Latest 15 of 39 Total Comments Show All

• 

  RomeoRamenII at 08:31 PM JST - 8th June

  Sez,

  Not bitter. Far from it. Just find it interesting that Lord Soros, the liberal U.S. media and the DNC kept telling hillary to bow out and she kept winning and won big. When that happened the rules were changed to prevent her for locking up the nomination. Example: obama gets 59 delegates in a state he himself withdrew from.

  Being a non-American you're not expected to understand this concept, Sez, so let me help you better grasp this idea: It's like Paula, Randy and Simon choosing who the next "American Idol" should be.

  RR

• 

  SezWho2 at 08:50 PM JST - 8th June

  RomeoRamenII,

  I'm not an American? When did that happen?

  If you're not bitter, that's a good thing. Nonetheless, sarcasm and contempt will always look, sound and play bitter. Adages about ducks spring to mind.

  There is no Lord Soros. The only things liberal about the US media is that journalists tend to be educated, are usually capable of critical analysis and tend to vote Democratic. Democrats themselves are not liberal. They tend to be conservative of the principles embedded within the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. And the DNC did change the rules, but it changed them in Hillary's favor. Had it not changed them, Hillary would have received no votes at all from the state which Obama withdrew from.

• 

  RomeoRamenII at 11:11 PM JST - 8th June

  "Hillary Rodham Clinton suspended her pioneering campaign for the presidency on Saturday..."

  Hillary isn't giving up no matter what she says. She has changed her image like a chamelion changes color to match the background. There's a lot of time between now and late August. When more skeletons fall out of barack's closet, hillary will be there waiting in the wings.

  Stay tuned.

  RR

• 

  Sarge at 11:38 PM JST - 8th June

  RR - Romney only suspended his campaign as well, didn't he? But I doubt he's going to challenge McCain again, and I doubt Hillary is going to challenge Obama again - at least not until 2012.

• 

  adaydream at 12:10 AM JST - 9th June

  Gawd, the hate. I could start a fire with the heat.

  Hillary only suspended her campaign, because that way she can continue to collect campaign contributions. Her campaign is indebt. If she ends her campaign, she can not collect any more funds; as I understand it.

  When Hillary went in front of the American people and said she was backing Barack Obama was just as it was. She told the American people right there she wasn't running for the presidency anymore and she threw her support behind Obama.

  But continue to spin. < :-)

• 

  Everton2 at 08:13 AM JST - 9th June

  yabits - that was a good post

• 

  skipthesong at 12:41 PM JST - 9th June

  Hillary only suspended her campaign, because that way she can continue to collect campaign contributions. Her campaign is indebt. If she ends her campaign, she can not collect any more funds; as I understand it."

  You mean she can still collect fund? I was not aware of that. How do you raise fund for a campaign after it is known you are not going to win?

  Also, what is she going to say when she is asked about that infamous commercial she ran about waking up at 3am in the morning?

  I understand Obama would like to get her supporters, but I still think staying away from her is the best thing.

  Now, in order for Obama to catch those independent voters, he is going to have to come up with some sort of accepted flip flop on Iran and the war in Iraq. As many independents do seem to have a concern about Islamic Terrorism and Islamic lead countries posing a threat. Most of them pro-Israel, most like the idea of not having a law to ban guns but very few are conservative where as they are pro-choice, non-religious, and tilt to anti-affirmative action and race based quotas, are concerned about taxes going up and think about crime in their neighborhoods as a major problem, and are also seemingly anti-amnesty for illegal immigrants..

  What is the current count of independents? Will they have an impact? Perhaps Obama or McCain could do better by choosing an independent for VP..

• 

  shimajiro at 02:21 PM JST - 9th June

  Most of Sen. Clinton's supporters will "come home" to the Democratic nominee come November - McCain's support for a continued presence in Iraq and free trade and his opposition to abortion will see to that. But McCain may be able to peel away a significant minority of the disaffected, or keep them on the sidelines. Depite the efforts of Sen. Obama and the Dems to paint him as Bush, Sen. McCain's an altogether different sort of Republican with the potential for cross-over appeal. What's more he knows that he's not going to be able win by simply rallying his base a ala GWB. Hispanics, whites, women, blue collar workers and Catholics who could have been reliably counted on to pull the lever for Clinton may give McCain a look if he makes a decent outreach.

  Obama's got to guard against the kind of hubris that toppled Clinton. His recent comment that he'll be president come the the 2012 Olympics should be setting off alarm bells.

• 

  Proffessor at 02:32 PM JST - 9th June

  HRC should say no to the VP and Obama should not offer it to her. Hillary and Bill have waaaay too much baggage, and both are involved in a civil case that could potentially go criminal (campaign fraud) for HRC. Obama does not need such liabilities and further, Bill and Hill would be a nightmare in office and harder to stop, control or stifle as the DNC had with HRC this time. The two are just a nightmare and most of us, don''t want to see it. Only HRC supporters want the VP because they want a consolation prize, if they can''t get the Presidency. But this is not a game show--above HRC getting in office, there are the ramifications of her style of governing, bumping head in an ugly way with Obama''s intent on change.

• 

  SushiSake3 at 03:59 PM JST - 9th June

  Sen. McCain is in a very shaky position.

  Obama raked in $385-odd million through May. Clinton pulled in $300-odd million.

  McCain eked by with $75-odd million.

  Combine Obama's amount with Clinton's ability to pull in money and McCain should start looking at shutting down his campaign before the tsunami hits it.

