Comments for Clinton poised for W.Va. win »
Posted By SunnyDays 1 year, 7 months ago in NewsThe Democratic presidential race runs on two tracks now, one snaking through the West Virginia primary Tuesday and the other mapped out by Barack Obama through battleground states in the fall.
Read Full Story at msnbc.msn.com »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 211
-
Neutral
rightfromwrong1 year, 7 months ago
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
slate1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Nothing wrong with that, however, look at what the Rs have done, they didn't hold Bush's feet to the fire enough because of party unity and see where it lead. There is nothing wrong with pointing out any politicians flaws,,,,, to not do so is worse than pointing them out.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
Neutral
StarLord1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Much the same way someone else doesn't remember 10 years of race-hating sermons by his pastor, I'd imagine.
Or, for that matter, then a week later does remember "a few controversial remarks".
Or, during the time period in question, donates an average of $500 per week to the church of said pastor, and then dumps him as soon as he's politically inconvenient.
Or denies NAFTA remarks that are on the record.
The list goes on. No-one is squeaky-clean in this race...
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Blackacereturn1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Hill is not the DNC she will play ball or they will cut here out at the knees. Besides it's not in her best interest to destroy a DEM president, that would follow here to the end of her political life. More importantly, is your dislike for Obama soo strong that you wouldn't give him a chance to right the country, you are on to finding ways to sabotage his presidency. Now that's just UnAmerican.
Reply -
-
-
Neutral
CRYMTYPHON1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yes; Obama is sinking fast, and the marginot line is holding steady against the damn germans, and next year we will turn the corner on the war, and the titanic will sail safely into dock, and gas will be 1$ a gallon again, -
I won't go on.
But Obama will.
Reply -
-
-
-
Neutral
nostalgia1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You just have to wonder about all of the apologists that defended the Clinton's for 16 years and refused to open their eyes or honestly assess their actions and behavior
BOB HERBERT of the NYT really takes the Clinton's to task
The Clintons have never understood how to exit the stage gracefully.
He can't win! Don't you understand? He's black! He's black!
The Clintons have been trying to embed that gruesomely destructive message in the brains of white voters and superdelegates for the longest time. It's a grotesque insult to African-Americans, who have given so much support to both Bill & Hillary over the years.
The last time the Clintons had to make a big exit was at the end of Bill's 2nd term as president â;; and they made a complete and utter hash of that historic moment. Having survived the Monica Lewinsky ordeal, you might have thought the Clintons would be on their best behavior.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/10/opinion/10her...
Reply-
Neutral
ETproductions1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
nostalgia wrote: "The Clintons have never understood how to exit the stage gracefully."
Anybody remember the Black Knight skit from "Monty Python And The Holy Grail"?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eMkth8FWno&feat...
Somebody should do a Hillary Clinton voice-over for the bit. It's a perfect fit. It'd be a sure hit on YouTube.com
Reply -
-
Neutral
StarLord1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Why shouldn't they continue until August?
Until Obama actually has 2,025 delegates in his pocket, there is always the chance of an 11th-hour reprieve.
Should the Clintons refuse to help AFTER August, in the general campaign, that's a different story. Before the DNC, it's about securing hte nomination. After the DNC, it's about party unity.
P.S. Why did Obama run, if he's so big on party unity? Before he put his hat into the ring (and for sometime after), Clinton was the clear frontrunner in all the polls, and would have easily coasted to a nomination sans his interference.
Reply-
Neutral
ETproductions1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
They shouldn't continue until August because EVERY time they have done that in recent history, the Democrats have gotten absolutely slaughtered in the General Election in November.
1924: John Davis
1968: Hubert Humphrey
1972: George McGovern
1980: Jimmy Carter
1984: Walter Mondale
All lost in landslides. The superdelegates know this. Look for them to commit quickly after voting ends June 3rd. If something comes up between then and the convention that shows their pick is fatally flawed, they can always switch their vote. Even elected (committed) delegates are actually free to vote their conscience. They rarely do, because they are selected as delegates by the candidate and based upon their loyalty to the candidate.
