RSS
guest-blogger

Per latest polls, there could be upsets in KY and WV

By American Street

In the latest Hayden/Doh! poll conducted between now and 5 minutes ago by asking my invisible friends, Hillary is likely to win West Virginia’s primary by elebenty bazillion points tomorrow. Which will gain her 3/4ths of a delegate but will bolster her argument to superdelegates that Obama can’t connect with eighth grade dropouts who marry their cousins and flirt with sheep unless they find out he’s really half-white and has a crush on Mrs. O’Leary’s cow.

The poll also found that:

52% of West Virginians don’t understand why Mexicans aren’t trying to steal their jobs in the coal mines.

63% say the Hatfields had it coming to them.

98% have heard their university has a monorail and 97% think it’s a vaginal cream.

2% think Obama’s 49-state strategy is to coast past West Virginia and try to reduce the Clinton margin in Kentucky so he can declare victory after winning Oregon by 12%, after which, he’ll expend more effort in Puerto Rico just because Yes He Can.

And 38% think bologna sammiches will do just fine for lunch, after which they’ll kick some tofu-eating college hippie elitist ass.

Local rap musician Cleminem summed up West Virginian attitudes as “fuck man, they don’t even get the jokes, so why bother insulting them? They only use the internets for nekkid pictures of well-sheared lesbian lambs and Shari Lewis’ swinging udders.”

Update: What does it mean when it’s titled ‘Clinton Creaming Obama in Kentucky’ ? I mean, ewwwwwwww! It sure sounds sexyist to me, if Obama’s into that sort of thing.

Comments

(83)

Go ahead and nominate Obama

Just like the libtards to nominate the only candidate who cannot beat McCain. Obama has already lost OH, PA, MI and FL and therefore the election. Drive the car off the cliff again, you liberal weenies, then wake up the day after the election and wonder what happened, AGAIN. Hopefully the Dem party elders will not let this coming catastrophe happen.

By hufflarry2000May 12, 2008 - 11:01am

anusleaky2000 says

he thinks power knows better than people.
anusleaky2000 wants politicians to take power from people.

anusleaky2000 is the enemy of the people.

By SJerseyIndyMay 12, 2008 - 12:56pm

You are the enemy of victory

for the Dem party. You are the enemy of the liberal agenda. You are the friend of the neocons.

By hufflarry2000May 12, 2008 - 1:13pm

If anyone were the friend of neocons, it would be Hillary

who speaks in glowing terms about John McCain, works closely with Lindsey Graham, is good friends with Joe Lieberman, votes for Kyl-Lieberman, says McCain would be a frequent visitor to the White House if she were president, and voted for the Iraq war.

By UffdaguyMay 12, 2008 - 1:17pm

And Obama is different how?

He is not except for one thing. He will lose in Nov while Hillary will win.

By hufflarry2000May 12, 2008 - 1:24pm

The only way Hillary will win in November is.....

well, come to think of it, there is no way she will win anything in November, as she will be watching Obama cruise to a big win over McCain. After all, who has the lead in pledged delegates? Who has the lead in superdelegates? Who has the lead in popular vote? Who has won in more states? That's right, it's Obama each and every time. If you honestly believe that someone who has lost in all those categories is still the best candidate, that is your right. In my opinion, if she can't even win in those areas against another dem, she has no business getting the nomination. It's also my opinion that Gov. Manchin in WV should pledge his vote for her when she wins in WV. It's the fair thing to do, as she will win big in that state.

By UffdaguyMay 12, 2008 - 1:29pm

Hillary will regain the lead

in popular votes after the WV primary. The two candidates are basically tied in votes. Why cant Obama win in any of the big states that Dems need in Nov? I know the reason and so do you.

By hufflarry2000May 12, 2008 - 1:33pm

If America is always going to be as racist as you believe, and

will never elect a black man as president, then this country has failed its founding principles miserably, and will be held up for well-deserved scorn from the rest of the world. If we aren't better than that, we have absolutely no right to lecture other countries about freedom, democracy, human rights, equality and all the other things this country has stood for since its founding.

Let's follow Huff's lead. Take the vote away from blacks, and make it illegal for them to hold public office. And since there are people out there who will never vote for a female president, we need to apply the same standards: no vote for women, and no public office for them either. Yep, let's just be honest and say that the only people who really know how to run this country are white guys. If the women, the blacks, the asians, the hispanics and the rest don't like it, they can lump it and go back to where they came from: Womanland, Blackistan, Asialand, and Hispanicstan. Right Huff? It's the only fair thing to do, seeing as how they weren't smart enough to be born as white guys? Can't have people too stupid to pick their own gender and ethnicity before birth running this great country now, can we?

