Why Hillary is not dropping out

[Larkinn]

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?

 

[Care4all]

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


Did Clinton Darken Obama's Skin?
March 5, 2008
Updated: March 6, 2008


Some Obama backers cry "racism." We find the accusation to be unsubstantiated.


Analysis......continued:

http://www.factcheck.org/mobile/article.php?id=508&page=2

Larkin???

i see you repeated your lie about clinton darkening obama's skin to make him look more black, and bogusly trying to continue your ''clinton's and supporters are racist'' bulloney in your next post to me but neglected to respond to this analysis by fact check.org.....hmph!

care

 

[Larkinn]

Larkin???

i see you repeated your lie about clinton darkening obama's skin to make him look more black, and bogusly trying to continue your ''clinton's and supporters are racist'' bulloney in your next post to me but neglected to respond to this analysis by fact check.org.....hmph!

care

As I said, I responded to this point before. I'm not going to say the same shit over and over again for those too dense to comprehend my posts.

And, by the way, care to cite where I called Hillary or her supporters racist? Whereas you call someone sexist just because they think Hillary should drop out.

 

[Ravi]

As I said, I responded to this point before. I'm not going to say the same shit over and over again for those too dense to comprehend my posts.

And, by the way, care to cite where I called Hillary or her supporters racist? Whereas you call someone sexist just because they think Hillary should drop out.

You said she admitted to doing it. Where's the link?

 

[Larkinn]

You said she admitted to doing it. Where's the link?

I posted it before. As I said, I'm not going to repeat myself anymore. I did it 4 or 5 times before for things Care "missed". If you want it, go search the threads yourself for it.

 

[Ravi]

I posted it before. As I said, I'm not going to repeat myself anymore. I did it 4 or 5 times before for things Care "missed". If you want it, go search the threads yourself for it.

If you say so.

 

[manifold]

I posted it before. As I said, I'm not going to repeat myself anymore. I did it 4 or 5 times before for things Care "missed". If you want it, go search the threads yourself for it.

Or to put it another way...

.

 

[Ravi]

I posted it before. As I said, I'm not going to repeat myself anymore. I did it 4 or 5 times before for things Care "missed". If you want it, go search the threads yourself for it.

I searched all over the internets and could find nothing about Clinton admitting to doing the darkening.

 

[Glori.B]

I searched all over the internets and could find nothing about Clinton admitting to doing the darkening.

cuz it never happened... doing it or admitting doing it.
it's BS.

 

[Ravi]

cuz it never happened... doing it or admitting doing it.
it's BS.

I know. But she does want to assassinate him so it's okay to make shit up.

 

[Care4all]

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.

i printed you what factcheck.org discovered on it and you simply are continuing to propigate a LIE, meant to spurn racism...


As does CNN, right?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/11/ferraro.comments/index.html


every 24/7 news outlet but maybe fox, i don't watch it, so i don't honestly know, but all the others have been obama lite and hillary hard with all of their reporting....and smearing and bashing hillary daily.....thus the sexism being pointed out...

was the reverend wright called a surrogate of obama's or obama a surrogate of wright's.....if it did happen, did you agree with it?

blind hypocrisy i suppose....



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.

ferraro and the hill camp made it clear from the beginning she was not speaking for her....that means she WAS NOT being a surrogate when she voiced her own opinion, but go ahead....continue onward in to your partisanry....you seem to get off on the buzz of the lies, i can't figure out why?

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.

i think politics is dirty all around....i just know i am no fool like you, who thinks this kind of stuff is below his candidate, because it IS NOT!

and it was not a far fetched surrogate of obama's who fed the emails, it was his campaign team, then after they caused all the turmoil and sunday shows to be on it, he comes out and PRETENDS he's a uniter and a pacifist and above him to be scuzzy to her....

i'll take the dirty clinton politics, any day of the week to this kind of deceiving bulloney from obama!


You are an idiot. I've responded to this asinine point several times and each time you've ignored it. Somehow I'm surprised.

i have been very precise in answering all of your points separately on all of my responses to you posts? if you answered, then where? or did you not really answer, but danced?



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.

the primary needs to be changed to one day, maybe in may, for both repubs and dems, giving the candidates time to get to all the states to campaign....this is how the party could do it, where no citizens are disenfranchised. also rotating early states if kept the way it has been is another method that could be worked out, but just keeping it the way it is where certain states are chosen as the early states and then the later states have no voice in the pick, is just plain wrong and elitist.

you're gonna have to show me anything factual that you have said that I have missed, cuz as it stands I can't think of anything that you have corrected me on that has been true.... I'll leave that opened for you to show me where you corrected my facts and were actually correct yourself...

There is no f-ing over of the Primary system, the Dnc Primary system is doing the f-ing over on the citizens in our country.

This may go to the convention, as Teddy did...cuz it doesn't look like an agreement will be made, and even the decision the rules committee makes this saturday if it is giving them half instead of full seating it has the opportunity to be contested at the convention....those ARE THE RULES of the Primary.

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.

As I said Ferroro made it clear that she was NOT speaking as a Hillary surrogate....

