like either of them. Thus, I'm posing the question as someone who has resolved myself to the fact that my choice is support the party or support the CONS or don't vote and support the CONS.

As much as I don't like either Clinton or Obama, the two of them on their worst day are infinitely more appealing and a better choice than anything the CONS have to offer ESPECIALLY 'more wars' McCain.

And, I gave up on the Chiefs a long time ago...

[penchief]

I'm disappointed that you couldn't answer my silly question, but I won't press you any more.

I don't blame you because it was a silly question. You got an answer, just not one you can work with.

[banyon]

Obama:

John Edwards has spent a lifetime fighting to give voice to the voiceless and hope to the struggling, even when it wasn’t popular to do or covered in the news. At a time when our politics is too focused on who’s up and who’s down, he made a nation focus again on who matters – the New Orleans child without a home, the West Virginia miner without a job, the families who live in that other America that is not seen or heard or talked about by our leaders in Washington. John and Elizabeth Edwards have always believed deeply that we can change this – that two Americas can become one, and that our country can rally around this common purpose. So while his campaign may end today, the cause of their lives endures for all of us who still believe that we can achieve that dream of one America.

Hillary:


John Edwards ended his campaign today in the same way he started it - by standing with the people who are too often left behind and nearly always left out of our national debate.

John ran with compassion and conviction and lifted this campaign with his deep concern for the daily lives of the American people. That is what this election is about - it's about our people. And John is one of the greatest champions the American people could ask for.

I wish John and Elizabeth all the best. They have my great personal respect and gratitude. And I know they will continue to fight passionately for the country and the people they love so deeply.

[HolmeZz]

I don't know where his supporters will end up going, but I'm convinced Edwards left the race now because he didn't want to be responsible for potentially costing Obama the nomination. He wants it to play out with him being a non-factor.

[penchief]

I don't know where his supporters will end up going, but I'm convinced Edwards left the race now because he didn't want to be responsible for potentially costing Obama the nomination. He wants it to play out with him being a non-factor.

That's a good observation, IMO.

[Joe Seahawk]

I have not read thru this topic, but my 15 year old son and i were just wondering if Edwards really stopped his limo at a "freeway bridge" where he got out and had an emotional chat with the 100-200 people who sleep there every night.. amazing stuff! :spock:

[banyon]

I have not read thru this topic, but my 15 year old son and i were just wondering if Edwards really stopped his limo at a "freeway bridge" where he got out and had an emotional chat with the 100-200 people who sleep there every night.. amazing stuff! :spock:


Edwards has spent the most time of any candidate, by a pretty good margin, in New Orleans post-Katrina AFAIK.

[Joe Seahawk]

Edwards has spent the most time of any candidate, by a pretty good margin, in New Orleans post-Katrina AFAIK.

what a guy! I wonder why he didn't just let them sleep in his big ass red barn thing off to the right of his Ginormous house?

http://rightvoices.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/john-edwards-house1.jpg

[Logical]

The next President will have a filibuster proof Senate so the strength of the beginning of the discussion on Universal Health care will go a long way to setting agenda. It will not be whether there is Universal Health Care but how effective it will be or how diluted money concerns of the Insurance industry foil getting a good product. One like what Congressman and Senators now get for all.

You have always struck me as well reasoned and well informed. Which is why it suprises, actually shocks me that you think either party will get 60 Senators on their side of the aisle.

[Mr. Kotter]

You have always struck me as well reasoned and well informed. Which is why it suprises, actually shocks me that you think either party will get 60 Senators on their side of the aisle.

Yeah, I called him on that earlier in the thread....and there's been nothin' but crickets since. I can see the Dems pickin' up a couple of seats....but they could lose a couple too. 60 isn't out of the question, but it's a "best case" scenario for Dems IMO. And not likely.

[banyon]

what a guy! I wonder why he didn't just let them sleep in his big ass red barn thing off to the right of his Ginormous house?

http://rightvoices.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/john-edwards-house1.jpg


Oh,you're one of the "you can't advocate for the poor unless you renounce all of your earthly possessions like St. Francis" guys, huh?

[banyon]

Yeah, I called him on that earlier in the thread....and there's been nothin' but crickets since. I can see the Dems pickin' up a couple of seats....but they could lose a couple too. 60 isn't out of the question, but it's a "best case" scenario for Dems IMO. And not likely.


You did this to me the other day saying I was "ball-less" because I hadn't yet responded to you. You know not everyone on this site has the job status and social life that GoChiefs has, right?

[Mr. Kotter]

You did this to me the other day saying I was "ball-less" because I hadn't yet responded to you. You know not everyone on this site has the job status and social life that GoChiefs has, right?

Of course I know that; just seeing if jettio is willing to man-up....or whether he, wisely, will back down a bit.

Hell, patty is sure as hell holding ME accountable for my Thompson smack-talk and hyperbole....I can't let others get away with their hyperbole and ridiculous speculation, you know. Heh.

;)

[Joe Seahawk]

Oh,you're one of the "you can't advocate for the poor unless you renounce all of your earthly possessions like St. Francis" guys, huh?


Nah, I just think Edwards is FOS..

[penchief]

Nah, I just think Edwards is FOS..

I disagree. I think John Edwards is one of the very few sincere national politicians we have in this country. Lord knows we have enough of the Giuliani/Romney/Clinton types (the kind of lip-service hypocricy that has defined this country over the last quarter-century). That's what we get from the corporate right wing.

For you to place Edwards in that category only exhibits your lack of understanding in the root problems of this country, IMO.