By UffdaguyMay 12, 2008 - 1:44pm

Get a grip

will you? Join reality.

By hufflarry2000May 12, 2008 - 1:50pm

Just following your lead about America never electing a black

man as president. If we're telling one segment of the population that they are good enough to fight in our wars, to pay taxes, to vote in our elections, and fulfill all the other obligations incumbent upon all citizens of our country, but not good enough to lead this country as president, then our country is nothing but a huge lie. How would you feel if you lived in a country that asked you to follow all their laws, pay their taxes and ask for you to defend them in time of war, but then said you could never run the country because you were a white man? Not much of a country, right?

That's the kind of reality I'm talking about. Reality----the great Hillary antidote.

By UffdaguyMay 12, 2008 - 1:56pm

By hufflarry2000 May 12, 2008 - 2:24pm

And Obama is different how?
He is not except for one thing. He will lose in Nov while Hillary will win.

This was in response to Uff's statement that Hillary speaks glowingly of McCain, works closely with Graham and a couple other facts that reveal Hillary to not be a true liberal for the people.

This is a major problem with our party. You see I and others recognized Hillary's true nature long ago and decided I couldn't support her. It had nothing to do with Obama. It had to do with Hillary and the democratic leadership.

As for Obama I'm not completely impressed with him true. But on some big issues he has shown better wisdom than Hillary and he has thrown a wrench in the plans of the democratic party leadership. While I'm not thrilled with him I can still vote for him.

But here in Huff's response we see where many in the democratic party have lost their way. When the issue of Hillary being right wing and corporatist comes up, the Hillary supporter will often acknowledge it and go so far as to accuse Obama of being the same. This may be a valid point of view. Perhaps I give Obama too much credit? I'll see. But to say that and then back Hillary for the one reason: she can win, just astounds me. I knew I couldn't vote for Hillary. I then considered Obama and said yes I see some hope in him that his better qualities will win out over the corporate interests that tempt all politicians. But if I thought the democratic party was offering up two candidates to choose from that I felt were no better than the republicans I would not vote for either. I would hope others would do the same and so send a message to the party leaders that we want change. That is the power of the vote.

But Huff's response tells me that there are many who have lost sight of what this is about. For them it is all R vs. D. A team sport. And while the argument can be held up that a democrat that isn't really fighting for us is better than a republican, it is pretty weak. It is short sighted and leads the country to disaster just as electing republicans would.

For me there are two reasonable choices left. Obama or abstain. I can't vote for Clinton or McCain. I can vote for Obama. If Obama doesn't have the nomination stolen from him then I will vote for him unless I see strong evidence that he is so corrupted by lobbyists and corporate influence that he isn't worth voting for either.

If the latter happens I would consider voting third party but I feel third parties need to start at local and state level. I'd rather abstain.

By f u bush2May 12, 2008 - 3:31pm

By hufflarry2000 | May 12, 2008 - 12:01pm

Just like the libtards to nominate the only candidate who cannot beat McCain.

So you're saying Hillary could beat McCain and Obama couldn't; but Obama beat Hillary. That doesn't seem to calculate. Can you please explain? Thanks.

By PasztMay 12, 2008 - 1:30pm

Yes it is simple

America is a racist country and will never elect a black man.

By hufflarry2000May 12, 2008 - 1:35pm

By hufflarry2000May 12, 2008 - 2:35pm

Didn't you see Mittary's meltdown this weekend? It was quite a sight to behold.

Hillary's Downfall

Support the Troops
End the Occupation

By Guy FawkesMay 12, 2008 - 1:40pm

No I didnt

But you will see her massive victory in WV tommorrow and she will regain the lead in popular votes.

By hufflarry2000May 12, 2008 - 1:49pm

By hufflarry2000May 12, 2008 - 2:49pm

BWAAAAhahahaha!

If every man, woman, & child in WV voted for Mittary tomorrow, she still wouldn't be winning the popular vote.
...& frolics in delusion land...