But is a candidate were to die, or be incapacitated, or fall victim to serious scandal, the convention is perfectly free to reverse course in the fall.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
getreal11 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The News media were the first to categorize and label people. Every time any reporter gets on the news he has to tell what kind of voter is supposed to vote what. He uses race and e.t.c. to tell his specifics. Hillary has only been repeating what the news media has been projecting to every American citizen. Shame on you, news Media for thinking that People can not see through you too. Does it really bother the News Media and the NEW YORK TIMES that all votes should be voted? Who is it, trashing the constitution now?
Reply-
Neutral
DropkickaLib1 year, 7 months ago
-
-
Neutral
DropkickaLib1 year, 7 months ago
-
Neutral
fempatriot1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Actually I'm shocked that so many hard pressed blue collar workers would vote for the woman whose husband sent the last of the good American industrial jobs to Mexico and China. Bill Clinton may not have instigated NAFTA and GATT, but he signed the legislation letting American industry leave our shores. Blue collar workers are either woefully ignorant or actually believe that this rich woman really does care--which she doesn't. She'll just say anything to get votes.
Reply-
-
-
Neutral
StarLord1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
1. HRC didn't start life rich, or with any material advantages.
2. BHO did - he was mostly raised by his rich white grandparents (his grandmother was a VP of the Bank of Hawaii).
3. BILL Clinton was pro-NAFTA. As soon as the Clintons left the White House, Hillary started criticising it on the grounds of a "non-level playing field". I'd say that this means that Hillary felt obliged to not rock the boat while her husband was the President, but afterwards felt free to speak her mind.
4. Given Obama's "bitter" comments, and his flip-flopping on the 2nd amendment and gun control, its clear that he has even less in common with them than she does.
EDIT: Bleh, misplaced. This should be under "fempatriot"'s post.
Reply -
Neutral
CRYMTYPHON1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You're right!
When will blue-collar Americans start voting their interests, and require that corporations be taxed what they owe this country? And be required to not pollute the air and water? And provide a decent minimum wage?
And then the real workers of America, filled with a renewed sense of awareness, could begin to take some power back from 'bushes base'.
That would be shocking, but hey I am for it, and for whoever leads the charge; Clinton or Obama.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
StarLord1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Good sense is not the issue (and I disagree with you there anyway). The issue is who can win in November. That will be the person who can appeal to the most numerous and diverse constituencies in America.
Hint: Their initials aren't BHO.
Reply -
Neutral
Grrr1 year, 7 months ago
-
Neutral
saintetienne1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Think again. Most Republicans are working so that our tax dollars can support welfare recipients - who are overwhelmingly Democrat.
I don't "sneer" at anyone who is out there earning their own way. I save my sneers for the lazy, dependent "poor".
Reply-
Neutral
GWHayduke1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Take a look at the BUDGET, Frenchie.
The US gov budget, that is. Social spending is paltry compared to military spending.
Your tax dollars are spent rebuilding infrastructure & building palatial embassies in Iraq by private contractors - the vast majority of the welfare you support with your hard earned money is CORPORATE welfare thanks to Uncle Dickie.
Reply-
Neutral
saintetienne1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Social spending is paltry compared to military spending."
9 Trillion dollars is paltry? For that's what our government has wasted on social programs since good ol' LBJ enacted the "War on Poverty" (pause, for snicker and laughter) in 1964. Even a HUNDRED "palatial embassies in Iraq" would be a drop in the bucket, in comparison.
9 TRILLION DOLLARS!!! Yet poverty continues to increase, social programs continue to expand, government bureacracy has grown a hundred-fold since then, and homelessness continues its chronic swing upward. But let's keep spending those dollars. Surely there's an end in sight - we just need to throw more money at it. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
I'd rather have my money go into Corporate welfare - at least it's doing something besides increasing government bureacracy and keeping the working class from working.
Honestly, Haypuke. You're a laugh riot! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Reply-
Neutral
GWHayduke1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Cherry pickin your data to support your moronic assertion that social programs don't receive 80% LESS funding than the military, Frenchie?
Specious logic is all you can muster?
Of course it is, its all you have.
Your unapologetic support of a continued failure exemplifies your sad state.
