Comments on: A House Divided http://washingtonindependent.com/2085/a-house-divided National News in Context Wed, 25 Nov 2009 12:59:43 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: globalyokel http://washingtonindependent.com/2085/a-house-divided/comment-page-1#comment-4013 globalyokel Thu, 06 Mar 2008 00:00:57 +0000 http://www.washingtonindependent.com.php5-9.websitetestlink.com/?p=2085#comment-4013 Holly,<br><br><br><br>Good article, but why do you refer to Hillary's 'win in Texas?' She is losing the delgegate race there. The numbers haven't been finalized, but it looks like Obama is going to win the state by about 4-6 delegates.<br><br><br><br>So why are you (and everyone else in the media) buying into the spin from the Clinton camp that Texas was a win for Hillary? This primary contest is a race for delegates, not a battle for popular votes.<br><br><br><br>RI and VT were a wash. Hillary won some delegates in OH, but is LOSING in TX. When the smoke clears, she may have gained a grand total of 6-8 delegates in four states, on an evening where there were 370+ delegates at stake.<br><br><br><br>Why in the world is Clinton getting such positive press, when just a week ago all the pundits were telling us that she needed massive, blowout 20-point wins just to keep her campaign alive? She didn't come anywhere close to acheiving that last night, and by the time we add in today's shift of a few more superdelegates to Obama, she hasn't advanced a bit. And further, WY and MS are likely to be strong wins for Obama next week, solidifying his lead in earned delegates.<br><br><br><br>Why do the goalposts keep moving and why is the bar continually being lowered for HRC? Holly,

Good article, but why do you refer to Hillary's 'win in Texas?' She is losing the delgegate race there. The numbers haven't been finalized, but it looks like Obama is going to win the state by about 4-6 delegates.

So why are you (and everyone else in the media) buying into the spin from the Clinton camp that Texas was a win for Hillary? This primary contest is a race for delegates, not a battle for popular votes.

RI and VT were a wash. Hillary won some delegates in OH, but is LOSING in TX. When the smoke clears, she may have gained a grand total of 6-8 delegates in four states, on an evening where there were 370+ delegates at stake.

Why in the world is Clinton getting such positive press, when just a week ago all the pundits were telling us that she needed massive, blowout 20-point wins just to keep her campaign alive? She didn't come anywhere close to acheiving that last night, and by the time we add in today's shift of a few more superdelegates to Obama, she hasn't advanced a bit. And further, WY and MS are likely to be strong wins for Obama next week, solidifying his lead in earned delegates.

Why do the goalposts keep moving and why is the bar continually being lowered for HRC?