[Joe Seahawk]

I disagree. I think John Edwards is one of the very few sincere national politicians we have in this country. Lord knows we have enough of the Giuliani/Romney/Clinton types (the kind of lip-service hypocricy that has defined this country over the last quarter-century). That's what we get from the corporate right wing.

For you to place Edwards in that category only exhibits your lack of understanding in the root problems of this country, IMO.

Well, it's clear to me that we'll never find middle ground on our opinion of Edwards, so since I'm a lousy typist I'm justy going to save us both some time and call it a night..

Personally, I don't believe he stopped his limo and went under a bridge to talk with 100-200 homeless people on his way to his press conference today..

And stuff like that from a guy with $400.00 haircuts and a 55 million dollar house rings very hollow with me..

Kind of like Gore telling me to use certain light bulbs..


BTW, I'm really not pleased with any of the candidates on either side.. I'd actually vote for bush again if I could..

[penchief]

Well, it's clear to me that we'll never find middle ground on our opinion of Edwards, so since I'm a lousy typist I'm justy going to save us both some time and call it a night..

Personally, I don't believe he stopped his limo and went under a bridge to talk with 100-200 homeless people on his way to his press conference today..

And stuff like that from a guy with $400.00 haircuts and a 55 million dollar house rings very hollow with me..

Kind of like Gore telling me to use certain light bulbs..


BTW, I'm really not pleased with any of the candidates on either side.. I'd actually vote for bush again if I could..


I don't care about the limo thing or the haircut thing (which was exploited in a ridiculous way, imo).

It's the fact is that he has based his campaign on social justice in a way that no one has for a long long time. That actually means something to those of us who believe that life's meaning does not revolve around the profit margin (as set by the selfish). If you can name me another candidate that has stood up for the working class in the way Edwards has, then I will reconsider my evaluation of your position.

The fact that you would vote for Bush again signifies your blindness, IMO. For you to not be able to recognize the damage that he has done to our country and your fellow man, is reason enough to take your political opinion with a boulder of salt.

[Joe Seahawk]

I don't care about the limo thing or the haircut thing (which was exploited in a ridiculous way, imo).

The fact is that he has based his campaign on social justice in a way that no one has for a long long time. That actually means something to those of us who believe that life's meaning does not revolve around the profit margin (as set by the selfish). If you can name me another candidate that has stood up for the working class in the way Edwards has, then I will reconsider my evaluation of your position.

The fact that you would vote for Bush again signifies your blindness, IMO. For you to not be able to recognize the damage that he has done to our country and your fellow man, is reason enough to take your political opinion with a boulder of salt.

Social Justice? Can you explain that?

['Hamas' Jenkins]

I don't have you blindly supporting anyone. You know the history of the Clintons and the history status quo maverick McCain supports-see DUHbya. If this is the choice then you will make it based on whether you found the Clinton Administration more evil than DUHbya or vice versa.

I'm trying to be pragmatic about this. I have no vested interest in either Hillary or Obama. I don't like either of them. Thus, I'm posing the question as someone who has resolved myself to the fact that my choice is support the party or support the CONS or don't vote and support the CONS.

As much as I don't like either Clinton or Obama, the two of them on their worst day are infinitely more appealing and a better choice than anything the CONS have to offer ESPECIALLY 'more wars' McCain.

And, I gave up on the Chiefs a long time ago...

And this is PRECISELY my point.

Now, I have somewhat of a vested intellectual interest in this, but...

I wrote a 35 page paper my final semester of college on why I thought the Republican party would disintegrate and fracture itself by the 2012 election. Mainly it has to do with the time between major political realignments as well as the changing demographics of American metropolitan and micropolitan areas...but more specifically,

Hillary would represent the same old shit, and you'd just end up playing an endless game of tug of war. If the Republicans can get one of these stooges into office with their plan, I honestly think that they'll continue to f*ck things up to such an extraordinary degree that the electorate will demand a sweeping change a la 1980, 1932, etc. Once that happens, then you actually have a chance to get a more progressive agenda passed through the legislature, less corporate whoring, and a return to some semblance of economic sanity.

If someone like Hillary gets elected, I could honestly see this go on for another 12-20 years before another major realignment happens, and by then, we'll essentially be fused to China so that they can cosign EVERYTHING for us.

It all points back to the Chiefs. You'd rather go 8-8 (with Hillary), than go 4-12 for a couple years to actually have a chance to build something.

[penchief]

Social Justice? Can you explain that?

Sure.

Health care is not a privilege. It's a fundamental human right.

Education should not be a means of perpetuating privilege. It should be a means of spreading the wealth of knowledge and humanity.

Job's should not be a privilege. Jobs are the key to self-sufficiency and human dignity. Yet the "free market" manipulates the job market because it needs to keep jobs scarce and wages down.

And most of all, those who speculate on Wall Street should not be able to dictate the conditions of survival for the honest hardworking men and women who take pride in supporting their families and their country.

Simply put, shit has been twisted big time by corrupt forces within our own country. We are beyond jaded. We have become blind to the universal justice that our founding fathers intended for us, IMO.

[Reaper16]

And this is PRECISELY my point.

Now, I have somewhat of a vested intellectual interest in this, but...

I wrote a 35 page paper my final semester of college on why I thought the Republican party would disintegrate and fracture itself by the 2012 election. Mainly it has to do with the time between major political realignments as well as the changing demographics of American metropolitan and micropolitan areas...but more specifically,

Hillary would represent the same old shit, and you'd just end up playing an endless game of tug of war. If the Republicans can get one of these stooges into office with their plan, I honestly think that they'll continue to f*ck things up to such an extraordinary degree that the electorate will demand a sweeping change a la 1980, 1932, etc. Once that happens, then you actually have a chance to get a more progressive agenda passed through the legislature, less corporate whoring, and a return to some semblance of economic sanity.