As for increasing government bureacracy - the Dumby administration has increased the size of our government more than ANY OTHER administration....EVER!
Nice try, though.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
JohnQPublicComment removed: Retracted by user4 Replies
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
JohnQPublicComment removed: Retracted by user2 Replies
-
Neutral
lum-chate1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yeh, Obama wins NC by 200,000 votes, his margin of victory among AA's was 540,000 to 60,000 or 480,000 votes. So he lost the white vote by 480,000. It looks like the McGovern coalition is back with a new loser as their leader. I wish the W. Va primary was on that day, his "HUGH" NC victory as professed by the left wing media would look rather small in comparison 57-43 as opposed to 69-31 for Clinton in a state the democrats won last time and need. NC is Republican all the way so Obama wins it. Whoop de doo!
Reply-
Neutral
ETproductions1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The false assumption in that is that every single NC white Democrat who voted for Hillary in the primary will vote for McCain in the fall. That is not going to happen! Very few working class Democrats will vote for McCain when they realize that's a vote for four more years of Bush, and after the general election campaign, they will realize that even if they never spent a day in High School.
Hillary has been spinning the same Big State lie about New York and California. In 1980, the Republicon GOD, Ronald Reagan lost in New York. He also lost in California, his home state where he had been Governor! ANY Democrat will win against McCain in those states this fall.
Reply-
Neutral
lum-chate1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Your forgetting 1 simple fact! That was the Democrat primary.
Your right that Clinton supporters will not vote in mass for McCain but a large % of them will join the Republicans who will make sure Obama is trounced in NC. West Virginia is a different story Kerry carried it, Obama will not Dems lose another blue state if they choose a 1 trick pony as their nominee!
Reply -
-
Neutral
lum-chate1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
California went for a Republican 6 out of the last 10 elections. The Asians & Latinos are not as fond of Obama as you are. The "governator" a middle of the road Republican like his good friend McCain will be a big factor. California is in play if Obama is the nominee make no mistake about it!
Reply-
Neutral
ETproductions1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. Facts on California in Presidential Elections. See http://www.270towin.com/ and select years. California has gone Democratic in 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004 and leaning Democratic for 2008.
Dem's the facts.
Reply-
-
Neutral
lum-chate1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
ET
About your comment
You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.
Democratic in 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004 and leaning Democratic for 2008.
I said 6 out of the last 10 elections the Republicans won California. Try 1988, 1984, 1980, 1976, 1972 & 1968. I stated my facts correctly.
Also your comment He also lost in California, his home state where he had been Governor! ANY Democrat will win against McCain in those states this fall. IS INCORRECT. You get an F
on your report card for fact finding!
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
StarLord1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
According to the exit polls, up to 35% of all of Hillary's voters will vote for McCain in November. Another 15% will stay at home rather than face the Obama v. McCain choice.
Regarding the Big States - stop cherry-picking. Clinton also won in Florida and Ohio (which decided the 2000 and 2004 elections respectively), as well as Pennsylvania, Michigan and the Texas popular vote. The site www.electoral-vote.com has the latest polls for Obama/Clinton vs McCain, updated daily.
If you look at "solid" states, also look at the "solid Red" states - almost every one of them voted for Obama in the primaries.
The data are all there - all you need is eyes to see them...
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
ETproductions1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
DropkickaLib wrote: "Actually, if you look at voter statistics Obama's support is heavily weighted in favor of African-Americans and the Leftist intelligencia. Over 90% of African-Americans in North Carolina voted for him."
Lies and spin as usual from you. Iowa is just full of blacks and leftist intelligencia? All college educated people are leftist?
I'd be careful with the name calling if I had to champion a man like John McCain. Something about living in a glass house...
Reply-
Neutral
lum-chate1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
ET
Iowa was a caucus state where only 1/10th of the Dems bother participating in. In those scenarios the fanatics like the DailyKos, Huffington Post & lets not forget the Moveon.orgers
have undue influence. With only 1/10 of the Dems participating & the wrong 1/10th by the way it was not surprising that Obama got 39%. Next question?
