[zk]

It figures that a guy who thinks Bush and Cheney are straight talkers would fall for garbage like this. The implication is that the Democrats are worse than the Republicans on this issue. Nothing could be further from the truth. Let’s start with the greatest Republican of all:

“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races – that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.
I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.”

Abraham Lincoln

[zk]

Sorry nostradamus, but you’ve got it wrong. Pennsylvania (as with most or all states) doesn’t award all of its delegates to the candidate who wins the primary. It awards its delegates proportionally (or thereabouts – the rules are complex and they differ from state to state). So Clinton won’t win anywhere near 158 delegates there. And if you do the math (as lots of pundits have, virtually all coming to the same conclusion):

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&um=1&tab=wn&q=delegate+math

it will be almost impossible for Clinton to win enough delegates to have a lead going into the convention. And unless she has more delegates going into the convention (or a lead in the popular vote, which is equally unlikely), the only way she can win is if the super delegates overturn the will of the people. And if that happens, the disgust with the Democratic party will be (justifiably, in my opinion) immense. And I don’t see how Clinton can beat McCain after winning the nomination in that fashion.

So all she’s doing by staying in the race is increasing the chances a Republican will win, either because she beat up Obama so bad that it hurt his chances against McCain or because she damaged the Democratic Party so badly that it hurts her chances against McCain.

I’d planned on voting for Clinton if she were the nominee (this was before the bailout plans – I’m not so sure I’ll vote for a Democrat at all now) but the lack of judgement she’s showing right now is very disturbing.

[zk]

Sorry nostradamus, but you’ve got it wrong. Pennsylvania (as with most or all states) doesn’t award all of its delegates to the candidate who wins the primary. It awards its delegates proportionally (or thereabouts – the rules are complex and they differ from state to state). So Clinton won’t win anywhere near 158 delegates there. And if you do the math (as lots of pundits have, virtually all coming to the same conclusion):

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&um=1&tab=wn&q=delegate+math

it will be almost impossible for Clinton to win enough delegates to have a lead going into the convention. And unless she has more delegates going into the convention (or a lead in the popular vote, which is equally unlikely), the only way she can win is if the super delegates overturn the will of the people. And if that happens, the disgust with the Democratic party will be (justifiably, in my opinion) immense. And I don’t see how Clinton can beat McCain after winning the nomination in that fashion.

So all she’s doing by staying in the race is increasing the chances a Republican will win, either because she beat up Obama so bad that it hurt his chances against McCain or because she damaged the Democratic Party so badly that it hurts her chances against McCain.

I’d planned on voting for Clinton if she were the nominee (this was before the bailout plans – I’m not so sure I’ll vote for a Democrat at all now) but the lack of judgement she’s showing right now is very disturbing.

[zk]

Sorry nostradamus, but you’ve got it wrong. Pennsylvania (as with most or all states) doesn’t award all of its delegates to the candidate who wins the primary. It awards its delegates proportionally (or thereabouts – the rules are complex and they differ from state to state). So Clinton won’t win anywhere near 158 delegates there. And if you do the math (as lots of pundits have, virtually all coming to the same conclusion):

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&um=1&tab=wn&q=delegate+math

it will be almost impossible for Clinton to win enough delegates to have a lead going into the convention. And unless she has more delegates going into the convention (or a lead in the popular vote, which is equally unlikely), the only way she can win is if the super delegates overturn the will of the people. And if that happens, the disgust with the Democratic party will be (justifiably, in my opinion) immense. And I don’t see how Clinton can beat McCain after winning the nomination in that fashion.

So all she’s doing by staying in the race is increasing the chances a Republican will win, either because she beat up Obama so bad that it hurt his chances against McCain or because she damaged the Democratic Party so badly that it hurts her chances against McCain.

I’d planned on voting for Clinton if she were the nominee (this was before the bailout plans – I’m not so sure I’ll vote for a Democrat at all now) but the lack of judgement she’s showing right now is very disturbing.

[zk]

Sorry nostradamus, but you’ve got it wrong. Pennsylvania (as with most or all states) doesn’t award all of its delegates to the candidate who wins the primary. It awards its delegates proportionally (or thereabouts – the rules are complex and they differ from state to state). So Clinton won’t win anywhere near 158 delegates there. And if you do the math (as lots of pundits have, virtually all coming to the same conclusion):

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&um=1&tab=wn&q=delegate+math

it will be almost impossible for Clinton to win enough delegates to have a lead going into the convention. And unless she has more delegates going into the convention (or a lead in the popular vote, which is equally unlikely), the only way she can win is if the super delegates overturn the will of the people. And if that happens, the disgust with the Democratic party will be (justifiably, in my opinion) immense. And I don’t see how Clinton can beat McCain after winning the nomination in that fashion.

So all she’s doing by staying in the race is increasing the chances a Republican will win, either because she beat up Obama so bad that it hurt his chances against McCain or because she damaged the Democratic Party so badly that it hurts her chances against McCain.

I’d planned on voting for Clinton if she were the nominee (this was before the bailout plans – I’m not so sure I’ll vote for a Democrat at all now) but the lack of judgement she’s showing right now is very disturbing.