Support the Troops
End the Occupation

By Guy FawkesMay 12, 2008 - 1:55pm

Not true. When I lived in WV, the saying was

"Vote early, vote often". Gov. Manchin's father was an expert at that, buying votes in the coalfields for a $20 bottle of whiskey. If the machine is still running well, there's no reason we can't see 10-15 million votes out of WV tomorrow. Bet you never knew so many people were hiding out in those mountains!

By UffdaguyMay 12, 2008 - 1:58pm

Hillary is only behind by 85000 votes

she will make that up and more tommorrow.

By hufflarry2000May 12, 2008 - 2:00pm

Still including Michigan in your totals?

If so, then I guess all those elections that Saddam won as the only candidate on the ballot were fair too. Why did we attack him for doing what Hillary wants to do now? It was wrong for Saddam, for Stalin, for Mao, but OK for Hillary. Makes a catchy campaign slogan, eh?

By UffdaguyMay 12, 2008 - 2:10pm

You see, when people vote in America

their votes are counted. Unless you are a neocon or Obamacon. Mike Gravel was not on the ballot in Ohio. Should we toss out Ohio too?

By hufflarry2000May 12, 2008 - 2:14pm

Thanks for explaining that to me

maybe next you can explain why Hillary was the only one on the MI ballot, when every other candidate did what was requested and had their name removed because MI didn't follow the very rules that Hillary said she would abide by. Were the rest of the candidates just stupid, or was Hillary a liar? In FL, no one advertised there, once again following the rules that everyone, including Hillary agreed to. Hillary was fine with how things went in MI and FL because she thought she would be handed the nomination on Super Tuesday. Now, like a whiney repub, she wants to change the rules because she is losing.

Why is her one candidate victory any more valid than one-candidate victories in totalitarian states?

By UffdaguyMay 12, 2008 - 2:28pm

Why was Obamas name on the ballot in FL

if it didnt count? It was a political decision he made to take his name off the ballot. He knew he would lose big in MI like he lost in all the big states that Dems need to win.

By hufflarry2000May 12, 2008 - 6:54pm

By hufflarry2000 May 12, 2008 - 7:54pm

What made you decide to vote for hillary when she had no chance of winning?

By f u bush2May 12, 2008 - 7:21pm

By hufflarry2000 May 12, 2008 - 7:54pm

“You know, it’s clear, this election they’re having [in Michigan] is not going to count for anything.”
-Senator Hillary Clinton, 11 October 2007

By ExpatinEUMay 13, 2008 - 7:11am

Let us define your terms

'Never' means what?

I don't intend to get in a debate about November's election results because what's the point in arguing about something that can't be proven while this thread exists?

I will say that, having lived in 9 states and having spent time in 40 of them in the past 15 years, I'm quite confident that a majority in at least 60% of the states would vote for a woman or a black man. The national polling on that question has also been quite clear. The worst characteristics least likely to get elected are atheists and gay people.

But Women, Blacks and Latinos are MORE acceptable than the oldest major party candidate in history. That much has been proven by several polls.

Now if you want to claim that lots of Americans lied to the pollsters but cannot prove they did, you can't sustain your claim. You can repeat it endlessly, should you wish to prove your inability to grasp reason or stadard rules of debate, but repetition is only repetition and logic remains logic. There's no magic to the practice of trolling that undoes reason, except in the fantasy world.

So if you wish to push your case, try Harry Potterland. You said Americans will never elect a Black man and the ONLY actual evidence says more than 85% claim they will, to pollsters.

Bzzzzzzt! Thanks for playing. THere are no consolation prizes.

By KevinHaydenMay 12, 2008 - 3:40pm

Just stop...

If Hillary cant beat Obama then why the hell should we be comfortable with her getting the nomination? If she's such a god damned blessing then she would find a way to get ahead in the popular vote/ delegates/ superdelegates...something!

She has lost..fucking give it up. I felt shitty about Edwards dropping out but I didnt act like a fucking douchebag about it. Go vote for Mcstain if you cant handle it.

By jlogan2042May 12, 2008 - 2:37pm

I know it's easy to pick on WV

but I lived there for 12 years, and I found West Virginians to be perhaps the nicest people I have ever met. Yes, they do fit the Hillary demographic, with lower education and income. When I lived there, the refrain was always "Thank God for Mississippi", as no matter how badly WV did in things such as education spending, etc., you always knew MS would be just below you in 50th place.

WV is a hugely democratic state, and when I lived there, dems outnumbered repubs by a 2 or 3 to 1 margin, yet they voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004, once again with the same demographics as Hillary is strong in now.