Reply-
Neutral
ETproductions1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I suppose his lack of appeal is why Obama is leading in Popular Vote, States Won, Delegates, superdelegates and fund raising. Hillary is behind in all meaningful metrics because only she has the "winning coalition." Riiiight. And who is it that is a fanatic?
Reply-
-
Neutral
ETproductions1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Never thought I'd be saying this, but I am coming to the conclusion that we may need BOTH of them on the ticket to win in 08. Hillary has alienated key constituencies she can't possibly win without. She appeals to key constituencies Obama can't win without. Maybe the dream ticket is more than just a dream.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
StarLord1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
1. Obama's vote is concentrated (as far as HRc/BHO vs JMC polls indicate) in states what will vote Democrat (in which case they're irrelevant) or Republican by huge margins (in which case they're wasted).
2. Caucuses are inherently undomcractic, for the following reasons:
i) They are organised to only be open for a few house, usually working hours on a weekday, skewing the turnouts.
ii) People can be refused admission at the discretion of the organisers.
iii) No proper oversight by any electoral commissions renders caucuses extrememly vulnerable to electoral fraud.
iv) In caucuses, people can be made to stand up and publicly announce their support, rendering them vulnerable to peer pressure - there isn't a secret ballot.
Subtract caucus votes from both candidates, and Obama is suddenly a LONG way behind. Also, the hard polling data (again, www.electoral-vote.com) indicate Obama losing by a large margin in November to McCain, and Clinton winning.
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
StarLord1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Lies? Exit polls established that over 90% of AA voters went for Obama.
Lies? Exit polls indicated a 70-30 advantage in people with college degrees and college students to Obama.
Lies? Obama struggles with Catholics, older people, Hispanics and working-class whites - all established by various exit polls.
Be a little more careful before you throw that word around, please, ET.
Reply-
Neutral
ETproductions1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The lie is that all college educated people are leftist socialist intelligentsia.
Clearly Obama has work to do to win over certain voting blocks that are critical to Democratic Party wins. The superdelegates will no doubt take that into account. But they must also weigh the long-term damage they will do if they decide to overrule the party rules and the elected delegate count. That could damage the party not just in 2008 but for a generation to come.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
bamababy1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
My husband and I are both so called blue collar workers and we do not support Senator Clinton. In my opinion if she would actually leave this campaign, Senator Obama would be reaping more of the blue collar voters. We don't all support Clinton. Here in Indiana the Teamster President Hoffa was here and they are supporting Obama, doesn't get much more blue collar than that. As far as the African-American vote goes, Clinton actually fairs well there,not all are supporting Obama. I think name calling and sneering is bad for everyone and is very devisive in such a crucial time in our country's history. I voted for Senator Obama, I do not like or respect Senator Clinton but the alternative McCain is way more than this white, blue collared girl could stomach. I would have to vote for her if by some act of devine intervention she won the nomination ( not likely). It's either that or abstain. I am an American and it is my duty to vote, so where does one go?
Reply -
-
-
Neutral
slate1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Context Dio,,, you know full well that comment was in reply to the post stating whites in that state were uneducated.
Cushi said Guess they've got better sense than some of those uneducated blue collar workers Hillary's always bragging about.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
getreal11 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What is more important the principals of the constitution for which we stand or the black race using color as a crutch for everything when they can't get their way. If the black race wishes to be recognized as equal then they must stand up and become equal. This country and the problems it has right now is where they should focus their attention. Obama is of a mixed race. If he means to have the two become equal he must stop the black race from using racism as the reason for everything. One would think that the black race was the only one ever discriminated against.
Reply-
Neutral
cushi1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If anyone in this country has used color, it has been the caucausian race. They used it enslave people, they used it to pass unfair laws, to deny voting rights, to dispense unequal education and unequal justice, to promote separation and division instead of unity in the "United" States. They have a well documented history of making differences based on both race and class, and of elevating themselves to a stature (in their own minds) above others.
You have the nerve to accuse blacks of using the "race" card, when whites are the very ones who invented it and have milked it for all it's worth across the years.
Blacks are voting for the candidate of their choice, which is their right, whether you like it or not. They don't need your approval.
