Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
 

Hillary Hits The Buckeye

hillback.jpg
Hillary Clinton’s campaign came back from the dead last night. The Buckeye state’s Democratic voters in Ohio overwhelming supported the Senator from New York, as did citizens in Rhode Island and Texas.

A joyous Ohioan crowd shouted “Yes we will!” after Clinton dedicated her victory to those who had been “counted out”. The politician also rightly pointed out that no candidate has received the nomination without winning Ohio:

You know, they call Ohio a bellwether state. It’s a battleground state. It’s a state that knows how to pick a president. And no candidate in recent history, Democrat or Republican, has won the White House without winning the Ohio primary.

Clinton did more than win in Ohio last night. She beat Barack Obama by about ten or eleven points, depending on who you ask. She also flexed her muscle in Rhode Island with an eighteen point lead and trickled by Barack Obama by about four points in Texas. The numbers certainly matter, but Clinton also beat Barack to the celebratory punch.


You can read the entire speech here or watch the video above, but we’d like to point out that Clitnon ended by highlighting the she is “going to make history”.
Together, we’re going to make history. To those little girls, I say this is America, and we do believe you can be anything you want to be, and we want our sons and our daughters to dream big. I have big dreams for America’s future. The question is not whether we can fulfill those dreams, it’s whether we will. And here’s our answer: yes, we will.

Perhaps she’s taking our advice?

Things weren’t as joyous at Barack Obama’s headquarters in Austin. The Senator congratulated Clinton on her Ohio win and said the Texas fight would be tight, but his hope seemed to be diminished. Still, Obama won Vermont, which doesn’t count for much, but at least last night wasn’t a total bust. He also leads in delegate count.

Hillary Clinton will now have to convince voters – and superdelegates – that she’s the stronger candidate against GOP nominee John McCain.

No doubt the candidates are going to turn all their attention to Pennsylvania, the next “big” state, which votes on April 22nd – seven weeks away. Is it too early to start drinking?

By:           Andrew Belonksy
On:           Mar 5, 2008
Tagged: , , , , ,

  • 74 Comments
    • Charley
      Charley

      She should quit for the good of the party, and will never have enough delegates to pass Obama’s lead.
      It’s Bill’s ego, plus alot of her own that keeps her in the race.
      The Obama campaign, however, pointed to math they say will make it difficult for Clinton to overcome Obama’s lead.

      “They’ve had a really bad run and they have to rationalize continuing,” said Obama spokesman David Axelrod. “We’ve won more popular votes and more delegates, and they have to give some rationale for staying in this race.”

      Mar 5, 2008 at 8:39 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • fredo777
      fredo777

      Booooo.

      Mar 5, 2008 at 8:39 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • beefy
      beefy

      Yeah, it must be Bill’s ego that’s keeping her in it.

      Mar 5, 2008 at 9:14 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jesse
      Jesse

      John McCain is going to be the next president of the United States and Hillary’s bloated ego and self serving political ambition will be the reason.

      Even after winning Ohio and Texas(barely) it is predicted that Obama will actually increase his delegate lead after yesterday’s votes are all talleyed. She would claw her own daughter’s eyes out to get this nomination no matter what the cost to the democratic party. A brokered convention will equal disenfranchised voters and at least 4 more years of a republican president. It is time for her to drop out of the race and for the democratic party to unite behind one candidate, but instead expect to see dirty negative campaigning in the coming weeks which will soil both barrack obama and hillary clinton.

      Mar 5, 2008 at 9:26 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • emb
      emb

      I totally agree, Jesse. Prolonging this primary process only does McCain’s dirty work for him. They are both clearly popular with democratic voters, but neither has scored big knockout wins. That means (for those who will bash me for standing in the way of democracy) that the party IS speaking, and the party is saying “one of these will do very nicely thanks.” I doubt that’s going to change in the coming weeks. And if this goes to a credentials battle and floor fight at the convention, after months of bitter negative campaigning, the dems might as well take the opporunity to concede that they’ve managed to blow the surest shot at the white house they’ve ever had. The pieces were all in place, and between the public’s infatuation with Obama’s stunning oratory and Bill-and-Hillary’s “do anything to win” strategy, the democratic party has quite likely condemned us to four years of a smiling, avuncular creep. Thanks, everyone.

      I used to be excited about this election. Now it’s just annoying. Best scenario would be for the candidates to call it quits, announce a unity platform with one or the other at the top, and start the fall campaign now, like mccain is. But that won’t happen, cuz they both have mammoth egos.

      Mar 5, 2008 at 9:45 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • chadnnocal
      chadnnocal

      Go Hillary!

      Even if she drops out to give the nomination to Obama there will still be disenfranchised voters. I dare say that you will see a mass defection of registered Democrat voters in this scenario.

      Why? Hillary supporters feel that Obama is not a qualified candidate. Perhaps in another four years he will “show up” with more substance and less of the thin skinned novice that we have seen so far. We do not want to see four years of bumbling foreign policy, botched policy making and ineffective collaboration with the senate.

      Now that we are getting more clarity around Obama’s issues and some of the more amateur mistakes that he makes this facade is starting to crumble before our eyes. Honestly how many Presidents have run out of press conferences after being questioned about dodgy personal real estate dealings?

      Mar 5, 2008 at 9:50 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • hisurfer
      hisurfer

      Hey. She’s had close to 50% of the national vote and has won most of the major states. How come on one says “it’s only Obmaa’s ego keeping him in the race?” or “he should drop out for the good of the country?”

      I thought the race would be over this morning. It isn’t. And I don’t expect crying from either campaign. The question I have is, how does the Dem Leadership plan to run the convention so that it *doesn’t* turn into a brawl or back-room deal? Because there’s a potential here for a democratic exercise of the first order (civilized debate, the citizens decide, Plato’s ghost shedding tears of joy). It’s a long shot, but it’s there.

      This is the first election I’ve seen where the whole country gets to chime in. The rest were all decided long before the convention. This way has potential.

      Mar 5, 2008 at 10:43 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John
      John

      You go girl.