I heard about Ayers and Wright late December/early January on many republican blog sites and message boards quoting these sites...it was all over the place in their sphere....

And as I have showed you, FActcheck.org did an analysis of the claim that she darkened Obama's skin to make him look more black and the Obama's team calling racism,

Did Clinton Darken Obama's Skin?
March 5, 2008
Updated: March 6, 2008


Some Obama backers cry "racism." We find the accusation to be unsubstantiated.


Analysis......continued:

http://www.factcheck.org/mobile/arti...?id=508&page=2



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.

I agree that i have judged him harshly, this is because as with the Republicans that claimed Piety and God's ear, more scrutiny on their moral behavior is given to them, over a Democrat doing the same immoral thing...

Obama and his camp have claimed that Piety over the old school politics of washington, while they do it behind other's back and pretend that they don;t.

That's what is concerning to me, that he's got ya snookered in to believing he is going to be different and when it turns out that he is not, you will still think that he is, as the Bushites did, for a very long time, which ended up hurting our country, imho...

and not that I know or even think that Obama will do something to hurt our country....... but just in case he does flub up or turns out to be a hypocrite and just another person saying he is a uniter and not a divider, and will bring change to Washington dc- without lobbying influence, and will bring the troops home any faster or safer than Hillary would while the General he picked for an adviser is one of Clinton's general's from when he was in office, and Richardson somewhere in play who also was a clintonian, with his kennedy/kerry/edwards/dean insider connections that also supported Clinton at one time etc, then i think you will surely be disappointed.

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.


Because Hillary was MUCH, MUCH tougher than the guys anticipated...

They MOST certainly DO hold up to the facts, you are just too blind to see it, even when spelled out several times, Kennedy, Kerry, Richardson, Dean,
Edwards....ALL INSIDERS, the BIG GUNS in the Democratic Party, along with the media being Obamaites, are all tell tale signs on who the "insider pick" is...



She said it was mid-June. June 2nd is not mid-june.

soooooooooo? jimminee Christmas almighty.....you are really desperate!!! you think he's gonna lose, don't you.....thus the panic?

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?

Sexist! You still neglect to recognize that Hillary IS WINNING NEAR HALF OF THE DEMOCRATIC VOTERS....once again, diminishing what she has accomplished....and you try to foolishly and ignorantly and arrogantly try to compare what is going on in the Democratic contest to McCain and a ron Paul, mitt romney and huckabee? sheesh!


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.

I answered this before but you continue to ignore it, like if you close your eyes, it will go away...it won't go away.... The reason this garbage of 49 votes left before he has the magic number WON'T CUT IT is because the delegates or half the delegates of Florida and michigan will then be added to the total delegates of all states and then 50% needed from there, so Obama will not need just 49 votes to win.

BTW, one of the superdelegates changed their vote from Hillary to Obama back to Hillary today...so that must mean he needs 50, unless he got more super delegates today, which is possible?

so, as I have said many times, her chances are slim, but certainly NOT THE 0% THAT YOU claim....so why should she give up if there is still a slim chance? Why? This is what she has worked for and wanted her entire life, even before Bill's chance at it? I wouldn't give up if I had a slim chance, that would be called a "Quitter" in the era I grew up in...


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.

That doesn't mean that MY PARTY should take this leaway and disenfranchise voters because of their own arrogance, and inability to diplomatically solve this issue with the states that had legitimate concerns with the old fogey, elitist system where some states are favored over others, all of the time.

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.

Listen to what you are saying... on the one hand you have said that Obama HAS WON, but on the other hand you are wanting hillary to drop out...

GOT NEWS FOR YOU, if Obama had won as you said, then WHY DO YOU need Hillary to DROP OUT? sheesh....he hasn't won yet, he probably will win, but he hasn't won yet...



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.

Super delegates can change their minds and switch back to Hillary, you neglect to acknowledge that these are the rules.

She got one super delegate switching back today...as mentioned.


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.

She will not back stab obama in the general, it is JUST ANOTHER FEAR MONGERING AND LIES PUT FORWARD by the Obamaites....the only thing she can do, for her political career if she loses is to campaign her heart out for Obama to make amends within the party...she knows this and will do this...whether she wants to or not, though she says she wants to...

Obamaites do not deserve her to do such though, imho.

FOR THE LAST TIME, OBAMA HAS NOT WON if he had won, there would be no contest still going on here....he is the likely winner, but the wire at the finish line has NOT been crossed, by either candidate.

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.

I believe civil rights are human rights. I can explain if you really want me to go in to it, but it would be a little off topic...?

Such as your candidiate not winning?

It's about time my candidate started whining and the press ACTUALLY pick up on a HINT of it, but of course they immediately dismissed that they were dissing Hillary while putting obama on a pedestatl the last three months or even longer, since february....

They've been reporting all the "boo boos" that Obama has thought he has recieved for every little paper cut at best... you hardly have the ground to stand on when discussing this topic imo.

Sorry, but this election wasn't about sexism. Keep crying that all night long, but Hillary lost this one all on her lonesome.