Reply-
Neutral
getreal11 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Cushi, I did not invent slavery. Greed did. It was black man in Africa selling black man here. Before that, black were not the only people to be slaves. It is an age old thing in the history of earth. Be happy that you have a life of freedom to live. I never said they had to have my approval. Yeah I have the nerve to bring it up. You must be one that can bring it up if you need to get somewhere in life. I bring it up because the black race still to this day act like they are enslaved. You just proved what I said up above.
Reply -
Neutral
lum-chate1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"If anyone in this country has used color, it has been the caucausian race."
That might be so. I'll give you one example, the Cook County Crooks who spawned Obama. White liberals helped use the black majority there giving out pennies to the AA's in order to steal more elections than they ever fairly won. Good thinking!
Reply
-
-
newbie0420Comment removed: Hard Banned6 Replies
-
-
Neutral
StarLord1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Actually, lots of Senator Clinton's votes come from women who voted for her because she's worked heaps on womens' lib issues, before, during, and after her time as First Lady.
Get it right first time, please. What has Obama does to materially benefit the AA population? Less than the woman who he backstabbed to become a State Senator - Alice Palmer was a longtime activist and legislator on the grounds of race equality. Until Obama stabbed her in the back with dirty legal tactics.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
cushi1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You know what trips me out? Every time Shrillary points out that her main base is uneducated blue collar workers and the elderly. In one foul swoop, she is calling her backers ignorant and old, yet they don't seem to pick up on the fact that they are being insulted. On the other hand, McCain gets all bent because Obama says he's losing his bearings, and the easily swayed voters in PA flocked to Hillary because Obama rightly stated that some of them were "bitter" and cling to their religion (aren't we believers supposed to do just that?)! Some people are so easily had!
Reply-
anioklyComment removed: Spammer
-
-
Neutral
joeblowe1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It's kind of funny the way the MSM manipulates people. They talk about how "race ISN'T a factor!", or maybe "IS race a factor?", or "so-and-so CLAIMS that race is (or is NOT) a factor" - and really, until the MSM brought it up in this sneaky way - NO ONE was even thinking about it in those terms. And - honestly - bigots have their "minds" made up ahead of time and there is NO WAY to change them, so what's the point of even TALKING about race? Either way you look at it, it is totally irrelevant. Except as a newsless news story.
Reply -
Neutral
getreal11 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Let me give you an example of something Cushi. During one of my breaks in the break room at work, we were in a discussion about several new positions becoming available. There were three white workers to about seven black workers in there. This one black lady pop up and told us all that if she didn't get the position she wanted she was going to scream race discrimination on basis of being black. Even tho I didn't say anything one of the other black ladies in the break room, told her in front of me, that she was the very reason that racism stays alive. I feel sorry for her, She doesn't know that she has her currant position because she is smart. Race had nothing to do with the first step she got on the ladder. The news Media is responsible for the many classifications of Americans and then you have people with inferiority complexes that aid the issue. I see this Mr. Herbert with the NYT as having one, the Reverent Wright as another.
Reply-
Neutral
Georgia501 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
A black female co-worker who came in the office one day where some of us (all whites) were. She joined in and said, "I'm telling you black females are the most prejudiced people I know." We asked what prompted that. She had just left a huddle of black females where one said, "I like listening to Dr. Laura." Another responded, "Eeew...I would never listen to her...she's white and she's a Jew."
A black friend called me up, perplexed. He interviewed for a position and was told "the slot's going to a black person regardless." His problem was that he wanted the position on merit, not race. I said, "Look, it's not your thing, and you are clearly qualified. Your decision should be, is this the next best step in your career, yes or no. If it is--and they offer you the job--take it. They are thinking about them. You have to worry about you." He took it, and I don't blame him. But I do blame a system that renders black achievement meaningless.
Reply-
Neutral
quackpot1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The Dr. Laura story shows your friend has good taste.
Your jive about the position is total fabrication - give it a rest already. A man of merit would take a good position if offered and then show his worth. The race part of the story is total B.S.