      Mar 5, 2008 at 11:01 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • steve
      steve

      meanwhile, mccain’s horse has left the gate & is off running

      and we’re still fighting in the stable

      put em both on the ticket, flip a coin & get this shit over with

      every delayed minute brings us closer to president mccain

      as others have said, infighting & egos are gonna pull the whole show down

      Mar 5, 2008 at 11:29 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jesse
      Jesse

      Hisurfer- The probable reason for the dropout issue being pointed more toward Hillary and not Obama would be for 2 reasons.

      1) Hillary is behind in the delegate count.

      2) Polling for month has shown Barrack Obama to have a better shot at beating John McCain.

      The real issue here is whether Obama supporters can rally behind clinton or if clinton supporters can rally behind Obama. Personally I see more of an uphill battle getting Obama supporters, containing large numbers of people who normally do not vote to get behind Clinton. She is the antithesis to much of what drives the Obama campaign.

      The longer this nominating process goes on, the more attached each side becomes to their candidate and the less likely they are to rally behind the other.

      Mar 5, 2008 at 11:34 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • dw
      dw

      Both candidates are great and both have ego issues, in my opinion. Unfortunately, most of the Obama-supporters I know are far more zealot-like than Hillary-supports. I voted for Hillary, but would fully support Obama, should he win the nomination. I don’t hear that coming from a lot of people on the other side of the camp – which means that the Democratic supporters are sadly ALREADY quite divided. The lack of unity amongst Dems would be the reason McCain wins in Nov, not because Hillary is a bad candidate.

      Oh, Andy:
      “we’d like to point out that CLITNON”

      Did you do that on purpose? :)

      Mar 5, 2008 at 11:55 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jaroslaw
      Jaroslaw

      I can’t believe after almost 2 terms of George Bush this country would have any problem with either Hilary or Barak. Then again, I shouldn’t be surprised. What was that stat – approx 40% of adults under 40 haven’t even read ONE book in the past 12 months. Finding out the truth about ANY candidate will not be obtained from the TV news so I guess USA is SOL

      Mar 5, 2008 at 12:05 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bitch Republic
      Bitch Republic

      Obama is only 0.055% ahead of Clinton. Clinton has won all of the big states and all of the “bellweather” states that really matter in winning a general election. For the good of the party, Obama should quit now and agree to be Hillary’s VP (if anything).

      Mar 5, 2008 at 12:06 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jesse
      Jesse

      Hillary’s Clinton has helped the Republicans by tearing Barrack Obama down. The republicans have thus helped Hillary Clinton stay in the race to created division in the Democratic party.

      Why hasn’t Hillary Clinton Renounced and Rejected Ann Coulter’s endorsement or Rush Limbaugh’s for that matter? Rush Limbaugh has openly campaigned for republicans to go out and vote for Hillary in Ohio and Texas to keep her in the race. Don’t think for a second that people didn’t listen.

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-wiener/hillary-wins-limbaugh-is_b_89928.html

      Mar 5, 2008 at 12:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • afrolito
      afrolito

      So sick of hearing that she is too far behind in the delegate count, as if Barack was in striking distance of the magic number. The truth of the matter is that NEITHER candidate is anywhere close to the total count of delegates needed to win the nomination. The Obamanuts must be living in an alternate universe where his lead of 80 or 90 delegates is insurmountable. It’s not.

      The facts of the matter are that Hillary routed him in Ohio and Rhode Island. Texas was super close, but she beat in him the POPULAR vote in all 3 states, so i’m not getting the logic of her dropping out to make shit easy for him. If he wants to be the next President of the united states, he better start winning the big states really soon. Say what you will about Hillary, but she has won EVERY big state thus far, and would have been the nominee by now, if the idiotic democratic rules did’nt award delegates proportionally. They really need to take a winner take all approach like the republicans.

      What Barack and his nutty supporters don’t seem to realize (but are painfully figuring out), is that caucuses are not fare or representative of any state. It’s an outdated practice that needs to go away.

      Of course the obamanuts will grasp at any delusional straw to explain why their golden boy FLOPPED last night. Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, stupid people, evil Billary machinations……

      Perhaps the clearer truth is that the PEOPLE don’t like being TOLD 24/7 who the nomination is going too, without having their say first. In their ferver to crown Barack as the second coming, the media elite/pundits caused a backlash against their candidate, while serving Hillary up as the ultimate underdog/victim.

      People never learn.

      Mar 5, 2008 at 1:01 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • NightHawk
      NightHawk

      I have yet to see any Obamaton address a new Pew Research poll that indicates 25% of Hillary supporters would vote for McCain if Obama is the democratic nominee. Obama supporters would “jump ship” at half that rate. There are going to be huge problems for the Democrats if Obama is the nominee.
      (http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/02/29/obamas-weaker-support-with-democrats/)

      Mar 5, 2008 at 1:51 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • hisurfer
      hisurfer

      “Polling for month has shown …”
      Bah. I remember summer polls that showed Kerry was far ahead. And before him, Gore. And Dukakis. And Mondale.

      I’m not worried that McCain is “first out of the gate.” We still have a long way to go. For the first no-holds barred debate (or celebrity death-match) I’d pick McCain to beat Obama, but Clinton over McCain.

      My biggest worry now is watching Hillary play the anti-NAFTA protectionist card. I think it’s false. Of course, Obama is doing the same.

      Mar 5, 2008 at 1:52 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Alan down in Florida
      Alan down in Florida

      “John McCain is going to be the next president of the United States and Hillary’s bloated ego and self serving political ambition will be the reason.”

      Jesse I think you’ve got it backwards. It is Obama’s bloated ego and self-serving political ambition that made him too self-important to wait to run. He would’ve only been 53 after 2 terms of Hillary in the White House but no, he just had to do it now. The man is playing political air guitar – nothing there but oratory. And Hillary was my fourth choice. Last night showed that people are finally starting to pay attention to the emptiness of his rhetoric and holier-than-thou attitude and agreeing that America needs solutions, not hope. I’m sure that Jim Jones fed his followers on a diet of hope before leading them off to the jungles of Guyana.

      Mar 5, 2008 at 2:01 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • L.
      L.