If someone like Hillary gets elected, I could honestly see this go on for another 12-20 years before another major realignment happens, and by then, we'll essentially be fused to China so that they can cosign EVERYTHING for us.

It all points back to the Chiefs. You'd rather go 8-8 (with Hillary), than go 4-12 for a couple years to actually have a chance to build something.
That's the kind of analysis that makes me happy to be awake at 2:00 in the morning. Hillary or Obama is analogous to Huard or Croyle. That's good shit, and I'm stealing it.

[ChiefaRoo]

I disagree. I think John Edwards is one of the very few sincere national politicians we have in this country. Lord knows we have enough of the Giuliani/Romney/Clinton types (the kind of lip-service hypocricy that has defined this country over the last quarter-century). That's what we get from the corporate right wing.

For you to place Edwards in that category only exhibits your lack of understanding in the root problems of this country, IMO.


Edwards +Trial Lawyer + Pay Me win or Lose + I now advocate for the poor = Bullshit artist.

[patteeu]

Of course I know that; just seeing if jettio is willing to man-up....or whether he, wisely, will back down a bit.

Hell, patty is sure as hell holding ME accountable for my Thompson smack-talk and hyperbole....I can't let others get away with their hyperbole and ridiculous speculation, you know. Heh.

;)

All you have to do to get me to lay off you is renounce Obama. We can pretend it was a week long coke binge if you want. ;) :p

[ChiefaRoo]

All you have to do to get me to lay off you is renounce Obama. We can pretend it was a week long coke binge if you want. ;) :p

WTF? Has Kotter's cheese slid off of his kracker? Say it ain't so Kotter.

[patteeu]

WTF? Has Kotter's cheese slid off of his kracker? Say it ain't so Kotter.

He's technically undecided. When Fred Thompson dropped out, he initially seemed like he was going for Obama but he left himself an out by saying he'd wait until he heard what 3 or 4 issues Obama was going to emphasize. More recently he's indicated that he's OK with McCain too and he's hoping that he'll get to choose between the two of them. I've been giving him a hard time about swinging from one of the most conservative candidates in the race to one of the most liberal. He says I'm a myopic ideologue who just doesn't understand the need for compromise.

[ChiefaRoo]

He's technically undecided. When Fred Thompson dropped out, he initially seemed like he was going for Obama but he left himself an out by saying he'd wait until he heard what 3 or 4 issues Obama was going to emphasize. More recently he's indicated that he's OK with McCain too and he's hoping that he'll get to choose between the two of them. I've been giving him a hard time about swinging from one of the most conservative candidates in the race to one of the most liberal. He says I'm a myopic ideologue who just doesn't understand the need for compromise.

Tell him the story about what happens to chickens who stand in the middle of the road.

[HolmeZz]

I'm disappointed as well. The absolute best candidates are now sitting at home while two token 'minority' candidates 'make history.' It makes me want to barf.

I know it still hasn't sunk in after the last two elections, but America doesn't like the 'Democratic Establishment'.

It's an easy choice to be made by Democrats for a few reasons. Hillary, even if she can somehow get elected, is a stop-gap. She doesn't change the face or the direction of the Party and she doesn't make the Party better off in the long run. The same stupid politics that bug the overwhelming majority of the nation will continue to exist.

There's absolutely no ceiling to Obama's potential as a candidate. His reach is broad and that is meaningful on multiple levels. It'll help when it comes to the General Election, it'll help in potentially shaping the identity of the party for decades to come, and he's someone who can put the Democratic Party back in good standing with people who have begun to doubt them. They've been handed a candidate with all of that in a year when they should be heavily favored to win back the White House. It's an absolute no-brainer.

Hillary-types come around every election cycle. Obama strikes a lot of people as a once in a lifetime candidate. If you really care about your party and the future of it like you say you do, don't throw away your vote to someone who's already dropped out. Vote for Barack Obama.

[jAZ]

I don't know where his supporters will end up going, but I'm convinced Edwards left the race now because he didn't want to be responsible for potentially costing Obama the nomination. He wants it to play out with him being a non-factor.
I think you can extend that to presume personal support for Obama over Clinton. Whether he's willing to endorse Obama now is unknown.

From what I heard, Edwards wants to endorse Obama, but wants to see him demonstrate that he can be a fighter, strong enough to win in November.

He's still pissed at Kerry, and rightly so.

[HolmeZz]

I know it still hasn't sunk in after the last two elections, but America doesn't like the 'Democratic Establishment'.

It's an easy choice to be made by Democrats for a few reasons. Hillary, even if she can somehow get elected, is a stop-gap. She doesn't change the face or the direction of the Party and she doesn't make the Party better off in the long run. The same stupid politics that bug the overwhelming majority of the nation will continue to exist.

There's absolutely no ceiling to Obama's potential as a candidate. His reach is broad and that is meaningful on multiple levels. It'll help when it comes to the General Election, it'll help in potentially shaping the identity of the party for decades to come, and he's someone who can put the Democratic Party back in good standing with people who have begun to doubt them. They've been handed a candidate with all of that in a year when they should be heavily favored to win back the White House. It's an absolute no-brainer.

Hillary-types come around every election cycle. Obama strikes a lot of people as a once in a lifetime candidate. If you really care about your party and the future of it like you say you do, don't throw away your vote to someone who's already dropped out. Vote for Barack Obama.

I am HolmeZz and I approve this message.