Unfortunately, I think Hillary is doing well there in part because of racism. Isn't it sad that a dem candidate has to rely on racism and lack of education to win an election? Isn't that what repubs are for?

By UffdaguyMay 12, 2008 - 11:16am

I was wrong. It's NOT handlers. FULL BLODDED AMERI(DIXIE)CAN

Hillary has finally become so desperate for support that she is [gasp], pandering at long last to white people. Hillary told the press that she will be able to build a larger coalition in November than Obama because she can get “working class white people” to vote for her.

The liberal media is going berserk. The New York Post reports that “Hillary drops racial bomb.”

www.cofcc.org/#post-1453

Sens. Clinton, Graham strike an alliance

Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-New York, and Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, are both members of the Senate's Armed Services Committee.

"A number of us have been sounding this alarm. We have to face the fact we need a larger active-duty military," Clinton told the television show "Fox News Sunday."

"We cannot continue to stretch our troops, both active-duty, Guard and Reserve, to the breaking point, which is what we're doing now."

Graham said the United States is "putting too much pressure on the men and women in uniform."

"We need more of them, sooner rather than later," he said.

Clinton said, "I don't think we have any alternatives." And Graham said, "If we lose Iraq -- if it fails to go from a dictatorship to a democracy -- then we've had a great setback in the Mideast."

www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/05/23/senate.military/

According to the American Conservative Union (ACU) Ratings of Congress, Lindsey Graham has voted the conservative position an average of 90 percent of the time in the U.S. Senate. The ACU rating is the premier conservative rating listed in numerous political almanacs and reference guides.

Graham's lifetime conservative rating, which combines eight years in the House of Representatives with his Senate service, is 91. The lifetime rating of 91 is the same lifetime rating as his predecessor, Strom Thurmond.

www.lindseygraham.com/issues/


By SingSingMay 12, 2008 - 12:49pm

The Mountaineers

Infortunately, as someone born and raised in West Virginia, now residing in the far West, I have to agree with UFFDAGUY about the latent racism of west virginians. Much of it stems from the labor unrest of the 20's and 30's when blacks were brought north as scab labor, but miners and steelworks have long memories. That is the best explaination as to why a pro labor, pro union state would vote with the social conservatives in the last few elections. If Obama can win them over by addressing the bread and butter issues, they can rejoin the Democratic fold, and put their racist past behind.

By cbmroMay 12, 2008 - 12:33pm

Obama will face the same problem that dems have faced since

the Reagan administration, as detailed in Thomas Franks' book "What's the Matter with Kansas?". Repubs have been very successful at framing the debate so that average working people have consistently voted against their own interests for the past quarter century. They have been experts at the smear, experts at misdirection and obfuscation, and all the other dirty tricks that have been necessary. Without them, no working person with even a lick of common sense would vote for them.

By UffdaguyMay 12, 2008 - 12:54pm

"Creaming Obama" ... Dont shoot the messenger ...

Does this redneck look like he wrote the headline all by himself?

Ryan Alessi, political writer
ralessi@herald-leader.com

“White, rural voters are not going to vote for an African-American in Kentucky over a white, male conservative”

Reach Ryan Alessi in the Herald-Leader Frankfort bureau at (859) 231-1303 or 1-800-950-6397, Ext. 1303.

By SingSingMay 12, 2008 - 1:10pm

So what did he say

that isnt true?

By hufflarry2000May 12, 2008 - 1:15pm

What he didn't say is "What's the matter with Kansas" is curable

BIGOTRY IS A DISEASE confined to the IGNORANT and the DEPRAVED.

And that delusions like this have permeated the landscape because of people like:

Just because spending on health care is going up at a fast pace in the U.S. isn't necessarily a sign that something is wrong. More likely it is a sign that we are a wealthy nation that, by and large, has taken care of the essentials of life. As a result, we can afford to spend a bigger chunk of each extra dollar we make on former luxuries, like better vacations, a new laptop and gold-plated health care.

www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=artic...

Besides sombody's got to speak up for poor DoD contractors like:

Ensign-Bickford Aerospace & Defense Co. was awarded on March 7, 2008, a $69,061,510 firm-fixed price contract for 485 XM19 Abrams Tank reactive armor tile sets. Work will be performed in Graham, Ky., and is expected to be completed by June 30, 2009.

www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2008/03/dod-contracts_3726....