      Obama is the one who should drop out! He is destroying the Democratic party! Senator Clinton won New York, New Jersey, California, Massachusets and the bell weather state of Ohio as well as others. She has won the big states and also Florida and Michigan. For the sake of the party Obama should drop out and endorse Senator Clinton. Otherwise we will be facing President John McCain next year.

      Mar 5, 2008 at 2:37 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Rehorakthy
      Rehorakthy

      In what realm of reality is the person winning the contest asked to bow out of the race? That is like telling an Olympic swimmer that even though he is going to beat a senior swimmer on the team AND win the overall race, he should bow out in order to avoid conflict.

      The numbers don’t lie. Whether you like the process or not, it is what it is, and under the current system, there is no foreseeable or statistically probable way for Hillary to go into Denver with a lead in delegates.

      I have said from day one that this contest is the Democrat’s to lose. Hillary is backed by the traditional “inside-the-beltway” party establishment. This is the group of yahoos that could not get Gore or Kerry into the White House against an opponent who is functionally retarded.

      How could that happen, one might ask; because of the same arrogance and sense of entitlement being demonstrated by Hillary Clinton.

      Would you vote for this woman?:
      -Lived in the White House for 8 years,
      -Traveled to foreign countries and met with heads of state,
      -Supported going to war with Iraq,
      -Has worked extensively with children’s issues,
      -Has been a leading advocate for education and literacy
      -Spent two terms in the Governor’s mansion with her husband.
      -Husband was a two term president,
      in Texas, and her husband was a two term president.
      -Never held a public office.
      -Has an in law who was involved in criminal activity.
      -Husband was involved in a scurrilous land deal.

      If you answered yes, you have just thrown your support behind Laura Bush for President. Alternately, you would have voted for Hillary Clinton when she first ran for the Senate.

      In order to support the notions that Obama has no experience and that Hillary should stay in the race, one must ignore the facts. Hillary cannot catch Obama. Hillary will not beat McCain.

      Hillary had less experience when she ran for Senate that Obama does now. And if you consider that the only experience she has had in public office is being a less than note worthy, although highly visible US Senator, and imagining what she would do in her husband’s position, her qualifications are on par with those of Obama.

      Oh but wait, even as a junior Senator, Obama DID NOT vote to go to war with Iraq.

      One question no one seems to be asking is if the phone rings at 3 AM do you want the person who helped create the crisis to answer it?

      Mar 5, 2008 at 2:46 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Rehorakthy
      Rehorakthy

      “America needs solutions, not hope.”

      Alan down in Florida, what makes the two mutually exclusive in your book? I need hope. I need to believe that there is candidate who will address our nation’s needs through policy and by uniting us around a common cause. For too long the Republicans have won elections by pitting us against one another. Red state … blue state … class warfare, etc. I would think it would be refreshing to support a candidate for President who can offer this nation substantive policy change and hope.

      By your accounts, Hillary can only to one.

      Who cares if “Senator Clinton won New York, New Jersey, California, Massachusets and the bell weather state of Ohio as well as others.” She is losing in the delegates going into the convention. I want a Democrat in the White House because I am tired of people who can’t live by the rules bending and changing them to suit their agenda. Want to torture but it’s illegal? Change the rules. Wire tapping, oh it’s okay. Just change the rules.

      Plus a mentality which dictates that only the “big state’s count” is #1 why Dems keep losing and #2 why people who live in the smaller states don’t vote for Democrats. Why dismiss the importance of voters in non-big states? Seems a little arrogant.

      Hillary DID NOT win Florida and Michigan. Those states didn’t like things the way they were and changed the rules to suit their needs. There were no official Democratic primaries in those states.

      Again, Obama is winning. In what parallel universe does the winner bow out for the good of anyone?

      Mar 5, 2008 at 3:02 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • afrolito
      afrolito

      The Obamanuts are out in full force today.

      Here are some facts:

      There is no way Obama will have the delegates required to seal the nomination, anymore than Hillary.

      He has proven to be INCAPABLE of winning ANY of the bellweather /large states.

      He is INCAPABLE of articulating anything beyond hope rhetoric.

      He has ZERO experience, and a Stunning naivete with world affairs.

      Anyone who would compare the resumes of Laura Bush and Hillary Clinton is a BEYOND STUPID, and perfectly illustrate the typical kool aid drinking Obama supporter.

      The people are finally starting to pay attention to Obamas’ smoke and mirrors campaign, and last night proved it. His LIES on NAFTA, and his shady dealings with Rezko are coming back to haunt him.

      I also love how Hillarys’ campaign is viewed by the obamanuts as some kind of ego maniacal sense of entitlement, as if Obama (and any other candidate for ANYTHING)is running strictly for the will of the people, with no thought for himself at all.

      That’s some craziness right there.

      Mar 5, 2008 at 3:05 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Rehorakthy
      Rehorakthy

      Gee Afrolito, I guess polite discourse isn’t in your vocabulary. It’s sad that some people are unable to be respectful and incorrect.

      1. No one has to “seal” the nomination. They just have to win it. If you win by one vote, you still win.

      2. Incapable of winning a bellwether state. That is just silly. He lost in a democratic primary to a democrat. How can you extrapolate that to mean it is impossible for him to beat a Republican? BTW, Obama has way more support from Governors and Senators in Red state than Hillary. Who needs FL if you have Ohio and West Virginia? Do you think Strickland, Glenn and Tubbs-Jones are going to stay at home if Obama is the nominee? Oh, and Illinois is a large state. South Carolina and Iowa are bellwether states. (Are you sure you know what bellwether means?)

      3. Incapable of anything beyond “hope rhetoric”? I guess you just hate Obama so much that you are unwilling to look at his economic plans, etc. Educating yourself would save you the embarrassment of taking such immaliable positions when you are factually incorrect. During the debates, even Hillary said their positions on the issues were relatively close.

      4. If the flagrant lack of respect you have shown to people on this site is any indication, I would just as soon have you and anyone you support stay as far away from US foreign policy and diplomatic efforts as humanly possible.

      5. While you may not like the comparison, ad hominem attacks on me does not deter from its relevance. LOL … Don’t like the message? Attack the messenger. That’s brilliant.