[jAZ]

I know it still hasn't sunk in after the last two elections, but America doesn't like the 'Democratic Establishment'.
I think it's a dramatic exaggeration of reality.

Al Gore is a modern day folk hero now. Gore would win the 2008 election going away were he to run this year. Against McCain or anyone else. He wasn't the strongest candidate WRT to personality in 2000, but even with that, he only lost because of Bill Clinton's baggage, Ralph Nader's cult-of-personality to the farthest left in the party, and screwed up ballots in FL that caused 6000 Gore votes to go to Pat Buchanan.

Any one of those things goes the other way and Gore wins. If Monica doesn't have that dress and Gore wins by large electoral margins in 2000. Nader doesn't enter and Gore wins close electoral, but by much wider margins in FL. Those 6000 ballots get printed normally and Gore wins a very close election. Hell if the SC's coin-flip decsion goes the other way, and Gore wins by recount alone.

2004 was an electoral embarassment, but rejecting Kerry is hardly a rejection of the entire party establishment. He was just a bad candidate.

[banyon]

Edwards +Trial Lawyer + Pay Me win or Lose + I now advocate for the poor = Bullshit artist.

He did personal injury law, that's not "pay me win or lose" unless your case isn't worth anything or your clients are rich.

[Laz]

Most of the anti-Hillary's will float to the Obama camp. Bet it breaks 2-1 Obama.
yep

[Mr. Kotter]

I think it's a dramatic exaggeration of reality.

Al Gore is a modern day folk hero now. Gore would win the 2008 election going away were he to run this year. Against McCain or anyone else. He wasn't the strongest candidate WRT to personality in 2000, but even with that, he only lost because of Bill Clinton's baggage, Ralph Nader's cult-of-personality to the farthest left in the party, and screwed up ballots in FL that caused 6000 Gore votes to go to Pat Buchanan.

Any one of those things goes the other way and Gore wins. If Monica doesn't have that dress and Gore wins by large electoral margins in 2000. Nader doesn't enter and Gore wins close electoral, but by much wider margins in FL. Those 6000 ballots get printed normally and Gore wins a very close election. Hell if the SC's coin-flip decsion goes the other way, and Gore wins by recount alone.

2004 was an electoral embarassment, but rejecting Kerry is hardly a rejection of the entire party establishment. He was just a bad candidate.

:eek:

Your break with reality is more severe than I even suspected.... :shake:

[Laz]

:eek:

Your break with reality is more severe than I even suspected.... :shake:
like you have room to talk


If your posting is anything like you in real life, i'd fully expect you to be accessing the internet from a Psyche Ward somewhere.

[Brock]

I think it's a dramatic exaggeration of reality.

Al Gore is a modern day folk hero now.

Nice "description followed up with illustration".

[tiptap]

You have always struck me as well reasoned and well informed. Which is why it suprises, actually shocks me that you think either party will get 60 Senators on their side of the aisle.

I was talking about National Health Insurance in particular. Presently we have 51-49 split with two of those being independents. Neither of them will vote against the Democratic bill. Then there is Oregon, Colorado, New Mexico, Virginia and Minnesota that will move from Republican to Democratic Senator all to easily. Both Sununu from New Hampshire and Collins from Maine are in trouble in the heavy Democratic Northeast. Those alone get the count to 58. Add to that Alaska and N. Carolina both long shots but in a year with strong Presidential Democrat at the top then it might make it possible.

The only Democratic potential loss is Louisiana which exported all the New Orleans' Democrats. That race will be close though.

If McCain wins the Democratic Governor will pick a Democrat or a liberal Repulbican. And if not McCain will not go along with a filibuster. Will Republicans really put their political life on record holding up votes for legislation press for by the President and voted by the House?

There will be plenty of areas where the filibuster will be in play just not National Health Insurance.

I should add that the completion of the Republican party toward the Southern Democratic Party of the 60's will be just about complete.

[Adept Havelock]

Tell him the story about what happens to primates who stand in the middle of the road.

Easy answer. Through Natural Selection, the survivors are considerably more nimble, perceptive, and able to adapt than those that just stand in the gutters on the roadside grooming and flinging poo. ;)

[HolmeZz]

Remember when we had the luxury of such superficial thought in 2000? Punish the Dems and fugg the Clintons...

Look at how that toddler type of thinking turned out. Dems need to support the candidate or they will end up with 4-8 more years of CONS in power.

I am not crazy about either Hillary or Obama but neither of them scare me like McCain and Romney, more civil liberties lost, or the prospect of more CON SC justices.

Oh, the hilarity.

[jAZ]

Oh, the hilarity.

Holy Crap!

ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL

[jAZ]

Greatest. Thread. Evar.

Regardless of who he endorses if you are a Democrat you should support the nominee. That is what wins elections.

Agreed, if the Democrats are full of spineless hatahs that cannot support policy and principle over personality then they deserve to lose. And they deserve to live in a country that is headed in the wrong direction another 4-8 years.

No, I'm saying no matter who is the nominee.

I'm talking voting McCain over Hillary if she's the nominee. If you are a Mr. Kotter 'Democrat.'

She's not a Republican. She will support Democratic principles unlike any CON. That is change from what we have now. Perhaps not the change YOU seek but it is a change from the disaster we've lived through the past 8 years.

Same with Obama. He will support Democratic principles and apparently appease alot of people who find their disdain of a person more important than the direction of the country.

I'm trusting the people who feel this way are not loyal Democrats but independents or people who've voted Democratic in the past. I think most party loyalists will do what is best for the party and the country and support the nominee even if it's not who we wished it were.

