Lola wrote:You're only motivating the Hillary supporters by your blind arrogance.
He single handedly motivated me to send Clinton $50 last night, the most I've sent to a candidate ever. I'll probably send another $50 in a day or so once I see how her fundraising is going.
maporsche wrote:Lola wrote:You're only motivating the Hillary supporters by your blind arrogance.
He single handedly motivated me to send Clinton $50 last night, the most I've sent to a candidate ever. I'll probably send another $50 in a day or so once I see how her fundraising is going.
I never understood why anyone would give money to a politician. Especially one that just "loaned" themselves $5MM.
Cycloptichorn wrote:Quote:
However, I believe she has a better chance of winning than Obama has. Count the delegates. Obama can't win Texas.
I'll be sure to let him know.
Texas is 25% black in registered dems and 1/3 of the state is caucuses. Latinos won't be as much of a factor.
Cycloptichorn
are you suggesting that race will factor in? Race? I thought you Obama supporters were head and shoulders too enlightened to comnsider race and I'm surprised, given your righteous indignation at the Clintons when you perceived them making it about race that you would mention it.
Always a surprise.... keeps life interesting.
woiyo wrote:maporsche wrote:Lola wrote:You're only motivating the Hillary supporters by your blind arrogance.
He single handedly motivated me to send Clinton $50 last night, the most I've sent to a candidate ever. I'll probably send another $50 in a day or so once I see how her fundraising is going.
I never understood why anyone would give money to a politician. Especially one that just "loaned" themselves $5MM.
I'm putting my money where my mouth is woiyo....can't you understand that basic principle?
maporsche wrote:woiyo wrote:maporsche wrote:Lola wrote:You're only motivating the Hillary supporters by your blind arrogance.
He single handedly motivated me to send Clinton $50 last night, the most I've sent to a candidate ever. I'll probably send another $50 in a day or so once I see how her fundraising is going.
I never understood why anyone would give money to a politician. Especially one that just "loaned" themselves $5MM.
I'm putting my money where my mouth is woiyo....can't you understand that basic principle?
That does not really answer the question.
joefromchicago wrote:Lola wrote:What did Obama think, it would be easy? He could enter the race in which Hillary was already positioned to become the long awaited first female president and he'd win without a big battle? Did he think he could run and not violently divide the party?
Damned uppity negro!
Exactly. This is what I was referring to earlier.
All over the nets there is a lot of anger on the part of Hillary supporters. I can honestly say that I've never seen so much whining about how 'unfair' everyone is to one candidate.
Go over to Mydd.com, or maybe Openleft or Talkleft - plenty of disaffected Clinton supporters who could have cut and pasted the same post:
"I've never given money before, but I'm just so upset at the way that Hillary's been treated, I had to for the first time! Take that, slimy Obama people!"
Quote:
He single handedly motivated me to send Clinton $50 last night, the most I've sent to a candidate ever. I'll probably send another $50 in a day or so once I see how her fundraising is going.
I think it's good that people are doing this. Now just another $400 and you'll cancel me out.....
Over 7.5 million raised online for Obama since 6:30 eastern time on the 5th. Clinton cannot play the money game b/c his dedicated supporters will just double whatever she gets. And we have a long way to go.
Many Clinton supporters will say that money alone isn't enough to win - some even point to Ron Paul. And I agree. So it's a good thing that Obama has a lot more going for him then simply a gigantic pile of money.
Cycloptichorn
woiyo wrote:maporsche wrote:woiyo wrote:maporsche wrote:Lola wrote:You're only motivating the Hillary supporters by your blind arrogance.
He single handedly motivated me to send Clinton $50 last night, the most I've sent to a candidate ever. I'll probably send another $50 in a day or so once I see how her fundraising is going.
I never understood why anyone would give money to a politician. Especially one that just "loaned" themselves $5MM.
I'm putting my money where my mouth is woiyo....can't you understand that basic principle?
That does not really answer the question.
Sure it does. Maybe you didn't ask your question clearly enough, but I answered the question you asked.
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:Quote:
However, I believe she has a better chance of winning than Obama has. Count the delegates. Obama can't win Texas.
I'll be sure to let him know.
Texas is 25% black in registered dems and 1/3 of the state is caucuses. Latinos won't be as much of a factor.