      6. You know. You sound almost exactly like Lisa Caputo. Did you get your talking points emailed to you this morning? It’s so cute that you can regurgitate them on cue. What do you do for an encore?

      7. Ego comes into play when there is no way a person can win, but the candidate deludes herself into thinking it is still possible because her individual sense of importance will not allow her to acknowledge the truth.

      Hope that helps. When you want to give me an argument demonstrating a modicum of civility or a moderately coherent ability to string together independent thought based on something other than emotion, I’ll be here.

      Mar 5, 2008 at 3:48 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ProfessorVP
      ProfessorVP

      It’s in today’s NY Times (yeah, I know they’re far from perfect) that it’s a matter of simple math that prevents Hillary from getting the nomination unless she somehow brokers it behind the scenes. And BTW, her big smash of a victory in Texas was less than 3 points. Obama canceled this out in the Texas caucus the same night.

      If you didn’t know, Hillary’s net gain of delegates for all four states last night: 12.

      I’ve said this before. There are many reasons why Hillary should not be the Democratic nominee, but the biggest, most important one is this: President McCain. This doddering, corrupt lobbyist-licker, beholden to no one but rich tax evaders and war profiteers… he will beat Clinton. Whereas Obama would win. For that reason alone, I wish Hillary would pack it up, get divorced and settle down.

      Mar 5, 2008 at 3:50 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jesse
      Jesse

      Look, there is no reason to refer to someone who supports obama as an obamanut. I support Obama, but I’m not on crack or drinking cool aid. I’ve also looked at both of their voting records to help with the decision of who to support. I find it very troubling that Hillary voted for both the iraq war and for the protect america act, which authorized unconstitutional warrantless wiretaps on Amercian Citizens’ phone calls.

      Ultimately, I think we can all agree that we are ready to done with the nomination process no matter which side we support. However at some point we will have to rally behind one candidate or have John McCain as president.

      If you doubt for a second that Rush Limbaugh’s call for republicans in Texas to vote for Clinton had no effect on the outcome of that contest, then you highly underestimate his persuasive power.

      Mar 5, 2008 at 3:55 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • afrolito
      afrolito

      There is no more perfect description of an obamanut, other than an obamanut. These people are truly special in their delusions.

      Lots of fun reading today. Lol!

      Mar 5, 2008 at 4:06 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Michael Bedwell
      Michael Bedwell

      “[After Super Tuesday] Obama said superdelegates “would have to think long and hard about how they approach the nomination when the people they claim to represent have said, ‘Obama’s our guy.’ ”

      Then …David Axelrod [Obama's campaign manager] was asked about two very superdelegates in the state of Massachussetts; you know, where Clinton stood up against the Kennedy machine, Deval Patrick, and John Kerry, to beat them all back and win the state. What should Senators Kennedy and Kerry do and whom should they support, considering they’ve endorsed Obama, but the people of Massachusetts chose Clinton? Axelrod talking with Matt Lauer:

      AXELROD: I think that the role of the superdelegate is to act as, sort of, a party elder. These are elected officials from across the country and they’re supposed to exercise their judgment as to what would be best for the party. And as they look at this, they need to decide who would be the strongest candidate for the party…
      LAUER: David, you’re not answering. Should those two senators vote for Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton?
      AXELROD: I think they and all the superdelegates should vote according to what they think is best for the party and the country. And I think that we need the strongest possible candidate against John McCain…

      So I guess Obama’s strategy is to accept superdelegates who say “Obama’s our guy,” but if the voters say “Hillary’s our girl,” those superdelegates should think long and hard about how they approach the nomination and ignore the voters’ choice. Got it.” – Huffington Post, February 11, 2008.

      Mar 5, 2008 at 4:22 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ProfessorVP
      ProfessorVP

      You want to talk about delusions? The Republicans keep spewing their old talking points over, over, over again, on auto-pilot. They’re for smaller government (that’s a laugh), personal responsibility (unless you’re Exxon and have to clean up your spill, or a billionare who pays little or no taxes), strong defense (big ha-ha, we’re weaker now due to phony wars), fiscal responsibility (debt is now how many trillions?) and the biggest laugh since any sitcom on Fox… family values. Yeah, if your family is composed of lobbyist-lovers, gay preachers and toilet stalkers. Now, anyone who swallows THAT is a nut who is delusional.

      Merely calling someone a delusional nut because he or she supports Obama instead of Clinton makes no sense; it is merely a schoolyard yo-mama-so-fat taunt. It is possible to support Obama in a clear-headed manner, seeing and hearing what is really there, as opposed to science fiction. Of course, the Clinton machine would want you to think otherwise.

      Mar 5, 2008 at 4:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • fredo777
      fredo777

      I must say, I have a real problem with Obama supporters being labeled “Kool-Aid drinkers”. Something about that statement just does not sit well with me.

      Also, afrolito, I find a lot of your comments to be rather childish (name-calling, etc.). It is possible, after all, to disagree respectfully. There’s no need to attack Obama supporters personally, especially considering that you don’t know the mindset of every single Obama supporter.

      Mar 5, 2008 at 4:35 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • hisurfer
      hisurfer

      “Obama DID NOT vote to go to war with Iraq.” Neither did I. Of course, neither of us were in the Senate at the time.

      Here’s a point: those who ‘want this to be over’ are, I would guess, from states that already voted. I wonder if the folks in Pennsylvania & Montana (and whoever else is left) would agree that it should be settled before they have a chance to vote. There’s some arrogance here on both sides.

      I like that it’s a race. I just wish that it hadn’t started in January.

      Mar 5, 2008 at 4:39 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • afrolito
      afrolito

      You’re right fredo777, I don’t know the mindset of every single Obama supporter. I’m only responding to the obamanuts here and every other blog i’ve visited today.

      Mar 5, 2008 at 4:41 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bitch Republic
      Bitch Republic

      ProfessorVP, it’s also statistically impossible for Obama to get the nomination without superdelegates. Obama is only 0.055% ahead of Clinton at this point, so there’s no way to say he’s the winner so far. Hillary has won all the important, big states that represent 161m people and Obama has won a bunch of small, red states that will stay red this fall, representing 98m people.

      The Democratic party needs to switch to a winner takes all nominating process and Hillary would have all the delegates right now.