Sure, whatever, dismiss it like all other mysogynist males...it was clear as day, moreso, than any racism played here, other than the racism coming from the Obama camp by calling racism for every damn thing and making up lies like the clinton darkened obama's skin to make him look blacker lie, so you can whine about racism...

I have gone in to the examples of sexism in this race on the media's part, but you want to pretend it didn't happen, NICE, REAL NICE..... Calling all the women that witnessed this just stupid and silly and making things up...oooooo that'll win Obama alot of votes, dismissing "the woman"....good play on your part.... Must be PMS on these women voters that think this way huh? I am surprised you didn't say that...OH WAIT, YOU DID, only in your own words!

Which won't change the tallies more than a handful even if they are added in Clinton's most favorable realistic scenarios.

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.

After THAT COMMENT ON ASSASINATION OF OBAMA....

all i can say is I won't be resonding to an ASSHOLE LIKE YOU, again, on any of these threads, you are not worth my time, you are HACK and you JUST PROVED IT, and a lowlife one at that, by saying what you said....

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.

She's a Hillary supporter? Really....that's why she made this comment when Obama people were complaining and whining that Obama better not lose the candidacy because of superdelegates.... to me, when she said this, I felt she was a very strong Obama supporter, but just had not committed yet, because of her position and speaker?

Gosh, that would be awesome if she were a Hillary supporter, one more super delegate her way...

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.

Not necessarily, the system is very complicated and awards delegates strangely, depending on caucus and primary and it is weighted....towards the underdog states...

If the party only wanted the People's votes to count then we would have one single primary for all and the individual vote would win the election, which is how I would like to see it, without all this funny business.

But the delegates and superdelegates have always been in the rules for this contest and Hillary has always supported them being able to choose who they think would be best as our president, it is Obama camp that voiced not thinking this was fair while manipulating the system to get people that should be voting for Hillary with their state, like the super delegates of Kerry, Rockefeller, Kennedy and Byrd, to move in to their camp and not only be super delegates, but gosh darn sponsors practically....when they are SUPPOSE to e giving the same support to hillary that their states gave her...

I don't care that they have done this, because the super delegates are suppose to be free to choose under this system...

And before you go in to the rules on fla and mich, it is in the rules that 100% of these delegates can be seated with 100% of their vote to count, if the committee decides such...YEP, that is in the rules of this contest, so you are wrong when you try to claim hillary is changing rules midstream, those HAVE ALWAYS BEEN IN THE RULES... and i might adddddd, once again, me CORRECTING YOU.... hahahahahahaha!

Obama has said they can't vote for whoever they want? Link to that please.

Obamaites did say such and caused an uproar, so much so that pelosi had to come out and make a Public statement about it....

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.

hahahahahahahaha! Oh my Gosh, NOW I have heard it all!!!!!!! the peoples vote in florida and michigan don't matter but now YOU WANT to say the people's vote does count if it can give your candidate a win?

Cut me a break, we're on to you!!!!


No, that chance isn't in play. You are politically naive if you think there is a chance of that happening.

That CHANCE is still in play, and so is going to the convention for the florida and michigan votes.... I am not saying this will definately happen, but it is a possibility, although slim, still a possibility in hill's mind i would bet, and she could know something we don't know on the superdelegates...???


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?

I've explained it, you just haven't listened and on this post, I hit on it again by some of your comments....BUT PRIMARILY, it has been the main stream and 24/7 media.

 

[Care4all]

did anyone see the cnn special they had last night on hillary's outfits in puerto rico, even describing her shoes and why she wasn't wearing thongs?

sexist bastards....demeaning the way they do that to her....ferragamo's btw, on her shoes... pretty expensive, all leather, including the lining and the soles....coming from the shoe industry and all.....


sheeeeeesh

 

[Ravi]

shhhhhhhh....Hillary in a thong.....might get the boys cranked up.

 

[Care4all]

shhhhhhhh....Hillary in a thong.....might get the boys cranked up.

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

you crack me up! tried to rep ya but couldn't....

care

 

[Shogun]

Hillary in a thong??

YUK, goddammit!

 

[Jon]

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.

You DO realize that after they rule Florida and Michigan seated this weekend, Obama's going to need a lot more than 49 delegates to win. After the fact that Clinton will capture most of the remaining primaries handedly, plus pick up the majority of delegates ruled from Florida and Michigan, AND take over the popular vote, it will be once again be a race that either could win. Did it ever cross your mind that many superdelegates were waiting to vote because they were waiting on a decision just like this to change the course of the race? With Florida and Michigan, plus the pledged delegates in Puerto Rico and other upcoming primaries, she could easily be in reach of the nomination by picking up a majority of the superdelegates.

I hate to tell you, but I don't see all the superdelegates pledging themselves to a candidate before the convention. And I don't see either candidate picking up enough delegates to win before the convention, either. This thing won't end until the actual vote is held. I also have a feeling it will be a lot closer than Obamanites are expecting.

 

[AllieBaba]

Yay!
Hillary is securing yet another Republican presidency....
I used to hate her, but now I just wubba her......

 

[Jon]

Yay!
Hillary is securing yet another Republican presidency....

Which, if she doesn't win the Democratic nomination, is a'ok with me.