I know I'll be doing that for Obama if he get's it. I won't be thrilled about it but I know he's the less evil than any Republican. So too is Hillary if you are over 13 years old and know how to deal with your emotions.

The party didn't betray them. The party has fielded many candidates and the voters have decided who is left standing and who will remain standing. It's juvenile to think that the party was somehow how fair and a magical place if Obama wins it and full of betrayal and evil if he doesn't.

Unless you can prove that it was a staged election or somehow rigged then if Hillary beats Obama she did it fair and square. Likewise, if Obama beats Hillary he beat her fair and square. Thus, the party has not betrayed anyone.

I swear, I feel like I'm on the ivillage.com bulletin board with all the irrational emoting going on here.

You have presented yourself as a loyal Democrat. Will you support the nominee regardless of who it is?

I'm not talking preferences. My preference is hammering nails in New Orleans this afternoon. Actually, my real preference is saving the environment but that is another story...

I know how the Kottercrats (fake one time/'lifelong' Democrats) are in a tizzy about how they will not support the candidate if it's not Obama but what about the hardcore Dems?

The Democratic party did not 'put up' one candidate. It offered it's members, what, 9 different options to choose from. Again, if the remaining person left standing is someone that you do not like it's not the DNC's fault. It's your fellow Democrats who put Hillary in place and NOT the DNC.

No one from the DNC has forced any Democrat to vote for anyone to the best of my knowledge. I swear, the way this is being portrayed by the Hillary Hatahs you would think the DNC was the Politburo and that it's members have been whisked away in the middle of the night and forced to vote for Hillary against their will.

As far as ammo for the CONS, trust me we have heard it all about Hillary before. If you think they are going to tread lightly on Obama you are nuts.

I don't want Hillary as the nominee just as I don't want Obama. I'm stuck with one or the other. The only hating I will be voting is against the CONS because they've had the last eight years and have destroyed much of what is so good about this country.

Maybe, after the country is in more debt and with more dead Americans lost in war the country will have learned it's lesson.

The party will have offered who IT'S MEMBERS SELECTED...

be it Obama or Hillary.

I'm voting for Edwards because he'll still be on the ballot.

Again, I'm not supporting either Clinton or Obama. But I'm not stupid enough to let my dislike for either of those two fool me into thinking the CONS pose a preferable alternative.

[memyselfI]

I'm going to copy and paste this thread to remind me, if I ever forget, why I'm no longer a Democrat. Lots of disillusionment with NObama and Hillary. Too bad McCain sucks.

Thanks.

[Ultra Peanut]

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPS

Remember when we had the luxury of such superficial thought in 2000? Punish the Dems and fugg the Clintons...

Look at how that toddler type of thinking turned out. Dems need to support the candidate or they will end up with 4-8 more years of CONS in power.

I am not crazy about either Hillary or Obama but neither of them scare me like McCain and Romney, more civil liberties lost, or the prospect of more CON SC justices.

No, I'm saying no matter who is the nominee.

I'm talking voting McCain over Hillary if she's the nominee. If you are a Mr. Kotter 'Democrat.'YEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

[Ultra Peanut]

I haven't heard anybody say they'd leave or vote against the Democratic party if Obama is elected.And in the end, it just turned out to be the crazies over at Hillaryis44. So pretty much nobody in the grand scheme of things.

[HolmeZz]

I'm going to copy and paste this thread to remind me, if I ever forget, why I'm no longer a Democrat.

That's toddler type thinking.

Lots of disillusionment with NObama and Hillary.

Except you said you'd vote for Hillary.

[memyselfI]

That's toddler type thinking.



Except you said you'd vote for Hillary.

Yes, and I probably still would have. I didn't like her much but she would have been a good POTUS.

[Ultra Peanut]

That's the kind of analysis that makes me happy to be awake at 2:00 in the morning. Hillary or Obama is analogous to Huard or Croyle. That's good shit, and I'm stealing it.Hamas makes the best analogies. He once compared Chris Long to John Cena and Vernon Gholston to The Rock. It was beautiful.

[HolmeZz]

Yes, and I probably still would have. I didn't like her much but she would have been a good POTUS.

Remember when we had the luxury of such superficial thought in 2000?

Look at how that toddler type of thinking turned out. Dems need to support the candidate or they will end up with 4-8 more years of CONS in power.

[NewPhin]

Ouch.

[Ultra Peanut]

This thread.

This thread is the best thread.

[memyselfI]

Remember when we had the luxury of such superficial thought in 2000?

Look at how that toddler type of thinking turned out. Dems need to support the candidate or they will end up with 4-8 more years of CONS in power.

If that happens the DEMOCRATS have only themselves to blame.

That is why I quit the party. I could not stay a Democrat and not support the nominee.

[HolmeZz]

If that happens the DEMOCRATS have only themselves to blame.

That is why I quit the party. I could not stay a Democrat and not support the nominee.

What are you, a Kottercrat?

Someone who cares more about personality than principles?

[NewPhin]

This one is great:


Same with Obama. He will support Democratic principles and apparently appease alot of people who find their disdain of a person more important than the direction of the country.

I'm trusting the people who feel this way are not loyal Democrats but independents or people who've voted Democratic in the past. I think most party loyalists will do what is best for the party and the country and support the nominee even if it's not who we wished it were.

I know I'll be doing that for Obama if he get's it. I won't be thrilled about it but I know he's the less evil than any Republican. So too is Hillary if you are over 13 years old and know how to deal with your emotions.

She was taking all of the Hillary haters to task for their behavior. Little did we know, that her words would be so applicable to her once things didn't go her way.

[memyselfI]

What are you, a Kottercrat?

Someone who cares more about personality than principles?