      Mar 5, 2008 at 5:06 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • fredo777
      fredo777

      B.R., are you being paid by the Clinton campaign?

      Mar 5, 2008 at 5:10 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jesse
      Jesse

      Bitch Republic,

      Whether we like it or not, this is the system we are stuck with for this election. Changing the rules in the middle of the game isn’t an option, but petitioning for future reform is.

      As far as percentages, just to throw them out there…
      Basing this on the current delegate count by the AP with 203 delegates up for grab including PA, Hillary Clinton needs to win ~75% of the delegates between now and Pennsylvania in order to be tied with Barrack Obama going into the May primaries.

      I’ll wipe off my coolaide mustache if she can pull those numbers out of her magic hat.

      Mar 5, 2008 at 5:42 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jonathan
      Jonathan

      After the month he had, if Obama couldn’t bring it home on Tuesday in the big states, he doesn’t have it. Clinton’s going to sweep in Pennsylvania.

      Don’t count Hilary out so fast. My bet is she’ll be the nominee.

      Mar 5, 2008 at 5:58 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bitch Republic
      Bitch Republic

      No, I’m not being paid by the Clinton campaign. Because I have intelligent things to say, unlike the Obamabots, doesn’t mean I have to be a paid representative. Actually, I’ve donated to her campaign… haven’t accepted any payments.

      Jesse, even if Obama wins 100% of the delegates in every state left to vote, he won’t have enough delegates to win the nomination, either. Big deal.

      I’m not saying we should switch the rules in the middle of the process, I’m just saying it’s very disingenuous for Obamabots to claim that Obama is so far and away the leader that Hillary should resign. If anyone should resign for the good of the party, it would be Barack because he hasn’t won any states that are significantly important to the party in the electoral process we have in electing our president.

      Mar 5, 2008 at 6:13 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bitch Republic
      Bitch Republic

      No. 29,

      If you don’t think Obama followers are Kool-Aid drinkers, maybe you should visit this website: http://obamamessiah.blogspot.com

      It’s creepy how much Kool-Aid these people have been drinking.

      Mar 5, 2008 at 6:28 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ProfessorVP
      ProfessorVP

      Bitch Rep, Obama has used that “epiphany” line exactly the same way in South Carolina, and probably other places along the way. It was a joke. The same way Hillary Clinton told Jon Stewart two nights ago that being on his show was “pathetic.”

      One thing I’ve noticed about people who rely on expressions like “tin hat,” “—–bot,” “—–nut,” “take your lithium,” “stop living in your mother’s basement,” and “Cool-Aid drinkers” (I think Kool is spelled that way for Kool cigarettes, if they still make those)… I’ve noticed such people are concrete thinkers, and, well, not so big on sly humor.

      Mar 5, 2008 at 7:39 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • hells kitchen guy
      hells kitchen guy

      Yawn …

      Mar 5, 2008 at 8:27 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • mjc
      mjc

      No. 29,
      If you don’t think Obama followers are Kool-Aid drinkers, maybe you should visit this website: http://obamamessiah.blogspot.com
      It’s creepy how much Kool-Aid these people have been drinking.
      Posted: Mar 5, 2008 at 6:28 pm

      OH MY GOD.. THAT IS TERRIFYING!

      Mar 5, 2008 at 9:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • mjc
      mjc

      pledged delegates are being given this sense of absoluteness by people, and its just not the case. in other elections the leader in pledged delegates didn’t get the nomination and the dem has one… this was in the past but still. its happened.

      look. what if all of his pledged delegates were from 90% of states that always go red? then how is he the best to win?

      her winning in the big democratic states and the swing states are crucial. there is no garuntee that he gets those.

      nj could be a tossup, according to rassmussen polling from last week. but hillary would take that, hands down.

      and arnold country, california, he loves mccain.

      you never know what could happen in a genral.

      all i’m saying is don’t count her out.

      you may say superdelegates are undemocratic, but so were all of the caucuses that favored obama, how on earth does that ridiculous process represent the electorate?

      we need the strongest, most testsed. go hillary!

      Mar 5, 2008 at 9:33 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • chadnnocal
      chadnnocal

      I hate to bring this up but the clock is ticking and we still don’t have a nominee… The both have strengths and weaknesses

      This is the first time in history we as an LGBT community have the opportunity to lead the way. We can create meaningful change if we stand united.

      We have so much at stake at this moment in time. Can we afford to back pedal?

      Two questions: Reply in this post.
      What is THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE TO YOU?

      What have your heard from either candidate that leads you to believe they can resolve that issue? No rhetoric or bullshit, just the facts what you believe you have heard.

      Mar 5, 2008 at 10:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mike
      Mike

      This website is about the only forum where you would actually find so many gays opposed to Hillary Clinton. By and large, the gays have been wooed by Hillary, whose spent 8 full years building up a close and successful relationship with the gay community in New York and America.

      This is the only place I see so many gays blindly willing to follow Obama, who has historically recoiled from gays, still enlists the support of anti-gay pastors to gain religious votes, and has never tried working with or courting a national gay organization.

      Mar 5, 2008 at 10:17 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • chadnnocal
      chadnnocal

      One more thing… NO PERSONAL ATTACKS! Everyone needs to feel safe in expressing their views. Be tough on the issues and soft on the people.

      Mar 5, 2008 at 10:19 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Rehorakthy
      Rehorakthy

      Wow!!! I am hereby embracing the terms Obamanut, Obamaton, and whatever else the Clinton supporters can throw at me. And I will gladly wash it down with a big heeping helping of Hope spiked Kool-aid.

      Honestly, name calling is the last bastion of desperate people. The truth is that winning will render as moot anything Clinton supporters have to say. Also, I can’t take it personally. The amount of disinformation being propagated by these folks is amazing. I am truly, deeply embarrassed for you all.

      The honest truth is that none of this matters. Neither Obama nor Clinton are the reason MaCain will be president. It is this insipid, intractable infighting. Based on nothing but the numbers, there is no reason for Hillary to still be in the race … PERIOD. That’s it! It’s that simple. There is no amount of number crunching that will change that.

