that's a lie. Hillary did not darken Obama's skin in any ad....it's impossible for her to do or her campaign to do if this ad ran in a newspaper or a magazine....this is fully in control of the printing press, I work in the field, and know what I am talking about.
Yeah you claimed this last time, and then I printed the details, and then you never responded. Sorry, but I'm not going to spoon feed you information more than once.
To say that Ferraro is a SURROGATE of Clinton shows how far you are in to Obama's bottom..... you got it bad Larkin.... and you are a two faced son of gun too.... What Rev Wright said, a pastor of Obama's for 20 years, the pastor that married him and his wife and the pastor that baptized his children, can not be even considered as someone who might be a surrogate for Obama's inner feelings but Ferraro is a surrogate of Hillary's, saying what Hillary wants her to say and believes herself?
As does CNN, right?
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/11/ferraro.comments/index.html
The former congresswoman is the latest Clinton surrogate
You are a politically naive fool who doesn't know what a surrogate is. Its someone who the campaign sends out onto the talk shows to represent them and argue for them. Gerraro was that for Clinton, she was her surrogate. But of course you want to ignore that FACT because its politically expedient to do so.
And nobody is saying this represents Hillary's "inner feelings". But if your going to tar Obama with things his campaign does, I can tar Hillary with things her campaign does. Or are you hypocritical? Gee...I wonder.
YOU ARE REALLY BECOMING A JOKE Larkin....can't you see what you are doing and saying, all for the sake of supporting your candidate....you soooo remind me of a Bushite..... too bad you didn't learn from their mistake of believing that their Candidate was right at all costs, and believing that he would save them from the madness.....and they believed he could do no wrong....
You are an idiot. I've responded to this asinine point several times and each time you've ignored it. Somehow I'm surprised.
You may think I'm one of them if you wish, but I am not.
What I have seen happen here with Hillary, is not something I have "made up" Larkin, it is something that I see and have seen, that is not pretty and very disappointing as a woman, to know that things STILL haven't changed that much....in important areas where it counts.
Yes, actually you are. I've had to make numerous factual corrections because you "missed" them. You apparently read only pro-hillary sites and I had to point out some incredibly obvious shit to you. You are willing to fuck over the primary system so "your candidate" can win. This has nothing to do with Hillary being a woman.
Outside of that, there is nothing that you have shown that makes her campaign dirty.
it was Drudge and repubs on the rev wright tapes and them on the Obama outfit of African origins, the hillary camp could not darken any print ad, and ferarro is NOT her surrogate and so on and so forth....
And where did Drudge get that info from? And the ad was a TELEVISION ad, as I've stated before. And ferraro IS her surrogate, which is pretty much absurd that your arguing that shes not. That just shows how desperate you are.
Now, if that was not dirty back stabbing, and low as you can go, and give reason to ask oneself, "Who is this Obama guy, and how the heck did he get all of the Insiders in the Media, and In the Democratic Party and in the Know like the Kennedy's etc to support him....?"
Wow, you sure do judge Obama a lot harsher than Clinton. IF thats actually what happened, it wasn't classy, but that shit happens ALL THE TIME. The candidates send out others to be hatchet men while they stay above the fray.
He is the INSIDER'S PICK, there will be no change in Washington DC...the status quo is how I see it laying out....
So how come the "insider's pick" only picked up more unpledged delegates than Hillary fairly recently?
Whoops. Your opinions don't hold up to the facts.
So what? a couple of week difference in the ending schedule? Maybe aI missed your point Larkin, please state it in full again?
She said it was mid-June. June 2nd is not mid-june.
I don't know about you, but in my world, someone has won, when they scored more points than the "other" after the game is over. PERIOD.
Now you can try to play with words and use "effectively won" or some crud like that...but what is the purpose behind it?
The purpose is to not wait until August to have a candidate. By the way, John McCain hasn't been nominated yet either. But hes effectively won. Where is all your angst over that?
AHHHHHHHHHHHH, so because it is close and because half of the democrats want Hillary to win, YOU WANT HER TO DROP OUT????
And, the most important part, she has 0% chance of winning. Funny you like to leave out how incredibly slim her chances of winning are. Obama needs 49 more delegates to win. Hillary needs FIVE TIMES that amount.