Nope, I 'm a former Democrat who thinks she should have taken this step YEARS ago. I don't know why I waited so long. I thank NObama for being the final straw in my :doh!:. My husband cannot believe it took me this long. He's been trying to convince me since 2000 that the DEMS are a crock.

He was right. It bums me so to say.

[HolmeZz]

Nope, sounds like you're a Kottercrat. Someone who got caught up in personality instead of priniciples. Shame.

[memyselfI]

Nope, sounds like you're a Kottercrat. Someone who got caught up in personality instead of priniciples. Shame.

Oh yes, for 26 years I faithfully supported personalities I didn't even like simply based on party principle.

That is longer than your snotty lil nose has been on this planet. ROFL

[HolmeZz]

Oh yes, for 26 years I faithfully supported personalities I didn't even like simply based on party principle.

And then you stopped for no reason.

[NewPhin]

And then you stopped for no reason.

Every toddler has a reason when she takes her toys and goes home to pout.

[memyselfI]

And then you stopped for no reason.

Iraq, war funding, FISA, nominating the least qualified candidate, amongst others...

hardly no reason.

[HolmeZz]

Iraq, war funding, FISA, nominating the least qualified candidate, amongst others...

hardly no reason.

So nothing you didn't know back in February. Got it.

[memyselfI]

So nothing you didn't know back in February. Got it.

I knew it but had some faith that they would use this election to get back on the right track. No such luck.

[HolmeZz]

I knew it but had some faith that they would use this election to get back on the right track. No such luck.

So everything you said was a lie? I can see why you were supporting Edwards.

[memyselfI]

So everything you said was a lie? I can see why you were supporting Edwards.

No, I had the epiphany NObama promised would happen but it just didn't go the way he predicted.

[HolmeZz]

No, I had the epiphany NObama promised would happen but it just didn't go the way he predicted.

So you don't have a reason? Good to know.

And yes, I have ignored the fact that you said Barack stood on Democratic principles(which contradicts your whole argument).

[memyselfI]

So you don't have a reason? Good to know.

And yes, I have ignored the fact that you said Barack stood on Democratic principles(which contradicts your whole argument).

You know, it's liberating to not be tied to a party and constricted by them. I voted non-Democrat ONE time in 26 years. Now, I'm free to do it whenever I want.

[WilliamTheIrish]

Admission is the first stage of recovery De.nise. ;)

[HolmeZz]

You know, it's liberating to not be tied to a party and constricted by them. I voted non-Democrat ONE time in 26 years. Now, I'm free to do it whenever I want.

That's what most of us were saying when you were chastising us for not being willing to vote for Hillary. Would you like to admit when you wrong then or wrong now?

[jAZ]

Two Brutal Ass Kickings. Denise needs to take a break.

[memyselfI]

Admission is the first stage of recovery De.nise. ;)

I admit. I was wrong about the Democrats. :D

[memyselfI]

That's what most of us were saying when you were chastising us for not being willing to vote for Hillary. Would you like to admit when you wrong then or wrong now?

Actually, I was saying if you are member of a party you should vote FOR your party in the most important election for the party. That is why I quit because I could not vote against the party in good conscience.

[HolmeZz]

Actually, I was saying if you are member of a party you should vote FOR your party in the most important election for the party.

And you said you would be voting for Obama. Then you flip-flopped.

So again, were you wrong then or are you wrong now?

[memyselfI]

And you said you would be voting for Obama. Then you flip-flopped.

So again, were you wrong then or are you wrong now?

And I would have if I had decided to stay a Democrat and support the nominee. But I don't, so I didn't and I won't.

[HolmeZz]

And I would have if I had decided to stay a Democrat and support the nominee. But I don't, so I didn't and I won't.

You lashed out against people for not supporting the party, when you had zero intention of doing so.

You're a hypocritical bitch.

[|Zach|]

Another fringe wacko off the bus. :clap:

Bye! :thumb:

[memyselfI]

You lashed out against people for not supporting the party, when you had zero intention of doing so.

You're a hypocritical bitch.

Actually, I lashed out at people who would vote against the party and claim to be loyalists.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Actually, I lashed out at people who would vote against the party and claim to be loyalists.

What the f*ck kind of 'tard logic is this?

[HolmeZz]

Actually, I lashed out at people who would vote against the party and claim to be loyalists.

LMAO You called yourself a party loyalist, dumbass. That's what makes you a hypocrite.

I think most party loyalists will do what is best for the party and the country and support the nominee even if it's not who we wished it were.

That's an admission on your part that voting for Obama would be doing what's best for the country. Now you're against doing what you said was best for the country.

[WilliamTheIrish]

I admit. I was wrong about the Democrats. :D

Well you can take solace in the fact that you were right that Bush would be a lousy POTUS.

[jAZ]

denise = rexcjake.

[WilliamTheIrish]

denise = rexcjake.

I dunno. Rex is really a moron.

This thread has put Deni se in the same position as Dustin Hoffman in Marathon Man as Lawrence Olivier is asking him "Is it safe"? [ The sound of the dental drill whirring in the background], then sinking the drill into his front tooth.

Beautiful.... yet.... disturbing.

[Mr. Kotter]

Nope, sounds like you're a Kottercrat. Someone who got caught up in personality instead of priniciples. Shame.

You and other ignorant fuggtards who don't, apparently, understand the difference between ideology and politics, or issues and rhetoric, or emotion and reason....or reality and idealism, keep mistaking blind "loyalty" to party and pathetic Jr. High School partisanship/popularity contests.....for informed voting.

