Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Sun 17 Feb, 2008 11:13 am
Quote:

"Speeches don't put food on the table," said Mrs. Clinton, of New York. "Speeches don't fill up your tank, or fill your prescription, or do anything about that stack of bills that keeps you up at night."


I wonder if, during the next debate, that Obama will point out:

For Mrs. and Mr. Clinton, speeches do put food on the table!

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Swimpy
 
  1  
Sun 17 Feb, 2008 11:38 am
Here's the NYT's story regarding the unofficial NY counts: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/16/nyregion/16vote.html?em&ex=1203397200&en=e372c818e048cf87&ei=5087%0A
0 Replies
 
teenyboone
 
  1  
Sun 17 Feb, 2008 11:38 am
Her statement took the cake! She looks so mean and evil and her body language is screaming! Bad is the only way, I can describe her negative attitude. She shouldn't be fightint him, she should be beating McCains butt! She's lost me!

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:

"Speeches don't put food on the table," said Mrs. Clinton, of New York. "Speeches don't fill up your tank, or fill your prescription, or do anything about that stack of bills that keeps you up at night."


I wonder if, during the next debate, that Obama will point out:

For Mrs. and Mr. Clinton, speeches do put food on the table!

Cycloptichorn
Crying or Very sad
0 Replies
 
teenyboone
 
  1  
Sun 17 Feb, 2008 11:40 am
I read that and it triggered an earlier response!

Swimpy wrote:
Cool
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sun 17 Feb, 2008 11:56 am
I would question any results that shows xxx vs zero for any election. That just isn't realisitic, and must presume hanky-panky was involved.
0 Replies
 
Swimpy
 
  1  
Sun 17 Feb, 2008 12:30 pm
These are still unofficial numbers, we must remember. Anyone know when the numbers will be official?
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Sun 17 Feb, 2008 01:17 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
I would question any results that shows xxx vs zero for any election. That just isn't realisitic, and must presume hanky-panky was involved.


But I'm thinking, if you were going to fix the result of some vote then you wouldn't fix it to be 100%-0% because that would be immediately suspect.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sun 17 Feb, 2008 02:03 pm
McTag wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
I would question any results that shows xxx vs zero for any election. That just isn't realisitic, and must presume hanky-panky was involved.


But I'm thinking, if you were going to fix the result of some vote then you wouldn't fix it to be 100%-0% because that would be immediately suspect.


I understand all that, but with elections, there are always questions about the results whether it's paper ballots or electronic.


Some of the earlier posts claimed 100% vs 0; those are obviously quesitonable no matter who looks at those results. Why even report them?
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Sun 17 Feb, 2008 02:09 pm
Swimpy wrote:
These are still unofficial numbers, we must remember. Anyone know when the numbers will be official?


That's the big question. I haven't been able to find a definitive answer yet, and I've been looking. (Well, keeping an eye out -- I haven't done a focused search just for that yet. Maybe I will next.)

NM had until February 15th to have their election results "certified." That became an issue because they were taking so long (they voted February 5th). I don't know if other states have something similar and if so what the certified versions are, and if those are different from the early estimates.
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Sun 17 Feb, 2008 09:02 pm
California's is March 4th. That's why they are in such a panic to get the million vote-by-mail and provisional ballots hand validated and counted.
0 Replies
 
Miller
 
  1  
Mon 18 Feb, 2008 07:56 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:

"Speeches don't put food on the table," said Mrs. Clinton, of New York. "Speeches don't fill up your tank, or fill your prescription, or do anything about that stack of bills that keeps you up at night."


Dreams don't pay your taxes or your mortgage, either. Crying or Very sad
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Mon 18 Feb, 2008 08:30 am
Neither will the government, under either president.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Mon 18 Feb, 2008 09:38 am
David Kurtz at TPM.

Quote:
Tell Me More

A throwaway line in a Politico piece on this weekend's RNC "winter retreat" for major donors at Los Angeles' Beverly Wilshire Hotel:

Quote:
Plenty of lowbrow Hillary Rodham Clinton jokes were tossed around at the three-day event, but of highest concern was the notion of Obama seizing the Oval Office in a contest against presumptive GOP nominee John McCain.
I guess it just goes without saying that Republican officialdom and their fat cat backers toss off "lowbrow" jokes about Clinton, even in a public setting like an official party event.


It's just a scene-setter: The martinis were ice cold, the greens were lightning fast, the steaks were bloody rare, and, oh, by the way, Hillary is a __________.

What a knee-slapper. Fun times on the GOP side.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Mon 18 Feb, 2008 09:42 am
and from that Politico piece...

Quote:
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Mon 18 Feb, 2008 11:07 am
Miller wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:

"Speeches don't put food on the table," said Mrs. Clinton, of New York. "Speeches don't fill up your tank, or fill your prescription, or do anything about that stack of bills that keeps you up at night."


Dreams don't pay your taxes or your mortgage, either. Crying or Very sad


I would vehemently disagree with that. Taking action to achieve one's dreams means everything. All that I ever dreamed for and took positive action to achieve became reality.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?"

--- RFK
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Mon 18 Feb, 2008 11:12 am
me too, except for that Maria Carey/Janet Jackson threesome. they still don't return my calls.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Mon 18 Feb, 2008 11:55 am
Miller wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:

"Speeches don't put food on the table," said Mrs. Clinton, of New York. "Speeches don't fill up your tank, or fill your prescription, or do anything about that stack of bills that keeps you up at night."


Dreams don't pay your taxes or your mortgage, either. Crying or Very sad


Miller, I disagree. I was a kid who barely finished high school, but I had dreams of earning my college degree that took more than four years to earn. Once I had that piece of "sheepskin," my earning potential increased substantially. It was all based on a "dream." It took hard work, but I ended up working in management positions for most of my "professional" career. Yes, never give up your dreams.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Mon 18 Feb, 2008 12:00 pm
I dream of Jeannie with the light brown hair.

What did you want "management positions" for. Pretty limited dream that.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Mon 18 Feb, 2008 12:05 pm
soendi, The challenges were more rewarding; believe it or not.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Mon 18 Feb, 2008 01:26 pm
Okay, on the theory that things like this sometimes gain legs, here is report of a rumor circulating around New York today. The 'money paragraph' in Armstrong Williams' most recent essay in "Human Events":

Quote:
The word on the street is that the Obama campaign and New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg have already met and devised an incredible plan if Clinton wins the nominee. Mayor Bloomberg would give nearly $1 billion to Obama's campaign after which Obama would bolt from the Democratic Party and run as an Independent candidate with king-maker Bloomberg as his running mate. The Obama campaign realizes that Obama is too new at this game and doesn't have the political weight of the Clintons to bring in the true heavy-hitters of the party's hierarchy. So, according to sources it was Bloomberg himself who suggested this cunning strategy. It's mind boggling that the Clintons are willing to destroy the entire Democratic Party, and potentially in the process lose the White House and seats in Congress, for their own selfish thirst for power and glory.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=25021


Whatever happens, nobody can deny that this is one of the most interesting campaigns in quite awhile. It just gets curiouser and curiouser.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 504
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.26 seconds on 05/06/2025 at 10:51:03