Cycloptichorn
are you suggesting that race will factor in? Race? I thought you Obama supporters were head and shoulders too enlightened to comnsider race and I'm surprised, given your righteous indignation at the Clintons when you perceived them making it about race that you would mention it.
Always a surprise.... keeps life interesting.
Okay; Obama's going to win in Washington this weekend, which is lilly-white; Nebraska and probably Maine next week, which are as well.
Please; enough with the fake indignation!
Cycloptichorn
let's see... now we'll deny that Hillary was the presumptive candidate even though in the early goings we expressed our indignation and disapointment in that very thing.
Then we will take Lolas statement which said or implied nothing about "uppity negros" or Obama not having a right to the nomination, only that his enrty and the ensuing struggle between the two has violently divided the party.... which it has... and it would be a long hard fight.... which it is and will continue to be, and we will dismiss her and insinuate that she is a racist attacking our savior for no good reason.
So basically you have taken a well respected, educated, soft spoken, reasoned and well loved member of A2K and lumped her right in with the foul mouthed, stupid, unwashed musician/dj based on an unrealistic spin of her remark.
say, you Obama folks around here ARE inclusive.
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:let's see... now we'll deny that Hillary was the presumptive candidate even though in the early goings we expressed our indignation and disapointment in that very thing.
I won't deny that she was the 'presumptive' candidate. She most certainly was.
Quote:Then we will take Lolas statement which said or implied nothing about "uppity negros" or Obama not having a right to the nomination, only that his enrty and the ensuing struggle between the two has violently divided the party.... which it has... and it would be a long hard fight.... which it is and will continue to be, and we will dismiss her and insinuate that she is a racist attacking our savior for no good reason.
She's not a racist at all and I don't think anyone here who is against Obama is a racist. But she is mirroring exactly what I've seen all over the 'nets: a deep and pervasive sense of anger and victimhood amongst Clinton supporters these last few days. This just isn't the way things were supposed to happen, after all; Feb. 5th was designed to produce Clinton as the nominee. And she bet her own personal money on it. Her top staff is going without pay, her burn rate must have been super-high leading up to Tuesday.
Quote:So basically you have taken a well respected, educated, soft spoken, reasoned and well loved member of A2K and lumped her right in with the foul mouthed, stupid, unwashed musician/dj based on an unrealistic spin of her remark.
say, you Obama folks around here ARE inclusive.
What can I say? The posting around here has gotten a little wild.
Cycloptichorn
Lola wrote:It is in fact causing a racial and generational divide. Obama says he doesn't want it to be about race or gender, apparently he doesn't care about a generational split.
I find it interesting that you focus on the generational split.
The most pronounced generational split is with white, suburban women. There is no generational split amongst blacks and amongst men it is close to non-existant. But the difference between white women under 45 and those over 45 is very pronounced. Is it generational? Or is it racist? Or sexist?
Apparently Hillary doesn't care about the gender/generational split either. She hasn't driopped out of the race yet...
isn't inspiring to support a candidate who's people believe in her and her vision so much they're willing to work for free to help her achieve it? this is the kind of person we need in the white house.
Obama's people are talking the talk.... they might even walk the walk. Hillary's people ARE walking the walk if the rumors are true.
I note you unapologetically admit I am accurate about your treatment of Lola. (speaking to Cyclo)
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:isn't inspiring to support a candidate who's people believe in her and her vision so much they're willing to work for free to help her achieve it? this is the kind of person we need in the white house.
Obama's people are talking the talk.... they might even walk the walk. Hillary's people ARE walking the walk if the rumors are true.
I note you unapologetically admit I am accurate about your treatment of Lola. (speaking to Cyclo)
Her posting has been inflammatory and derogative towards Obama supporters, full of assertions and an odd combination of arrogant presumption at the folly of youth and uninformed criticisms of Obama himself. How do you expect people to react?
Cycloptichorn
The race card has been played on Slick and now on Lola.
Gotta love it.
i expect you to spin everything into an insult, and take a holier than thou high road approach in all conversations with anyone who has the nerve to disagree with you or not fall into line behind Obama.
Then when someone takes a confrontational tone with you because they are tired of your passive agressive bullshit I expect you to go "See, they're just mean people" and use that to ratchet up your smugness yet a few more notches.
No disapointments so far.
Is Media Missing 'Bias' Issue in Obama-Clinton Contest?