Reply -
Neutral
getreal11 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Merit has a lot to do with accepting a position. I have been offered plenty of steps up the ladder. Without all the knowledge of that position I would not be able to keep it and the workers under me would suffer. Their work would be come increased. You loose profit and good employees that would make you business stronger.
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
CRYMTYPHON1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Why does my vessel have a soul?
And where is it being guided to? Why does it need a guide?
And is this the kind of vessel that looks like a boat, or a bottle?
And is the soul of my vessel the same as my soul? And if so, am I the vessel? In which case, is it the vessel or the soul that asks these questions?
Finaly, what the heck does that have to do with Hillary Clinton?
Reply
-
-
Neutral
joeblowe1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Who cares? Stick a fork in her ... she's done. (Unless, of course, the super delegates really ARE involved in a conspiracy to overlook the popular vote and present Hillary ANYWAY. Not impossible.)
On a more interesting note, the AOL/Netscape straw poll from the Netscape home page is currently showing Ron Paul running just about EVEN with John McCain. I know it doesn't really count for anything and may be totally manipulated, but still.... interesting.
Reply-
newbie0420Comment removed: Hard Banned5 Replies
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
raza91 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The Great and Secret Show. The Illusion of difference. The Illusion of change. Let the games begin! Facts: McCain, Hilary and Obama all voted FOR the 'war', they all voted FOR the 'patriot act', and they all voted FOR Nafta. All their top campaign contributors are mainly Big Business. They ALL rub elbows with corporate lobbyists and are ALL are affiliated with the CFR. If you don't know much about the council on foreign relations,I implore you to do some research. The ONLY candidate that voted against all the aforementioned policies and is NOT affiliated with the CFR and whose donors were mostly from regular men/women in the military is the candidate being kept backstage by both parties and the media. For he is a shining star indeed, and will actually promote REAL CHANGE. He has the answer to 1884, and it is 1776...Restore the Republic, Restore the Constitution...Vote (or at least research) Ron Paul.
Reply-
JohnQPublicComment removed: Retracted by user5 Replies
-
Neutral
getreal11 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I think the candidates know in order to achieve prosperity for this nation that they will have to go against their parties to do it. After all it is their party members that stand to loose if the trade and tariff policies are changed. too quickly and they may go broke.
Reply -
-
-
Neutral
IanFraigun1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What planet do you get your information from. Those three things occured before Obama was in the US Congress and thus he could not vote on any of them contrary to your statements.
I would never vote for anyone supported by someone of your total lack of actual knowledge of these key subjects. If you know so little your candidate probably knows even less.
Reply-
Neutral
raza91 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Oh my goodness, lol. I've been getting a lot of grieve for the wording of my OP. I'll have to be careful next time, yes I do realize Obama was not there to originally vote for the war etc. My point was, Since his arrival into the Senate, he has voted for these things, not against.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
StarLord1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
FACT: Obama was not in the US Senate in 2003. Therefore couldn't vote either way. AND he condemned the war from Day One (one of the few things I like about him).
FACT: Clinton has openly opposed the conduct of the war, and claims to have been misled on the intel of the WMDs.
FACT: Dr Paul was the editor of a white supremacist magazine. As far as he's concerned, a lack of state interference means a return to the "good old days" of Manchester cotton-mill-style laissez-faire capitalism, where the rich grow ever richer, and the poor ever poorer.
Reply -
-
Neutral
raza91 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
How about living in a country without the Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence and without the Constitution? Does that sound good to you? I would rather be a FREE AMERICAN ... then a global citizen, personally. True the Constitution isn't perfect (it was written by men, after all) and it has been grossly misinterpreted over the years. But it's most important purposes is to protect Individual Liberty. With that there is no persecution of anyones sexual creed, religion and no racism!
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
fempatriot1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Back during the Watergate hearings, 27 year old Hillary Clinton was fired from her job for unethical legal behavior. She decided to ignore the Constitution and legal precedent because of her bias against Richard Nixon. I have the feeling she's ignored the Constition several times in her checkered career. We certainly don't need a Queen Hillary riding roughshod over what little protection the founding fathers gave us. Plus, a female is not going to be able to get anywhere with the Muslim countries...at this time. Barak Obama has the best chance of getting us out of some of the messes Geo. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Congress have gotten us in.