]]> By: skulzfontaine http://washingtonindependent.com/2085/a-house-divided/comment-page-1#comment-4012 skulzfontaine Wed, 05 Mar 2008 23:22:25 +0000 http://www.washingtonindependent.com.php5-9.websitetestlink.com/?p=2085#comment-4012 The Democrats are damaged already. Tacit support for the Bush 'war of terror' has already sealed the Democrats doom. Clinton did NOT win squat on Tuesday last. Let's talk vote fraud and Ohio. Texas? Texas has been suspect since about day one. Rhode Island and who cares! How many delegates are in Rhode Island? Sorry R.I. but, irrelevant is irrelevant. Clinton will screw whomever it takes to screw, to get that White House nod. After all, parts is parts and Clinton is part shrew and part cannibalistic poser. Simple as that. IF the Dems are stupid enough to nominate Ms. Hillary, well then, they'll get the ass-whoopin' they deserve. Ms. Hillary is not qualified to be the Demo candidate simply because she was the First Whatever. She is NOT qualified to be the Demo candidate simply because she's New Yoowrk's Senator. That means about nothing! Bubba can sit down and figure out what the definition of "is" is. That ought to take old Bubba about ten or fifteen years at least. Criminy, why do Democrats figure that Bubba is Gawd Ahmighty? He ain't and that's plain as the jizz on Monica's face. Should that be dress? Cripes runnin' up a flag pole, how stupid are Democrats on the overall anyway? Hmmm, given the sorry-assed state of the Democrat Party these days AND Howard Dean, the answer is glaringly obvious. The Democraps suck and Hillary sucks and crap-on-A-crisp, when will Democrats ever wake up and smell the coffee blowin' in the wind? Answer is...NEVER! See Rep. David R. Obey for the powerpoint presentation on missing the point! I rest my case. Not bad for a poser nobody from no particular place in space/time history. Not bad indeed! The Democrats are damaged already. Tacit support for the Bush 'war of terror' has already sealed the Democrats doom. Clinton did NOT win squat on Tuesday last. Let's talk vote fraud and Ohio. Texas? Texas has been suspect since about day one. Rhode Island and who cares! How many delegates are in Rhode Island? Sorry R.I. but, irrelevant is irrelevant. Clinton will screw whomever it takes to screw, to get that White House nod. After all, parts is parts and Clinton is part shrew and part cannibalistic poser. Simple as that. IF the Dems are stupid enough to nominate Ms. Hillary, well then, they'll get the ass-whoopin' they deserve. Ms. Hillary is not qualified to be the Demo candidate simply because she was the First Whatever. She is NOT qualified to be the Demo candidate simply because she's New Yoowrk's Senator. That means about nothing! Bubba can sit down and figure out what the definition of "is" is. That ought to take old Bubba about ten or fifteen years at least. Criminy, why do Democrats figure that Bubba is Gawd Ahmighty? He ain't and that's plain as the jizz on Monica's face. Should that be dress? Cripes runnin' up a flag pole, how stupid are Democrats on the overall anyway? Hmmm, given the sorry-assed state of the Democrat Party these days AND Howard Dean, the answer is glaringly obvious. The Democraps suck and Hillary sucks and crap-on-A-crisp, when will Democrats ever wake up and smell the coffee blowin' in the wind? Answer is…NEVER! See Rep. David R. Obey for the powerpoint presentation on missing the point! I rest my case. Not bad for a poser nobody from no particular place in space/time history. Not bad indeed!

]]> By: barrage http://washingtonindependent.com/2085/a-house-divided/comment-page-1#comment-4011 barrage Wed, 05 Mar 2008 20:01:26 +0000 http://www.washingtonindependent.com.php5-9.websitetestlink.com/?p=2085#comment-4011 Baloney.<br><br>Hillary had her hands all over every "negative" meme unleashed. It wasn't valiant volunteers. Baloney.

Hillary had her hands all over every "negative" meme unleashed. It wasn't valiant volunteers.

]]> By: janedoe http://washingtonindependent.com/2085/a-house-divided/comment-page-1#comment-4010 janedoe Wed, 05 Mar 2008 15:44:33 +0000 http://www.washingtonindependent.com.php5-9.websitetestlink.com/?p=2085#comment-4010 There is nothing "negative", nor any personal attack on Obama, in Hillary Clinton's campaign statements that compares her greater experience with his lesser experience. Her campaign was aggressive, certainly, this weekend in that many volunteers phoned voters in Ohio and Texas to say that she is the best qualified person to be president, and most people agreed, as her victories in those states show. It was good campaigning, not based on rhetoric but on facts. Her victories also have implications for the general election because Ohio and Texas carry great weight in the electoral college. Democrats should see that Clinton has the fighting will, the smarts, and the popular backing to beat McCain, and keep their eyes on the prize: no more Bush. There is nothing "negative", nor any personal attack on Obama, in Hillary Clinton's campaign statements that compares her greater experience with his lesser experience. Her campaign was aggressive, certainly, this weekend in that many volunteers phoned voters in Ohio and Texas to say that she is the best qualified person to be president, and most people agreed, as her victories in those states show. It was good campaigning, not based on rhetoric but on facts. Her victories also have implications for the general election because Ohio and Texas carry great weight in the electoral college. Democrats should see that Clinton has the fighting will, the smarts, and the popular backing to beat McCain, and keep their eyes on the prize: no more Bush.