      So, the question becomes, “In this rare if not unprecedented situation, how is our party going to move forward?” Are we going to give the nomination to the candidate with the most delegates (per the rules), or are we going to get into a bitter fight over on-the-fly revisions of the rules that fit the losing team’s ego driven agenda?

      Well, while you Hillary supporters figure that out, John McCain is going to be defining the Democratic candidates anyway he wants. Then, he is going to start attacking Obama based on the crap Hillary is feeding him. And once again, we will wind up with a Republican in the White House.

      There is no need for Obama to bow out. He is winning. Hillary is staying in to see if she can pull out a miracle. Let HER wait to run again in ’08. She is LOSING!

      Finally, it’s time for a reality/fact check:
      Afrolito … No response? Man. You let me down. I was expecting more of a fight-I mean me being all crazy and stuff.

      Hisurfer … the nominees are usually decided well before Texas. It is usually cinched up by Super Tuesday. That’s not arrogance. That is history. If you want everyone’s vote to count in the primary process, then change it so that everyone votes on the same day. Until then, hypothetical arguments do nothing but confuse the process and prolong the inevitable. And what is the point of mentioning that none of us voted for the war in Iraq? Is anyone here running for president? Obama is and he didn’t vote for the war. Hillary is, and she DID vote for the war. The phone in the White House is already ringing off the hook at 3AM because of the war in Iraq. I want someone to answer it who didn’t create the mess in the first place.

      Bitch Republic … not all of the 161 million in the states Hillary won are democrats, Clinton supporters, of voting age, or registered voters. In the primary process, most of those states are not winner takes all. So, you cannot combine the total state populations. That is an intellectually dishonest use of numbers, but it is consistent with the math being used by other Hillary supporters. With currently pledged delegate, super ot otherwise, Obama is still in the lead.

      MJC … more make believe math. More hypotheticals. PEOPLE, McCain is not a figment of our imagination. We need a candidate who can deal with real rules. What is more delusional? Fighting for a losing candidate based on what we want to happen or supporting the candidate who is going to win the nomination? How much sense does it make that you say the only caucuses that were undemocratic were the ones that favored Obama? Let’s just bend and bend reality until it looks like a pretty unicorn standing under a lovely rainbow. Then we can run the unicorn against McCain … LOL And please tell me what “test[s]” Hillary has passed. I am dying to hear that one.

      Will a Hillary supporter please show me ONE SINGLE poll that shows Hillary beating McCain in the general election. PLEASE …

      Off to drink my Kool-Aid and be crazy. It’s tough being on the winning side.

      Mar 5, 2008 at 11:36 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Rehorakthy
      Rehorakthy

      What is THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE TO YOU?
      –Restoring the US’s standing in the global community and ending the war in Iraq (this will also help with the economy because we won’t be spending–what is it–$12 billion a week).

      What have your heard from either candidate that leads you to believe they can resolve that issue?
      –Obama did not vote for the war in Iraq, and he is willing to meet with the leaders of various nations to take bold new steps to insure peace and cooperation around the world. He also

      Mar 5, 2008 at 11:44 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ProfessorVP
      ProfessorVP

      Mike, I really don’t know what you meant by Hillary building up this great relationship with gays. Which, in any event, is like Bullwinkle building up a great relationship with the moose community, if you get my meaning. She marched in a parade, sure. But does this counterract Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell and the Defense of Marriage Act? If Hillary is running on “35 years of experience” that certainly includes her 8 years of co-presidency with Bill.

      It is not true that Clinton “had to” sign either, and strictly urban legend that “there was another anti-same-sex marriage bill that COULD have been passed that was worse, and Clinton signed the current one to help us, bless his heart.” There was no such other bill. Clinton, and red state Democrats BOASTED about the signing of DOMA, and neither Clinton has renounced it.

      I’m not thrilled with Obama, myself, I am keenly aware of his little baggage, as compared with Hillary’s freakin’ whole set of Louis Vuitton. She cannot win.

      (To a certain person who stalks me on this and every board… just until this election is over, could you stick to the topic at hand. In this case, it is Clinon v. Obama. Not me.)

      Mar 6, 2008 at 12:33 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • afrolito
      afrolito

      Rehorakthy

      Are you stupid??

      OBAMA DID’NT VOTE FOR THE WAR BECAUSE HE WAS’NT IN THE SENATE!!

      Mar 6, 2008 at 1:03 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • afrolito
      afrolito

      And as far as polls go, there is none that exists that will tell anyone with a brain who will win in november. Anyone who believes otherwise is a special kind of stupid.

      Obama will NEVER win in a general election against McCain, and I don’t need a poll to tell me that. It’s called reality.

      Mar 6, 2008 at 1:08 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ProfessorVP
      ProfessorVP

      Why, because Obama’s black? He won easily in the Vermont primary, our nation’s whitest state (over 90%), and that other bastion of whiteness, Wisconsin. That said, McCain is corrupt to the core, going back to Savings and Loan and the Keating Five, and if you think the recent Vicki Eisman lobbyist scandal is going to fall off the face of the earth, I disagree.

      Reagan was old (69) and, although lazy and empty-headed, had presence, humor and aw-shucks charm,
      plus some remnants of his Hollywood looks. McCain is just plain old, and does the impossible: he makes Bob Dole seem sexy. He still didn’t get the memo that invading Iraq wasn’t such a way cool idea, and was nuts enough to let slip what he was really thinking- 100 years of American presence there would be peachy.

      No way, no how, could John McCain beat Obama. But yes, I think he could beat Hillary.

      Mar 6, 2008 at 1:47 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Stevo
      Stevo

      Obama followers are soooo sensitive. No one is sacred in politics!

      I wonder how bitchy Obama is when he doesn’t get his way. Leos can be very egotistical.

      We just don’t know him well enough yet – and maybe he doesn’t know himself well enough either.

      Which is why I think he should wait and grow up a bit more before claiming the throne.

      Mar 6, 2008 at 1:46 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • fredo777
      fredo777

      “Obama followers are soooo sensitive.”

      Way to generalize. I’ve seen about as much sensitivity from both sides of the fence, truth be told. And you’ll have to wonder how bitchy Obama can get, b/c I have yet to see it + don’t expect to anytime soon.