Are YOU just crazy or from some communist country PRETENDING to live in the Democratic, United States of America or something? first you want to disenfranchise American citizens from their vote and voices in this contest and now you want to claim someone a winner BEFORE they have actually won the contest?
Americans don't have a constitutional right to vote in the primaries . This has been decided by the USSC of the Democratic US of A. I don't really care whether you like it or not, thats how our system works.
And yes, I will claim that someone is a winner before they've won, because he is. I don't want the DNC to say that hes won, I want Hillary to drop out for the good of the party.
The race has been neck in neck, to come out like Obama has some overwhelming, resolving type lead in this race is absurd, and counting your chickens before they are hatched....
Considering the amount of delegates left, its no longer neck and neck. Obama has won this one. By failing to recognize that, you just look more and more like a fool.
You want the race OVER because you are afraid that YOUR candidate just might lose, is what it has looked like to me for a couple of weeks now...
Give me a fucking break. Try to avoid ascribing motives to someone you don't know at all. As I've said, Hillary has 0% chance of winning. That would mean I'm not scared of her winning. What I am scared of her doing is backstabbing Obama in the general.
I care about Human Rights FIRST, WAYYYYYYYYYYYYY ABOVE PARTY, the Party means nothing to me.... the people's choices do mean something to me, but the party is a name on a billboard outside of a building as far as I am concerned.
Learn what Human Rights are before you talk about them. Nobody got their HR infringed upon in this election, that is asinine and diminishing the importance of those who actually get their HR infringed upon. You want to see HR violations? Go to Sudan or Burma.
Some GREAT discriminating civil offenses and injustices took place in this campaign, and they were not against a black man....
Such as your candidiate not winning?
Sorry, but this election wasn't about sexism. Keep crying that all night long, but Hillary lost this one all on her lonesome.
The count he needs is higher than such because Florida and Michigan will count in some manner, adding that decision and those delegates in to the mix...
Which won't change the tallies more than a handful even if they are added in Clinton's most favorable realistic scenarios.
Also, don't forget that super delegates can change their minds, as they have done several times by many....
Keep praying for that Care. Don't forget, someone could assassinate Obama as well. You can pray for that as well. Its probably more likely to happen than the superdelegates changing to Hillary en masse.
Nancy Pelosi said that super delegates should go with their states on their votes, but that would mean that Kerry, and Kennedy and Byrd and Rockafeller and a number of other super delegates that snubbed their states and went with Obama...would go back to hillary....????
And you are listening to Nancy Pelosi on how the delegates should be seated...why exactly? Oh right, because she is a Hillary supporter, and it will help your candidate.
Ohhhhh, but wait, wasn't it your camp, the Obama camp that was SCREAMING EARLY ON in the primary that the Super delegates better vote with their state and NOT overturn it with their super delegate vote?
Aren't YOU the one who thinks that the "voice of the people" matters? So, forget about the superdelegates, and say they must vote the way their state does. Obama still wins. Hes won more states, and more pledged delegates than Hillary has.
hypocrites.... at least the Hillary side has always stuck by the RULES in the game and acknowledged that super delegates can vote for who they want....
Obama has said they can't vote for whoever they want? Link to that please.
Hillary has said they SHOULD vote for whoever they want. Obama has said they SHOULD vote in a democratic fashion, and not overturn the will of the people. Funny that you whine and bitch and moan about voter disenfranchisement, but yet your willing to overturn Obamas winning the peoples vote with superdelegates. What a surprise.
I don't think the game is over, until the game is over...until Obama has enough delegates to say he won the nomination, but that is up to Hillary, whether she wants to bow down to the man, and make it easy for the baby or stay in and make him tougher which he and his camp will need to become, or even by a miracle, get enough super delegates to go with her...THAT CHANCE is still in play Larkin....
No, that chance isn't in play. You are politically naive if you think there is a chance of that happening.
I think you know this, and this is why you want her to quit now, so that this opportunity of hers is snuffed out, RIGHT NOW.... I don't think that is fair at all, and I do believe that is sexist and if edwards were the one that was close or gore was the one that was close to obama and still had the chance of winning the superdelegates, that you and a number of other men, would not be hounding and saying they should quit....
You are an idiot. I would be saying that edwards should quit as well. By the way, you haven't explained how I'm a sexist who voted for Clinton in 2006. Sort of makes your sexism claim seem pretty stupid, doesn't it?