]]> By: globalyokel http://washingtonindependent.com/2085/a-house-divided/comment-page-1#comment-1880 globalyokel Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 +0000 http://www.washingtonindependent.com.php5-9.websitetestlink.com/?p=2085#comment-1880 Holly, Good article, but why do you refer to Hillary's 'win in Texas?' She is losing the delgegate race there. The numbers haven't been finalized, but it looks like Obama is going to win the state by about 4-6 delegates. So why are you (and everyone else in the media) buying into the spin from the Clinton camp that Texas was a win for Hillary? This primary contest is a race for delegates, not a battle for popular votes. RI and VT were a wash. Hillary won some delegates in OH, but is LOSING in TX. When the smoke clears, she may have gained a grand total of 6-8 delegates in four states, on an evening where there were 370+ delegates at stake. Why in the world is Clinton getting such positive press, when just a week ago all the pundits were telling us that she needed massive, blowout 20-point wins just to keep her campaign alive? She didn't come anywhere close to acheiving that last night, and by the time we add in today's shift of a few more superdelegates to Obama, she hasn't advanced a bit. And further, WY and MS are likely to be strong wins for Obama next week, solidifying his lead in earned delegates. Why do the goalposts keep moving and why is the bar continually being lowered for HRC? Holly,

Good article, but why do you refer to Hillary’s ‘win in Texas?’ She is losing the delgegate race there. The numbers haven’t been finalized, but it looks like Obama is going to win the state by about 4-6 delegates.

So why are you (and everyone else in the media) buying into the spin from the Clinton camp that Texas was a win for Hillary? This primary contest is a race for delegates, not a battle for popular votes.

RI and VT were a wash. Hillary won some delegates in OH, but is LOSING in TX. When the smoke clears, she may have gained a grand total of 6-8 delegates in four states, on an evening where there were 370+ delegates at stake.

Why in the world is Clinton getting such positive press, when just a week ago all the pundits were telling us that she needed massive, blowout 20-point wins just to keep her campaign alive? She didn’t come anywhere close to acheiving that last night, and by the time we add in today’s shift of a few more superdelegates to Obama, she hasn’t advanced a bit. And further, WY and MS are likely to be strong wins for Obama next week, solidifying his lead in earned delegates.

Why do the goalposts keep moving and why is the bar continually being lowered for HRC?