      Mar 6, 2008 at 1:52 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Stevo
      Stevo

      Case in point Fredo777. You obviously think Obama is super-human. He’s human.

      Mar 6, 2008 at 2:02 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • afrolito
      afrolito

      McCain WILL beat Obama if he becomes the nominee. He will never win any of the red states, or any of the large states he’s consistantly been losing in the primaries. No one ever became president on the strength of winning in Vermont.

      On the other hand, everyone who does become president HAS to win ohio.

      Mar 6, 2008 at 2:09 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • fredo777
      fredo777

      Stevo, I don’t think anyone is superhuman. The point being made was that Obama hasn’t been as bitchy in his campaigning as Hillary. It has nothing to do w/ being sensitive. It’s about keeping it real.

      Mar 6, 2008 at 2:19 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • hisurfer
      hisurfer

      We need to hire a fact checker around here. There’s way too much bullshit coming from both sides.

      My favorite: people stating as FACT what hasn’t happened yet, and is still eight months in the future. Unless Sarah Conner is lurking on this board, none of us know what might happen between now and November.

      After all, eight months ago: McCain was dead in the water, Bill Clinton was still a positive asset & was helping Hillary in Iowa, voters were more angry about Iraq than concerned about the economy, & Oprah hadn’t stepped into (and out of) the ring yet.

      And how quickly that all changed, yeah? Bill and Oprah have been locked up in the basement, and McCain took the Republican lead. Since no one here predicted this, I’m not going to trust any of your predictions about what will oh so absolutely happen in the future.

      Mar 6, 2008 at 2:27 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ProfessorVP
      ProfessorVP

      Stevo, I thought I had heard every possible negative about Obama, but you proved me wrong. Thank you for providing one that, until your post, had escaped me: Obama is probably bitchy
      when he doesn’t get his way since his astrological sign is Leon. Thank you, Stevo. NOW I have heard everything.

      Afrolito, having won Ohio, Hillary used that occasion to prove- and to the Clintons, “prove” means merely saying something- that to win Ohio puts you on the road to the White House, and to lose Ohio, according to history, means you are doomed to lose the general election. Now, for the truth…

      http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/03/clinton_stumbles_on_ohio_histo.html

      Mar 6, 2008 at 3:28 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • afrolito
      afrolito

      The truth of the matter is that no one has in the last 40 years. Going almost back to the turn of the century to prove a date mistake is really special, when Obama has been LYING his ass off about NAFTA.

      The obamanuts grasp at any straw to paint a fairytale picture for their messiah.

      Mar 6, 2008 at 3:39 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Steve
      Steve

      LOL, Obama’s bitchiness = keeping it real, Clinton’s bitchiness = bitchiness. OK got it Fredo. Obama most certainly has been a little bitchy recently with Clinton keeping it real, and pushing back on Obama’s mistakes and media coverage. You can call it a negative campaign, or you can call it bitchiness, however, I consider that keeping it real.

      Clinton most certainly has come out and said she does not believe in DOMA, and that she thinks that the states should be in control of marriage rights, and that the federal government should recognize the marriages from those states. It is the same position for both candidates.

      I have not heard anyone say that there was another bill at the time of DOMA, however, since DOMA was signed it has prevented many actions toward bringing about a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. I don’t like DOMA or what it stands for, however, I am not foolish enough to believe that equality for us all is going to happen overnight.

      I also don’t think that race is the issue that will cause Obama to have a tough time in the general election. It is trying to sway the conservative voters, Obama is viewed as the most liberal of all the candidates, and while that may sound like a good thing to the readers of this blog, the majority of Americans are not of the same mind.

      I can’t stand either side talking about polls in the general election as polls are really only mildly accurate for something occuring within a few days…months ahead polls mean nothing. Obama and Clinton supporters need to understand this and try not to be swayed by irrelevant numbers.

      Most important issue for me is health care, and Clinton is actually pushing for health care for everyone. And with a democratic congress I believe she will have greater success than her previous efforts with a republican congress.

      Obama will not push for coverage for all Americans and for me that is a real problem and the reason that I will not vote for him in the primary.

      Mar 6, 2008 at 3:42 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • fredo777
      fredo777

      Apparently, Steve, you have a problem with reading comprehension. I never claimed that Obama’s bitchiness (which, if you paid attention, I said I have yet to witness) was “keeping it real”.

      I said that my comment about Hillary being more bitchy in her campaigning was not a show of my “sensitity”, but my keeping it real about the way things are. Bottom line: she’s been more bitchy. Yeesh.

      Mar 6, 2008 at 3:58 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • fredo777
      fredo777

      * “sensitivity”

      Mar 6, 2008 at 4:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • afrolito
      afrolito

      Obama has been in total bitch mode since his NAFTA and Rezko lies have come back to haunt him. He’s totally starting to unravel.

      Mar 6, 2008 at 4:08 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Steve
      Steve

      Thanks for the insult Fredo, perhaps I did read your post wrong. My point is that I don’t believe Clinton pointing out inequities in the media coverage to be bitching. I also don’t think that she has been bitchy in general. You may believe that she has, however, i do not. My point is also that when Obama behaves in a manner similar(i.e. his response to Clinton’s pointing out the meida handling him with kid gloves) to Clinton, no one accuses him of bitchiness, and in fact people turn a blind eye to it, however, the same people will chastise Clinton for it.

      I do not believe you are keeping it real in saying that Obama has not been bitchy.

      Mar 6, 2008 at 4:18 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Stevo
      Stevo

      America’s newest pastime: Obama Bashing!

      Everyone gets their turn to be trashed in this election!

      Stevo (not to be confused with Steve)

      Mar 6, 2008 at 4:28 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • fredo777
      fredo777

      Believe me, Steve, if I found anything he did to personally attack her “bitchy”, I would call Obama on it. It’s not a matter of her being a woman, either, if you might have gotten that impression. It’s just that instead of the dem candidate attacking another dem (who could end up facing McCain later) I think they should respectfully focus on their own strengths.