Reply-
-
-
-
Neutral
CRYMTYPHON1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
fempatriot said:
"Plus, a female is not going to be able to get anywhere with the Muslim countries...at this time"
Fempatriot, you are making us look bad among the muslims, by speaking in a forum for serious male discussion.
Please return to the place and century where women are women-like. We men-folk will handle it from here.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
raza91 year, 7 months ago
-
Neutral
taciturnman1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The News media were the first to categorize and label people. Every time any reporter gets on the news he has to tell what kind of voter is supposed to vote what. He uses race and e.t.c. to tell his specifics. http://www.youtube.com/user/BestBedroomFurniture Hillary has only been repeating what the news media has been projecting to every American citizen. Shame on you, news Media for thinking that People can not see through you too. Does it really bother the News Media and the NEW YORK TIMES that all votes should be voted? Who is it, trashing the constitution now?
Reply -
-
Global_WarmerComment removed: Abusive2 Replies
-
Neutral
IanFraigun1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
There is no way Hillary can win the popular vote without counting the one state where she was the only one to violate party rules and leave her name on the ballot. Even 100% vote in the remaining states and she still loses the popular vote total. And of course don't forget at least two of those will probably go Obama big time.
Reply-
Neutral
lum-chate1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
That's just a dumb statement.
"Even 100% vote in the remaining states and she still loses the popular vote total."
There is over 5,000,000 votes to be counted in the remaining primaries, where did you hear Clinton was 5,000,000 votes behind?
Reply -
-
-
Neutral
unome21 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The funny thing about elections in America is it really doesn't matter who is elected President in that nothing is really going to change. The Republican and democratic partys will bring to us more of the same. Whether it's unjustified wars or unscrupled covert CIA operations or ridicules comodities crisises you can be asureed that the Dem-Repub- Cartel will be behind it. Sure , it would be easier listening to someone who can string a few words together and who is capable of forming a cohesive sentence and/or thought beyond "the terrorists are going to get you".
But lets be realistic , America is no longer ruled by its people, it is ruled by the international corporations that control our two party system. They care as much about you as they do the Chinese or South American worker.
There goal is not a Better world, but instead the consolidation of wealth into the hands of a few.
Reply -
-
-
Neutral
nikkibabe1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The people voting for Hillary in W. VA are the same people who still hold that "blacks should be on a noose from a tree", don't read newspapers, only their religion sends them to Heaven and GOD. ......... and McCain lost to Mike Huckabee in the Republican primary. Mike Huckabee said he wants the Constitution changed to conform to the Bible.
Hey Hillary. Keep this state and its white trash to yourself. I am certain Obama does not need this to get his nomination.
Finally, Hillary and her "pit bull" can retire.
Reply-
Neutral
lum-chate1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
' Hey Hillary. Keep this state and its white trash to yourself. I am certain Obama does not need this to get his nomination.'
The thinking coming across on your post is that Appalachia, with a preponderance of low income, less educated whites is not good enough for an effite snob like Obama to even step foot there, even give these citizens a cursory glance.
Looking down on your fellow Americans, a bad trait to harbor.
Reply-
-
-
Neutral
obiefrommuskogee1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So let me get this straight.
A vote for Hillary is by proud American women, happy to have a female candidate running for president.
While an Afro American vote for Obama, you know, the guys voting for WHITE PEOPLE the past decades, is by racist bigots?
Reply-
Neutral
truthiness1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
perhaps the majority of people voting for all three candidates are doing it because they truly believe these politicians represent their interests and dont give a rats ass about honkeys, btches, o nggrs, they just judged the individual person.
ya know, cuz there really isnt anything different about you and the guy in WVA or MA or HI or AK.. n the end people are people everywhere in the world.
Reply -
Neutral
StarLord1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'm saying that the 90% bloc vote is far in excess of the womens' vote, and points to a total unity behind their chosen candidate.
Unlike the female vote, which is 60-65% for HRC.
I'd say that that kind of unity behind a candidate of the same race is cartainly indicative of something along the lines of a serious racial divide....