  The big factor here is - when you combine the fundraising abilities of the two Democrats, they are going to be able to blanket more states with more adverts than McCain, who, as I am led to believe, agreed to draw from State funds, which limits his fundraising capabilities.

  Another couple of very interesting things...

  1/ When McCain became the Republican nominee, there was no major spike in his fundraising. It was almost as if Republicans just weren't excited about the old guy, or his prospects.

  Big difference is that people ARE excited about Obama, and whether or not you believe he has the right policies, depth, etc. - the man has excited more than 1.5 million small donors that have powered his campaign to the front of the pack and seen him shatter fundraising records, not to mention fire up record numbers of people to sign up and support the Democratic party.

  The second point is connected to the first point and that is that because of the above point, "special interests" will very likely have less pull over an Obama administration because special interests are not likely to be the big time donors. It's the hundreds of thousands of small time donors who are - collectively - showing Obama most of the money.

  And then, of course, there is the question of Sen. McCain's age.

  He's not young, you know....

• 

  skipthesong at 05:55 PM JST - 9th June

  Big difference is that people ARE excited about Obama, and whether or not you believe he has the right policies, depth, etc. - the man has excited more than 1.5 million small donors that have powered his campaign to the front of the pack and seen him shatter fundraising records, not to mention fire up record numbers of people to sign up and support the Democratic party."

  this is the truest statement you have made to date. 1.5 million small donors, means he can go back to them again and again until they reach the legal limit.

• 

  SuperLib at 08:40 PM JST - 9th June

  The money game has yet to play out, Sushi. Clinton and Obama were neck and neck in a race for their lives. McCain already had the nomination in his pocket. Obviously Clinton and Obama supporters felt more of a sense of urgency than McCain supporters did. We really won't know how the donations will play out until the coming months. I'm betting that Obama will do better but it won't be $685 million to $75 million. We need to wait a little bit before conclusions can be made.

  The above is just a statement about the comments you made. It is in no way an endorsement of anything or anyone at all including, but not limited to, McCain, Republicans, NeoCons, President Bush, the War in Iraq, the current economic situation in the US, the price of gas, the Phoenix lander, Iran, the strength of the dollar, or anything else, either real or imagined. The above was written by an Obama supporter and a lifelong Democrat.

• 

  SushiSake3 at 11:05 PM JST - 9th June

  Superlib, thanks very much for the small print LOL! :-)

• 

  DanManjt at 08:18 AM JST - 10th June

  ...

• 

  WhiteHawk at 03:39 AM JST - 11th June

  DanManjt:

  But all that is water under the bride.

  Must've been a shotgun wedding! LOL!

  Sorry, couldn't help it. ;)

  SezWho2:

  The only things liberal about the US media is that journalists tend to be educated, are usually capable of critical analysis and tend to vote Democratic.

  If they were truly capable of "critical analysis", you would think they would see how and why the socialist policies of the modern American leftist are designed to fail, just as they have when implented anywhere else in the world. Maybe it's because -like leftist politicians- they feel they have to pander to certain demographics so people will like them. Or maybe it's because -like leftists themselves- they've changed the definition of "critical analysis" to 'spinning the truth to justify one's preconceived notions'. Changing a definition is common practice for leftists.

  If you'd like a true critical analysis, look to an expert on the subject instead of a newscaster with a God complex. On economic policies, for example, check with a noted economist. Somebody like, say, Thomas Sowell.

  Democrats themselves are not liberal. They tend to be conservative of the principles embedded within the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.

  Really? Where in the DoI or BoR are "progressive" federal taxes and wealth redistribution called for? Gun control? Partial-birth abortion 'rights'? the National Endowment of the Arts? Labor unions? The carbon credit scam?

  But you're right that modern American Democrats are not liberal in the traditional sense of the term. A more accurate term would be leftist. Others would be socialist, Marxist, communist, collectivist, etc.

  SushiSake3:

  Big difference is that people ARE excited about Obama, and whether or not you believe he has the right policies, depth, etc. - the man has excited more than 1.5 million small donors that have powered his campaign to the front of the pack and seen him shatter fundraising records, not to mention fire up record numbers of people to sign up and support the Democratic party.

  And we all know it's more important to feel good about ourselves than to have a safe country with a strong economy.

  Yeesh.

  How many of those donors are employed by lobbyists? How many of those registering Democrat in the primaries were actually Republicans doing so to drag out the process? If Obama has generated so much excited, how come Hillary still got more votes?

  Even though Hillary is pledging her support to Obama, enough of her supporters have promised to vote for McCain or practice electoral abstinence (Like that one? I just made it up.) that any attempts at predicting the general election would still be premature. Similarly, there were many Obama supporters who likewise promised to stay home on election day. Notice that they didn't threaten to vote for McCain. Considering each DNC candidate's demographics, one could suggest that middle-aged white women are more open-minded than blacks and college students. But then, one might be labeled a sexist or racist for doing so. Such is the trap of identity politics as created by the superficial PC left.

  Back on the GOP side, many conservatives have threatened to stay home on election day in protest of their party being represented by someone who sides with Teddy Kennedy on too many issues. Which makes wonder how Democrat voters could be so opposed to McCain and, in turn, opposed to George W. Bush, since they've alleged that McCain would be a "third Bush term".

  Considering the scale of threatened protest votes on each side, we could be seeing a low turnout. The critical vote would then be decided by the illegal aliens registered to vote by the DNC at last year's protest rallies.

Register or login to add a comment!