]]> By: skulzfontaine http://washingtonindependent.com/2085/a-house-divided/comment-page-1#comment-1881 skulzfontaine Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 +0000 http://www.washingtonindependent.com.php5-9.websitetestlink.com/?p=2085#comment-1881 The Democrats are damaged already. Tacit support for the Bush 'war of terror' has already sealed the Democrats doom. Clinton did NOT win squat on Tuesday last. Let's talk vote fraud and Ohio. Texas? Texas has been suspect since about day one. Rhode Island and who cares! How many delegates are in Rhode Island? Sorry R.I. but, irrelevant is irrelevant. Clinton will screw whomever it takes to screw, to get that White House nod. After all, parts is parts and Clinton is part shrew and part cannibalistic poser. Simple as that. IF the Dems are stupid enough to nominate Ms. Hillary, well then, they'll get the ass-whoopin' they deserve. Ms. Hillary is not qualified to be the Demo candidate simply because she was the First Whatever. She is NOT qualified to be the Demo candidate simply because she's New Yoowrk's Senator. That means about nothing! Bubba can sit down and figure out what the definition of "is" is. That ought to take old Bubba about ten or fifteen years at least. Criminy, why do Democrats figure that Bubba is Gawd Ahmighty? He ain't and that's plain as the jizz on Monica's face. Should that be dress? Cripes runnin' up a flag pole, how stupid are Democrats on the overall anyway? Hmmm, given the sorry-assed state of the Democrat Party these days AND Howard Dean, the answer is glaringly obvious. The Democraps suck and Hillary sucks and crap-on-A-crisp, when will Democrats ever wake up and smell the coffee blowin' in the wind? Answer is...NEVER! See Rep. David R. Obey for the powerpoint presentation on missing the point! I rest my case. Not bad for a poser nobody from no particular place in space/time history. Not bad indeed! The Democrats are damaged already. Tacit support for the Bush ‘war of terror’ has already sealed the Democrats doom. Clinton did NOT win squat on Tuesday last. Let’s talk vote fraud and Ohio. Texas? Texas has been suspect since about day one. Rhode Island and who cares! How many delegates are in Rhode Island? Sorry R.I. but, irrelevant is irrelevant. Clinton will screw whomever it takes to screw, to get that White House nod. After all, parts is parts and Clinton is part shrew and part cannibalistic poser. Simple as that. IF the Dems are stupid enough to nominate Ms. Hillary, well then, they’ll get the ass-whoopin’ they deserve. Ms. Hillary is not qualified to be the Demo candidate simply because she was the First Whatever. She is NOT qualified to be the Demo candidate simply because she’s New Yoowrk’s Senator. That means about nothing! Bubba can sit down and figure out what the definition of "is" is. That ought to take old Bubba about ten or fifteen years at least. Criminy, why do Democrats figure that Bubba is Gawd Ahmighty? He ain’t and that’s plain as the jizz on Monica’s face. Should that be dress? Cripes runnin’ up a flag pole, how stupid are Democrats on the overall anyway? Hmmm, given the sorry-assed state of the Democrat Party these days AND Howard Dean, the answer is glaringly obvious. The Democraps suck and Hillary sucks and crap-on-A-crisp, when will Democrats ever wake up and smell the coffee blowin’ in the wind? Answer is…NEVER! See Rep. David R. Obey for the powerpoint presentation on missing the point! I rest my case. Not bad for a poser nobody from no particular place in space/time history. Not bad indeed!

]]> By: barrage http://washingtonindependent.com/2085/a-house-divided/comment-page-1#comment-1882 barrage Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 +0000 http://www.washingtonindependent.com.php5-9.websitetestlink.com/?p=2085#comment-1882 Baloney. Hillary had her hands all over every "negative" meme unleashed. It wasn't valiant volunteers. Baloney.

Hillary had her hands all over every "negative" meme unleashed. It wasn’t valiant volunteers.

]]> By: janedoe http://washingtonindependent.com/2085/a-house-divided/comment-page-1#comment-1883 janedoe Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 +0000 http://www.washingtonindependent.com.php5-9.websitetestlink.com/?p=2085#comment-1883 There is nothing "negative", nor any personal attack on Obama, in Hillary Clinton's campaign statements that compares her greater experience with his lesser experience. Her campaign was aggressive, certainly, this weekend in that many volunteers phoned voters in Ohio and Texas to say that she is the best qualified person to be president, and most people agreed, as her victories in those states show. It was good campaigning, not based on rhetoric but on facts. Her victories also have implications for the general election because Ohio and Texas carry great weight in the electoral college. Democrats should see that Clinton has the fighting will, the smarts, and the popular backing to beat McCain, and keep their eyes on the prize: no more Bush. There is nothing "negative", nor any personal attack on Obama, in Hillary Clinton’s campaign statements that compares her greater experience with his lesser experience. Her campaign was aggressive, certainly, this weekend in that many volunteers phoned voters in Ohio and Texas to say that she is the best qualified person to be president, and most people agreed, as her victories in those states show. It was good campaigning, not based on rhetoric but on facts. Her victories also have implications for the general election because Ohio and Texas carry great weight in the electoral college. Democrats should see that Clinton has the fighting will, the smarts, and the popular backing to beat McCain, and keep their eyes on the prize: no more Bush.

]]>