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
quiteman1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Sad to say but true.
Poor white working class in WV & PA, can you see why? They have been voting for the elite white candidate who don't give a dam about them motto keep them don't and dependent on me and they will vote for me every time.
Reply -
-
-
Neutral
nikkibabe1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Quote:
"The thinking coming across on your post is that Appalachia, with a preponderance of low income, less educated whites is not good enough for an effite snob like Obama to even step foot there, even give these citizens a cursory glance."
That is correct. The same people voted for Bill Clinton twice and Bush twice. Both "Whites" who went there or even did not show up but their "skin color" got the votes.
If there is still "preponderance of low income, poor and less educated whites" then they are making a bad choice. I am sure Hillary will not be back there even, god forbid, wins the nomination and the election.
Obama did not campaign there as his skin color is not white and he did not want to be a hypocrite visiting the state for votes.
Reply -
-
-
-
Neutral
nikkibabe1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Quote:
",ARE THEY THE ONES HE SAID HE DID NOT WANT TO OFFEND BY WEARING A LAPEL FLAG PIN??? "
FYI. Only crooks wear a lapel flag pin. Bush, Cheney, Rice to show off outside while inside they care a damn about you patriots!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Reply -
Neutral
nikkibabe1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
No one is asking for the "whites" to vote for Obama. You folks can continue the "white" rule of last 8 years by voting for McCain. You cannot vote for Hillary as she will not be the nominee.
John McCain will be 72 when he is sworn in if wins all the "white" votes. He will not be a re-election candidate. So, what does he care once he gets in to the office.
See, Bush said he is a different kind of Republican, a Uniter and not a divider, will restore respect to the White House and the Military etc., etc., What he did is history.
By the way, for the satisfaction of all "whites", both wear a lapel flag pin on their jacket if that is the qualification you are looking for to elect a President.
Reply -
-
Neutral
StarLord1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I question whether W.Va. is a state the "the Dems can't lose".
They lost it in 2004, and in 2000, and were in striking range of victory each time.
Bottom line: W. Va's 5 electoral votes don't make much difference. My quarrel with BO's electability is that he can't win Florida or Ohio - or Michigan.
Reply
-
-
TcarosComment removed: Hard Banned
-
Neutral
klr601 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Don'tworry, being from WV & listening to the trashing of this state, I am very disappointed-there are rednecks everywhere, not just in WV & mostly, we are not illiterate & we are not trying to prove anything. May the best win-. Wv seceded from VA for racial reasons, Abe Lincoln had the deciding views-free slavery & we did, do I do not appreciate remarks about my state being one-sided or illiterate-get a life people-we are like most states-just trying to survive-let's see if mr. Hagar goes to Iraq-LOL-bush sucks
Reply-
Neutral
lum-chate1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Good point, I'd rather have a few beers with a Mountaineer than have wine and cheese at power lunch with Michelle & Barack Obama anyday. Obama trashed West Virginia by not making a concession speech like he did in every other one of his increasing losing states before.
Reply -
-
-
Neutral
aonnet1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The visit was useful. Content was really very informative. From http://www.ahmedabadonnet.com
Reply -
-
Neutral
StarLord1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I have found a great many people here claiming that because it rejected Obama, West Virginia is somehow a "redneck" state.
If W.Va. is a "redneck" state, then why is it a swing state? It voted Republican in 1972, Democrat in 1976 and 1980, Republican in 1984, Democrat in 1988, 1992 and 1996 and Republican in 2000 and 2004.
It's a mixed state - in the north, they ID themselves with Pennsylvanians. In the east, with Washington, D.C., and in the south with Southerners.
The race should have been competitive, IF Obama had any appeal at all to white, working-class voters.
He doesn't.
Reply -
-
Neutral
lum-chate1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The West Virginia primary catapaulted John Kennedy to the Democrat nomination in 1960. West Virginia counts alot, don't let the pundits tell you otherwise. Kennedy a Catholic came into an almost entirely protestant state & beat Humphrey a protestant and it ended Humphrey's 1960 campaign.
Obama was completely demolished there, that's telling!
Reply -
-
loading ...
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.