By SingSingMay 12, 2008 - 2:39pm

Why are we still talking about Hillary?

The reality based folks have moved on already.

ITS OVER FOR HILLARY.

By f u bush2May 12, 2008 - 1:55pm

The reality based people

are trying to save the party from a massive defeat with Obama as the candidate.

By hufflarry2000May 12, 2008 - 1:57pm

anusleaky2000 says

we should nominate hillary to placate the racists, because anusleaky2000 wants to be placated.

By SJerseyIndyMay 12, 2008 - 2:47pm

This country will certainly elect a black man

Before another Clinton.

How stupid can people be to think Hillary would ever have a chance?

I mean the right wing noise machine was built around the Clintons. Yes most of what they spout is crap but they have compiled more garbage on the Clintons than anyone else.

Having Hillary run for president was the dumbest political move I've ever seen.

By f u bush2May 12, 2008 - 1:57pm

More than half the primary voters

disagree with you.

By hufflarry2000May 12, 2008 - 1:59pm

Um...

No...

By jlogan2042May 12, 2008 - 2:45pm

yes

She will be up about 100000 votes after WV.

By hufflarry2000May 12, 2008 - 2:51pm

By hufflarry2000 May 12, 2008 - 3:51pm

What was that you said about NC?

By f u bush2May 12, 2008 - 2:53pm

By f u bush2May 12, 2008 - 3:53pm

The latest Huff the Magic Moron Bloomberg polls say that Mittary won NC decisively.

Support the Troops
End the Occupation

By Guy FawkesMay 12, 2008 - 4:57pm

Hillary's last gasp

Good for a laugh to watch the delusional come out and proclaim this one will put her over the top.

btw - how many times have we heard the absurd argument that Obama's victories came in small red states. Yet these same people are now holding on to a Clinton victory in WV when the race is clearly over and there is no chance the democratic nominee will win WV.

Like republicans, the Hillary people can't remember their own spin.

By f u bush2May 12, 2008 - 1:59pm

Clinton would win WV in the general

WV is a dem state. Bill Clinton won it twice. Obama would lose it for sure. The race is not over as no candidate has enough delegates and no nominee has been chosen.

By hufflarry2000May 12, 2008 - 2:04pm

Obama is the only chance we have of beating McCain

I'm so glad Hillary can't ruin it now.

By f u bush2May 12, 2008 - 2:00pm

what a conundrum for hussein 'da chronic'

Poor Obama,
If Hillary were to withdraw right now she'd still win in a landslide in WV and KY.
So in essence the front runner will lose big time heading into November.
Okay Obamite's ............ take another hit of herb, snooooort another line, crack an OE 800, and fire up a Newport!

By chilcoMay 12, 2008 - 2:03pm

By chilcoMay 12, 2008 - 3:03pm

Here ya go huff. You're aligned with this stupid cracker. Is this how you see yourself? Does it make you proud to see the similarities between yourself & this piece of white trash?

Support the Troops
End the Occupation

By Guy FawkesMay 12, 2008 - 2:10pm

By Guy Fawkes May 12, 2008 - 3:10pm

The crackers think cracker is a racist term. They don't understand that there are derogatory terms that are racist and derogatory terms that are earned. Calling people names simply based on race, religious persuasion or what have you is clearly wrong and shows the stupidity of the speaker.

But applying terms like cracker or idiot to someone that has shown themselves to be just that is appropriate and to argue against it is too PC.

But the crackers aren't very bright are they? Stupid crackers.

By f u bush2May 12, 2008 - 2:15pm

I resent that.I am 50%

I resent that.
I am 50% black
and 50& "other".
Am I white or black? Or do we go by the 1/10 rule?
Shit..... I'm just like Obama.

By chilcoMay 12, 2008 - 2:18pm

By Guy Fawkes May 12, 2008 - 3:10pm

Guy

Remember that show in the 70's "chilco and the man" or something like that. It was pretty funny.

By f u bush2May 12, 2008 - 2:19pm

I am not aligned with anyone

I am a Hillary supporter because she will beat McCain. You are the supporter of the REAL Republican crackers because your candidate will lose to them. You are making it easy for the white trash to win with your support of an unelectable candidate.

By hufflarry2000May 12, 2008 - 2:24pm

Sam Sedr said it best

The number of Hillary voters that will not vote in the primary is about the same as the number of dems that drop off from the primary to the general election each election cycle.

No big deal.