The jokes on you, man. I vote on issues of the day, that are a priority to me in a given election. Period. This election, national security, healthcare, and taxes are "my" issues.....and have me leaning Obama for two out of three. That means, if his position on national security and healthcare holds--I'll vote Obama. If I sense, believe...in the coming weeks he's FOS or not fully committed on those issues, other issues may come into play....and McCain may yet become the lesser of two inadequate candidates, IMHO.

That's actually how most "independent" or moderate (read--non-knee-jerk partisan) types vote; much to the consternation of partisan jack-offs like you or recxjake.

OTOH, Too bad it's gonna take you 10 years (maybe more in your case) to gain the insight and understanding that a conscientious and diligent reading of history would have given anyone of even average intelligence.

What a waste.... :rolleyes:

But, hey, least you've got youth to fall back on.... :shake:

[HolmeZz]

It was her word and definition, dickface. Not mine. I wasn't insulting you, I was using her own argument against her. Direct your anger at her.

[Mr. Kotter]

It was her word and definition, dickface. Not mine. I wasn't insulting you, I was using her own argument against her. Direct your anger at her.


The only difference that makes is....as someone who should know better, SHE should be more enlightened than she is. Color me surprised that she's disappointed us.

You, on the other hand, are headed for the same exact fate....unless you pull your partisan head out of your rectum, and start thinking for yourself... instead of letting rhetoric and ideological myopia blind you to the reality of why you should be voting, as opposed to the mystic and wrong-headed reasons I've seen you, thus far, articulate.

It's the issues stupid, not the ideology....to paraphrase Slick Willie.

[HolmeZz]

The only difference that makes is....as someone who should know better, SHE should be more enlightened than she is. Color me surprised that she's disappointed us.

You, on the other hand, are headed for the same exact fate....unless you pull your partisan head out of your rectum, and start thinking for yourself... instead of letting rhetoric and ideological myopia blind you to the reality of why you should be voting, as opposed to the mystic and wrong-headed reasons I've seen you, thus far, articulate.

It's the issues stupid, not the ideology....to paraphrase Slick Willie.

You are out of your f*cking skull. I wasn't insulting you or insinuating you're voting personality over issues, I was using her own words/definition/logic against her. You had zero to do with the conversation.

And please, tell me what those wrong-headed reasons that I've articulated are.

[Ultra Peanut]

What the **** are you going on about, Kotter?

No, wait. Don't answer.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Actually, I lashed out at people who would vote against the party and claim to be loyalists.

D'enise's evolution is a mystery
She's full of shit that we all see
The cache makes a fool of your story
Yesterday's so long ago,
Don't agree with what I know.
Hypocrisy becomes a place to be.

I see the line in the sand
Time to find out who I am

[memyselfI]

LMAO You called yourself a party loyalist, dumbass. That's what makes you a hypocrite.



That's an admission on your part that voting for Obama would be doing what's best for the country. Now you're against doing what you said was best for the country.


Yes, I was a party loyalist to a fault. I was loyal to the party for 26 years but could not be loyal any longer based on a series of events the last being NObama's nominiation. So rather than vote against the party or withhold the money and/or time I usually spend working for the party during a presidential election, I quit.


It's not hypocritical. The hypocritical thing would be to work to get someone elected I feel is unworthy simply because the party expected me to do so. I did that twice and felt rather shameful about it after the fact. I wasn't going to do it again. From now on, the best person for the job is who I will support and if it's not a Democrat, so be it.

[the Talking Can]

i've never seen such a total destruction of a poster by their own words....


****ing epic....I'm shaking like Zoolander's glutes right now....

[memyselfI]

i've never seen such a total destruction of a poster by their own words....


****ing epic....I'm shaking like Zoolander's glutes right now....

It could happen to anyone when cut and paste quotes are collected with no link or reference to the context of the conversation. :rolleyes:

I am grateful for him doing so to remind me of how I would have followed the party off the cliff...

His efforts will remind me never to get in line without question again.

[StcChief]

best person for the job has always been my motto..... the party means zero.

[memyselfI]

best person for the job has always been my motto..... the party means zero.

It's my motto now. It's like a light bulb went off in my brain. I do not HAVE to do this. I'd been an enabler for too long and have only myself to blame for participating in the Democratic party dysfunction. No mo.

I actually look forward to the next few months vs. where I would have been filled with internal dread at having to work for a candidate I did not believe in. Convincing myself it was right and loyal to do so. And trying to convince other people they should support the guy I don't really support with their money and their vote...

I have no one to work for this election. It will be fun to just watch for once.

[Friendo]

Yes, I was a party loyalist to a fault. I was loyal to the party for 26 years but could not be loyal any longer based on a series of events the last being NObama's nominiation. So rather than vote against the party or withhold the money and/or time I usually spend working for the party during a presidential election, I quit.


It's not hypocritical. The hypocritical thing would be to work to get someone elected I feel is unworthy simply because the party expected me to do so. I did that twice and felt rather shameful about it after the fact. I wasn't going to do it again. From now on, the best person for the job is who I will support and if it's not a Democrat, so be it.

It's one thing to decide you won't support your ex-Party's nominee--quite another to have a hissy-pouting fit, and do everything in your power to assault the character and motives (in an immature fashion I'll add) of the emerged Candidate. I thought Dean was the "best foot forward" last time, and in fact believed there was some basis for the mud being slung at Kerry, but knew he was still a better choice than the alternative...by miles. Shame it took so long, but lot's of others who thought there was no diff between the Party's seem to be figuring it out this time, but we'll see on that. Frankly, I'm surprised at how you've reacted through this...and that's a compliment.