[zk]

Sorry nostradamus, but you’ve got it wrong. Pennsylvania (as with most or all states) doesn’t award all of its delegates to the candidate who wins the primary. It awards its delegates proportionally (or thereabouts – the rules are complex and they differ from state to state). So Clinton won’t win anywhere near 158 delegates there. And if you do the math (as lots of pundits have, virtually all coming to the same conclusion):

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&um=1&tab=wn&q=delegate+math

it will be almost impossible for Clinton to win enough delegates to have a lead going into the convention. And unless she has more delegates going into the convention (or a lead in the popular vote, which is equally unlikely), the only way she can win is if the super delegates overturn the will of the people. And if that happens, the disgust with the Democratic party will be (justifiably, in my opinion) immense. And I don’t see how Clinton can beat McCain after winning the nomination in that fashion.

So all she’s doing by staying in the race is increasing the chances a Republican will win, either because she beat up Obama so bad that it hurt his chances against McCain or because she damaged the Democratic Party so badly that it hurts her chances against McCain.

I’d planned on voting for Clinton if she were the nominee (this was before the bailout plans – I’m not so sure I’ll vote for a Democrat at all now) but the lack of judgement she’s showing right now is very disturbing.

[zk]

Casca,

Of course they’re all malcontents. Anybody with common sense who worked for incompetent fools like Bush and Cheney would be a malcontent.

I’d say anyone who prefers Bush and Cheney’s version of history to Powell and Co’s version of history is weak minded. Only a very few (percentage-wise) Americans still see Bush and Cheney as honest and competent. They are, like the weak-minded Bush, absolutely unable to admit that they are wrong. Their desire to see themselves as being in the right overwhelms the evidence that they see. So they continue to believe Bush and Cheney despite the fact that Bush and Cheney have been shown to be incompetent liars.

[zk]

Casca,

Of course they’re all malcontents. Anybody with common sense who worked for incompetent fools like Bush and Cheney would be a malcontent.

I’d say anyone who prefers Bush and Cheney’s version of history to Powell and Co’s version of history is weak minded. Only a very few (percentage-wise) Americans still see Bush and Cheney as honest and competent. They are, like the weak-minded Bush, absolutely unable to admit that they are wrong. Their desire to see themselves as being in the right overwhelms the evidence that they see. So they continue to believe Bush and Cheney despite the fact that Bush and Cheney have been shown to be incompetent liars.

[zk]

Casca,

Of course they’re all malcontents. Anybody with common sense who worked for incompetent fools like Bush and Cheney would be a malcontent.

I’d say anyone who prefers Bush and Cheney’s version of history to Powell and Co’s version of history is weak minded. Only a very few (percentage-wise) Americans still see Bush and Cheney as honest and competent. They are, like the weak-minded Bush, absolutely unable to admit that they are wrong. Their desire to see themselves as being in the right overwhelms the evidence that they see. So they continue to believe Bush and Cheney despite the fact that Bush and Cheney have been shown to be incompetent liars.

[zk]

Casca,

Of course they’re all malcontents. Anybody with common sense who worked for incompetent fools like Bush and Cheney would be a malcontent.

I’d say anyone who prefers Bush and Cheney’s version of history to Powell and Co’s version of history is weak minded. Only a very few (percentage-wise) Americans still see Bush and Cheney as honest and competent. They are, like the weak-minded Bush, absolutely unable to admit that they are wrong. Their desire to see themselves as being in the right overwhelms the evidence that they see. So they continue to believe Bush and Cheney despite the fact that Bush and Cheney have been shown to be incompetent liars.

[zk]

Casca,

Of course they’re all malcontents. Anybody with common sense who worked for incompetent fools like Bush and Cheney would be a malcontent.

I’d say anyone who prefers Bush and Cheney’s version of history to Powell and Co’s version of history is weak minded. Only a very few (percentage-wise) Americans still see Bush and Cheney as honest and competent. They are, like the weak-minded Bush, absolutely unable to admit that they are wrong. Their desire to see themselves as being in the right overwhelms the evidence that they see. So they continue to believe Bush and Cheney despite the fact that Bush and Cheney have been shown to be incompetent liars.

[zk]

“Especially after such straight talkers like bush and cheney”.

Exactly!

jficquette,

Unless I am (or you are) confused, you’re turning arraya’s sarcasm around and saying that you actually believe that Bush and Cheney are straight talkers. Is that what you’re saying?

[zk]

“Especially after such straight talkers like bush and cheney”.

Exactly!

jficquette,

Unless I am (or you are) confused, you’re turning arraya’s sarcasm around and saying that you actually believe that Bush and Cheney are straight talkers. Is that what you’re saying?

[zk]

“Especially after such straight talkers like bush and cheney”.

Exactly!

jficquette,

Unless I am (or you are) confused, you’re turning arraya’s sarcasm around and saying that you actually believe that Bush and Cheney are straight talkers. Is that what you’re saying?

[zk]

“Especially after such straight talkers like bush and cheney”.

Exactly!

jficquette,

Unless I am (or you are) confused, you’re turning arraya’s sarcasm around and saying that you actually believe that Bush and Cheney are straight talkers. Is that what you’re saying?

[Author]

Posts