I'll add to that. Obama will pull more independents and republicans to the democratic ticket while Hillary will push them away. Add tot that the number of republicans that will come out just to vote against Hillary. It all more than makes up for the loss of Hillary voters that will be too bitter to vote in November.

Hillary is a catastrophe waiting to happen. Luckily ITS OVER.

By f u bush2May 12, 2008 - 2:05pm

Talk about delusions

This blog is bizzarro world. You people want another wimpy, unelectable candidate to run and you expect different results. That is the definition of insanity.

By hufflarry2000May 12, 2008 - 2:09pm

By hufflarry2000 May 12, 2008 - 3:09pm

Uh Hillary is the unelectable one. And she will make use of the DLC election machine that gave us the last two woody candidates. You are mistaken.

By f u bush2May 12, 2008 - 2:12pm

Hillary supporters will deny its over

Like republicans will deny the Bush administration outed a CIA officer. They both have distorted reality complexes.

No surprise as Hillary is deep down a republican.

By f u bush2May 12, 2008 - 2:08pm

Some say America won't elect a black man as president

But a black man beat Hillary.

So I guess they are less likely to elect a woman? Is that the Hillary logic I should apply? Or is it Hillary's own electability that makes her less electable than a black man?

The Hillary supporters don't make no sense.

Especially when you consider Obama gets more

By f u bush2May 12, 2008 - 2:11pm

He did not beat Hillary

Most likely she will end up with more popular votes. It is basically a tied election. Why cant Obama win a big state? If he is the choice of the people, why does he lose all the places where most of the people live? If he cant win these states in the primary, how will he win them against McCain?

By hufflarry2000May 12, 2008 - 2:19pm

By hufflarry2000 May 12, 2008 - 3:19pm

Your faulty logic is that everyone who voted for hillary will not vote for Obama. He has found support in red states that she never could. Its all about adding electoral college votes. Hillary and the DLC want to keep shrinking the party into little corners of the nation. Howard Dean's strategy was right. He dragged the blue dogs kicking and screaming into the bigger picture. He is now putting more states into play. Hillary would screw this up. I'm glad its over for her.

By f u bush2May 12, 2008 - 2:23pm

Obama is taking the big states Dems need

out of play and giving them to McCain. Obama will lose badly. Dems will be lucky to keep control of congress after this disaster. I am still hoping smarter people will prevail and not let that happen.

By hufflarry2000May 12, 2008 - 2:28pm

By hufflarry2000 May 12, 2008 - 3:28pm

Obama will lose badly.

LOL

The blue dogs that support Clinton are the voters that will support anyone with a "D" after their name. On the other hand those against Hillary know she is not worth voting for and will not show up in November.

By f u bush2May 12, 2008 - 2:33pm

You mean to say

he has found support in red states that he could never win.

By hufflarry2000May 12, 2008 - 2:49pm

By hufflarry2000 May 12, 2008 - 3:49pm

You mean to say
he has found support in red states that he could never win.

Hello! Anyone in there?

He will win the blue states just as hillary would. And he'll put some in play that she won't. Even if he doesn't win all of them he may open things up for future congressional races and possibly 2012.

But you are so short sighted you can't see that.

Luckily the party is being taken over by more farsighted people now.

By f u bush2May 12, 2008 - 2:56pm

Obama will lose

OH, FL, PA and MI. This race is over before it started. You libtards have taken a sure victory and nominated the only candidate who will lose. It is amazing how you people cannot learn from the past. Luckily, over half of us who voted in the primary for Hillary will have something to say about all this. You cannot be allowed to drive the car off the cliff again.

By hufflarry2000May 12, 2008 - 6:05pm

By hufflarry2000 May 12, 2008 - 7:05pm

Luckily, over half of us who voted in the primary for Hillary will have something to say about all this. You cannot be allowed to drive the car off the cliff again.

LOL

Again the obnoxious insinuation that this is Hillary's nomination and it will be given to her.

You are insane.

This was over long ago. Hillary screwed up. Take your anger up with her and her foolish campaign if you are upset that Obama won. Don't take it out on the voters.

Edit: Over half? Stop with your fuzzy math. More people voted for Obama and it will remain that way.

By f u bush2May 12, 2008 - 6:10pm

After tommorrow Hillary

will be leading the popular vote again by at least 100,000 votes. That is not fuzzy math, that is a fact.