Is Media Missing 'Bias' Issue in Obama-Clinton Contest?
By Greg Mitchell - E & P
February 06, 2008
There may be nothing to this -- as some suggested after New Hampshire -- but once again on Super Tuesday the exit polls did not line up with the results, and Obama once again did much, much better in caucus states where voters have to take stand in public.
Last month, I took some heat, and praise, for suggesting that there might be something to the idea that Obama was upset in New Hampshire partly due to his race.
It seemed suspicious that the exit polls, in such a small state, were so far off, lending at least some support to the theory that people will sometimes fail to pull the lever for a African-American candidate but then tell pollsters that they did. Remember that Obama had just swept the Iowa caucuses -- where voters have to take a very public stand.
Actually, in that earlier column, I did not fully endorse the notion that this had happened in New Hampshire. I merely took exception to all the pundits who were claiming that surely racism was dead among all those good Democrats of New Hampshire and played little or no role in his defeat.
End of discussion. In all the feel-good stories about Obama in the weeks since, race was mainly discussed in the context of Bill Clinton's alleged attacks, with very little analysis or probing of actual voter attitudes -- and why, if racism is almost dead, anyone would be worried about anyone playing the "race card."
Anyway: The results of Super Tuesday make me revisit this subject, again very tentatively.
Without going into all the results, just note Obama that inspired unexpected landslides in nearly all of the caucus states (see tallies below) while barely eaking out wins -- or getting trounced -- in nearly all of the voting booth states.
He did win Georgia easily, but like in South Carolina, he had a huge black base there, and of course he rumbled in home state Illinois. But once again there is the haunting evidence that most exit polls yesterday suggested very tight fights, or even Obama wins, in California, New Jersey and several other places -- where he ended up losing badly. How did that happen?
Exit polls indicated that he got about 43% of the white vote around the U.S. -- but does this even come close to lining up to the likely votes cast? If someone could crunch those numbers it would be interesting to know if there is any way Obama could have performed so middling in nearly all of the non-caucus states, unless white voters were not being straight with pollsters. That 43% figure just doesn't seem to fit.
I put this forth not with tremendous confidence but just as a way of sparking some discussion and investigation, which has been notably lacking beyond the "Bill Clinton on the loose" headlines of the past month.
Here are Obama's wins in caucus states only so far this year. Check out those margins: Iowa 38-29, Minnesota 67-32, Colorado 67-32, Kansas 74-26, Idaho 81-17, North Dakota 61-37, Alaska 72-27, and he leads New Mexico 49-48. He lost Nevada 51-45 but won the most delegates there.
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:i expect you to spin everything into an insult, and take a holier than thou high road approach in all conversations with anyone who has the nerve to disagree with you or not fall into line behind Obama.
Then when someone takes a confrontational tone with you because they are tired of your passive agressive bullshit I expect you to go "See, they're just mean people" and use that to ratchet up your smugness yet a few more notches.
No disapointments so far.
I'm sure I can find a few higher notches to ratchet the smugness up to, just give me time. In a month it'll be unbearable.
This is what I was talking about earlier: the sense of anger and hurt that many Hillary supporters are feeling, b/c they have worked
so hard for so long for Hillary to be elected, and now that it's looking rocky they start complaining about things:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/7/62957/72680/846/451737
Quote:I'm sorry, but Obama really needs to stop reading his own campaign lit and dial down the hubris. Every time he or one of the Hillary Haters that make up a small but loud and significant slice of his supporters takes a swipe at Hillary they are taking a big fat painful swipe at me and the millions of women like me. And screw the youth vote, the black vote, the Latino vote, the gay vote and every other chip shot fragment of the electorate -- no one is winning this thing with women over forty voting against them. Not even Obama.
Every time Hillary attacks Obama, it isn't an attack upon me, b/c I'm not him. A lot of Hillary supporters seem unable to differentiate between themselves and the candidate they support. The level of projection is startling.
Cycloptichorn
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:let's see... now we'll deny that Hillary was the presumptive candidate even though in the early goings we expressed our indignation and disapointment in that very thing.
I think you're missing the point, Bear. The point is that it's absurd to lay the blame for dividing the party at Obama's feet for challenging that presumptive nominee (which nobody is denying she was and is) and running a good campaign to where he actually has a chance of winning. If we're going to nominate the next in line, why even bother with primary elections?