      Mar 6, 2008 at 4:49 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ProfessorVP
      ProfessorVP

      Well, of course Obama’s bitchy. He’s a Leo. Plus, my newspaper astrology column says he’d be a cranky president. All day long, bitch bitch bitch, especially when he doesn’t have his way.

      Y’know, saying no one was ever elected president without winning Ohio really means no one in the last 40 years was elected president without winning Ohio… It makes me wonder- do all the years I was alive beyond 40 years ago (and there are many such years) count for nothing?

      Either Hillary’s machine didn’t know the history of our elections, or, more probably, had no problem with lying about it to make the point that since Obama lost Ohio, he was toast.

      Mar 6, 2008 at 5:17 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dan
      Dan

      Go Hillary! You are what we need to save us from $105 barrells of oil and 8 years of GWB. Keep in mind last week GWB did not know when asked by reporters about the cost of gas that it was over $3 a gallon. Fab! At least he still keeps on getting his oil company royalties. He probably has not bought a gallon of gas since he was last pinched for DUI.

      Mar 6, 2008 at 5:23 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • hisurfer
      hisurfer

      Just a reminder of the true evil:

      http://www.afterelton.com/askmonkey/3-04-08

      (scroll down, of course … the first pic isn’t evil at all)

      Mar 6, 2008 at 5:48 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bill Perdue
      Bill Perdue

      Democrats are such BITTER, SUSPICIOUS and ANGRY people, mainly with each other.

      That’s understandable. They’re all cooped up in a political closet with a lot of major porkers. There’s Barney the ENDA killer, Pelosi and Reid who trash canned the hate crimes bill and Billary who gave us DOMA and DADT and boasted about it on bigot radio stations. And they have to make room for Obama who’s in bed with Donnie McClurkin. Plus Dianne Feinstein who makes sure Bush’s gaybashing appointees are well represented in the Federal ‘Justice” (sic) system. And did I mention that these are rich people who routinely pander to bigots. It’s actually much, much worse, but you get the picture.

      Democrats are so cranky because they know that in the end they’re going to have to choose between Bush Stout – Clinton or McCain – or Bush Lite – Obama. The problem for the rest of us is we’re going to get saddled with the same sour, backstabbing pig as them.

      Mar 6, 2008 at 10:22 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ProfessorVP
      ProfessorVP

      You often make a lot of sense, Perdue, and much of what you said now is accurate, especially about DOMA and DADT. But I wouldn’t say Obama is Bush Lite by any means. I would, however, say that Obama is Kucinich-Lite. Both knew the war was a scam BEFORE it started; Kucinich got the chance to vote No on it, Obama only got the chance to say no on it, and that is a matter of record. On same-sex marriage, knowing that he had no chance at winning the nomination, Kucinich risked nothing by saying he was for it. Let’s be realistic- Obama can’t say he is for it until after he gets into office, and in any event, the president doesn’t decide these things; it will be decided in the courts. For various other reasons- I don’t want to hog the board- I don’t think you’d ever confuse most of the positions of Obama with those of Bush. Bottom line where I’m concerned: If all the major, reputable polls said that Butch Patrick, who used to play “Eddie” on “The Munsters” has the best chance of beating McCain, then that’s who I’m for, for that reason alone.

      Mar 7, 2008 at 12:02 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mr C
      Mr C

      To all of the Hillaryites. Especially “Afrolito” First of all CONGRATS to her for last Tuesdays win. Say what you want about Obama. But Hillary is a PITBULL and will win by any means necessary we are seeing that now. But to be attacking Obama about things such as Rezko.

      HMMMMMMMMMMMMM Let’s look at Hillary
      Pick a number….

      1. Norman Hsu (that will be a fun one)
      2. Peter Paul (which is set to go to trial next week and will make Rezko look like a walk in the park)
      3. Mark Penn’s ties to Charlie Black (McCain Chief Advisor’s firm)
      4. HRC as a corporate lawyer destroying that 12-year-old rape victim on the stand
      5. Billy & Hilly’s ties to the Carlyle Group (deep ties in Saudi Arabia)
      6. Withholding of tax returns
      7. Whitehouse records
      8. Fucking Vincent Foster then he commits suicide

      Do you want me to go on? The republicans want to go against Hilary. They all voted for her in the Ohio and Texas election… the one and only Rush “asshole” Limbaugh promoted it, in part.

      Also if it’s shade at the convention against Obama. Trust me his supporters will DEFECT and it’s not enough of the Hillaryites there to pull her ass over the hump. TRUST THE BITCH will go down faster than “The Titanic” so calm it down because in the end they and their supporters will both need EACH OTHER. Otherwise LONG LIVE McCain!

      TRUST!

      Mar 7, 2008 at 2:37 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jesse
      Jesse [Different person #1 using similar name]

      To put it simply, this is what happened on Tuesday..

      http://www.buffalonews.com/opinion/editorialcartoons/gallery/13461-a293594-t3.html

      pure brilliance!

      Mar 7, 2008 at 12:08 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chadnnocal
      Chadnnocal

      This is pathetic. Reading your childish rants and tirades it is clear the LGBT community cannot be a leading force in uniting the DNC. I guess we will just have to sit back and watch another four years of war, economic recession, global outsourcing, erroding GNP and loss of civil liberties.
      Maybe in 2012? Looks like this one is guaranteed to McCain.

      Mar 7, 2008 at 2:02 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ProfessorVP
      ProfessorVP

      Mr. C: Good list, but you forgot Monicagate. What’s Hill got to do with it? She lied when she said that she found out about it along with the rest of the nation, and then used it to run for Senator in, of all places, New York. If Hillary had any logical reason to run for Senator in New York, then I ought to run for congress on Jupiter. Since when does being a cuckholded wife qualify you to run for high office in a state you don’t live in? Furthermore, she wasn’t even cuckholded. Then I’d add to the list the little matter of Hill’s board membership in Wal-Mart, that paragon of fairness towards labor. Well, you have to give the Waltons credit for looking out for their workers’ well being- locking them in the store overnight so they don’t get into trouble. Like the Clintons, the Waltons are all heart.

      Mar 8, 2008 at 2:35 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.



  • POPULAR ON QUEERTY

    FOLLOW US
     



    GET QUEERTY'S DAILY NEWSLETTER


    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.