[memyselfI]

It's one thing to decide you won't support your ex-Party's nominee--quite another to have a hissy-pouting fit, and do everything in your power to assault the character and motives (in an immature fashion I'll add) of the emerged Candidate. I thought Dean was the "best foot forward" last time, and in fact believed there was some basis for the mud being slung at Kerry, but knew he was still a better choice than the alternative...by miles. Shame it took so long, but lot's of others who thought there was no diff between the Party's seem to be figuring it out this time, but we'll see on that. Frankly, I'm surprised at how you've reacted through this...and that's a compliment.

You know, if NObama had not presented himself as being so righteous and so different then I think there would be little need to knock him down to the extent that his detractors have done so. If he had won the nomination convincingly then I think many disaffected former DEMS might have reason to support him even begrudgingly. But there are many like myself who see his nomination to be the encapsulation of everything wrong about the DEM party and how dysfunctional it's become. NObama could barely win the nomination and has yet to unify the DEMS and we thought he'll do better with the entire country?

The fact that he's within MOE and is barely leading a pathetic opponent is what many of us foresaw months ago. It could change but I don't believe it will. I don't think he'll win and the DEMS would have blown a gimme election. That is when you will see many more folks like myself bailing from the party.

[Friendo]

You know, if NObama had not presented himself as being so righteous and so different then I think there would be little need to knock him down to the extent that his detractors have done so. If he had won the nomination convincingly then I think many disaffected former DEMS might have reason to support him even begrudgingly. But there are many like myself who see his nomination to be the encapsulation of everything wrong about the DEM party and how dysfunctional it's become. NObama could barely win the nomination and has yet to unify the DEMS and we thought he'll do better with the entire country?

The fact that he's within MOE and is barely leading a pathetic opponent is what many of us foresaw months ago. It could change but I don't believe it will. I don't think he'll win and the DEMS would have blown a gimme election. That is when you will see many more folks like myself bailing from the party.


no offense, and I'm not being trite here, but if you couldn't sniff out Edwards for the complete phony he was/is, then your bullsh*t meter is broken. If anyone had reason to support the guy, certainly I did. How did your disappointment with Kerry's showing work itself out? Blame the Party? No, I think you're part of the problem, not part of the solution--just very unwilling to admit it--witness your reluctance to admit the difference between "bailing" and "drilling a hole in the boat". And do tell: "everything wrong with the Dem Party" I want to hear...from an "idea/issues" person.

[SHTSPRAYER]

It's my motto now. It's like a light bulb went off in my brain. I do not HAVE to do this. I'd been an enabler for too long and have only myself to blame for participating in the Democratic party dysfunction. No mo.

I actually look forward to the next few months vs. where I would have been filled with internal dread at having to work for a candidate I did not believe in. Convincing myself it was right and loyal to do so. And trying to convince other people they should support the guy I don't really support with their money and their vote...

I have no one to work for this election. It will be fun to just watch for once.


Let me say, I for one am very proud of you. You show honesty, dignity and integrity in spite of the moonbat peer pressure being applied to you. Right wingers like me can learn something from people like you. There is hope for both of us.

[NewPhin]

Let me say, I for one am very proud of you. You show honesty, dignity and integrity in spite of the moonbat peer pressure being applied to you. Right wingers like me can learn something from people like you. There is hope for both of us.

ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL


You're renewing my suspicions that you're a joke account. That's comedy gold.

[SHTSPRAYER]

ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL


You're renewing my suspicions that you're a joke account. That's comedy gold.


Silly moonbat.

[Ultra Peanut]

D'enise's evolution is a mystery
She's full of shit that we all see
The cache makes a fool of your story
Yesterday's so long ago,
Don't agree with what I know.
Hypocrisy becomes a place to be.

I see the line in the sand
Time to find out who I amhttp://i34.tinypic.com/16adzs1.gifhttp://i34.tinypic.com/16adzs1.gifhttp://i34.tinypic.com/16adzs1.gifhttp://i34.tinypic.com/16adzs1.gifhttp://i34.tinypic.com/16adzs1.gif

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/AR50OBKqtu4&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/AR50OBKqtu4&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

http://i34.tinypic.com/16adzs1.gifhttp://i34.tinypic.com/16adzs1.gifhttp://i34.tinypic.com/16adzs1.gifhttp://i34.tinypic.com/16adzs1.gifhttp://i34.tinypic.com/16adzs1.gif

[jAZ]

best person for the job has always been my motto.....
It's my motto now.
Which remaining candidate is the "best person for the job" denise?

['Hamas' Jenkins]

http://i34.tinypic.com/16adzs1.gifhttp://i34.tinypic.com/16adzs1.gifhttp://i34.tinypic.com/16adzs1.gifhttp://i34.tinypic.com/16adzs1.gifhttp://i34.tinypic.com/16adzs1.gif

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/AR50OBKqtu4&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/AR50OBKqtu4&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

http://i34.tinypic.com/16adzs1.gifhttp://i34.tinypic.com/16adzs1.gifhttp://i34.tinypic.com/16adzs1.gifhttp://i34.tinypic.com/16adzs1.gifhttp://i34.tinypic.com/16adzs1.gif

EVO-LUTION!!

[SportsRacer]

O AN SHE RACIST

[SHTSPRAYER]

O AN SHE RACIST

Racist = anybody who criticizes B.O. or eats at Denny's

[penchief]

Racist = anybody who criticizes B.O. or eats at Denny's

Claiming that you are being called a racist when you really aren't being called a racist = playing the race card.

[SHTSPRAYER]

Claiming that you are being called a racist when you really aren't being called a racist = playing the race card.


Racist = NASCAR