By hufflarry2000May 12, 2008 - 6:26pm

By hufflarry2000 May 12, 2008 - 7:26pm

No that is fuzzy math.

And it doesn't matter. Hillary blew her chance. Go complain on to her campaign staff for the crappy way she ran her campaign. Its not the voters fault that she mismanaged everything so badly.

By f u bush2May 12, 2008 - 6:28pm

Peoples votes are not

fuzzy and they do matter. The fact remains that Hillary will have more votes after tommorrow and will most likely have more votes when the primaries are over. The party is almost evenly split. Obama has won no great victory.

By hufflarry2000May 12, 2008 - 6:51pm

By hufflarry2000 May 12, 2008 - 7:51pm

Hw do you count the number of voters in caucus states? How can you count two states that didn't count?

Stop Cheating for hillary.

By f u bush2May 12, 2008 - 7:20pm

By hufflarry2000May 12, 2008 - 7:05pm

huffy, I see you're beginning to come around to admitting that Barack is the nominee - " You libtards have taken a sure victory and NOMINATED the only candidate who will lose. "

By wmt62May 12, 2008 - 9:17pm

You mean like Hillary and Texas?

Or places like TX and IN where large numbers of repubs followed Rush's words and voted for Hillary?

One thing to remember is that primaries don't tell us all that much about November. The candidates were either running against other candidates in their own party, like both parties early in the primary cycle, or unopposed, as McCain is doing now. Clues to November can be found in voter turnout, to a certain extent, and to past general election trends. Saying that Hillary won the big states is ridiculous. Think she'd win TX in November? It'll still be red this fall, and all her votes this spring will be meaningless.

By UffdaguyMay 12, 2008 - 3:16pm

Few if any Repubs

listened to Rush. He does not have that many listeners and he has no power. Over 60% of the Repubs that crossed over voted for Obama anyway.

By hufflarry2000May 12, 2008 - 6:58pm

I think Huff was against the Civil Rights amendment

It gave away the south.

By f u bush2May 12, 2008 - 2:17pm

Weeds fall in the wind

It just goes to show the rest of the country and the world that we still have racial divisiveness here in the good ole' us of a. If you don't think so, you have some serious blinders on. We will soon see just how prejudiced the WV Uncle-Moms, and the Kentucky Cousin-Dads are in a little over 15 hrs now. Of course I am joking about the incest thing. I have friends that live there. The jokes are from them. But racism is alive and well there as it is in Kentucky. It's almost like people hate change there, but they complain so much that there isn’t enough of it. And in the same breath they vote against the very person who is offering a change to them purely based on the color of his skin. Not to worry America, for theses old farts will soon be dead. (From old age) and racial prejudice will be gone too. And someday we may see a Native American, Hispanic, Woman, Gay, Lesbian president. You people in WV, KY need to get over the yourselves and stop blaming others for your misfortunes. No one told you to go out and get pregnant @ 13(sometimes younger), drop out of High School (sometimes sooner) and ride the welfare train to retirement. While the rest of the family shares duties in the Coal mines. Am I being stereotypical HELL YES? So prove me and the rest of America wrong by making the correct choice by casting your vote for Sen. Obama. Your next President.

By fourteenacesMay 12, 2008 - 2:22pm

culture

I think if we pull back the peel on the onion we find there is no difference in Barack Obama and the blonde hair blue eyed devil.
One in the same. That's where you guys have misunderstood.
If it's raised by the white man........... it's white.
If it lives with the white man ............. it's white.
If it schools with the white man ........it's white.
What makes man black? Skin color? Or culture? I opt for culture. Of which Obama is not part of.
BUT u can wish, hope, pray, and actually make yourself believe he is a black man as for me I'd like another helpin' of them there greens.

By chilcoMay 12, 2008 - 2:26pm

Brilliant, Chilledbrain!

Brief, yet pointless.

You don't have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them.
---Ray Bradbury

By LiberalIconoclastMay 12, 2008 - 7:42pm

How can Hillary go into a national election

With $20 million in debt?

She wants us to support her when she can handle money and she is going to have to play catch up in fund raising.

That is very irresponsible.

By f u bush2May 12, 2008 - 2:29pm

By f u bush2 May 12, 2008 - 3:29pm

It will be interesting to see if Hillary pays off all of her debts. She even owes Mark Penn $4.5 million (now that was a great investment, wasn't it?). She has the money (from her and Bill's personal fortune), but will she pay up?