1. He's a pussy.

(from Yahoo News)

Carrie Budoff Brown
Mon May 19, 5:37 AM ET

MILWAUKIE, Ore. -- Concerned about appearing presumptuous or antagonistic towards Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama will not declare victory in the Democratic nomination fight Tuesday in the event he wins enough pledged delegates to claim a majority.

Rather, , without explicitly asserting the race is over.

While it may sound like an exercise in hair-splitting, the conscious decision not to declare victory is a revealing measure of the surrounding overtures that appear to disrespect Clinton and her supporters.

It's also a reflection of the Obama campaign's supreme confidence in the delegate math at this juncture -- the campaign now appears secure enough in its commanding position that it no longer feels compelled to declare victory in an attempt to marginalize Clinton.

That marks a departure from the stance the Obama campaign took after his blowout win in North Carolina and narrow loss in Indiana May 6.

An Obama senior adviser, who asked that his name be withheld to speak candidly, told Politico the next day: "On May 20, we're going to declare victory."

Three days after those contests, Obama hinted that amassing the majority of pledged delegates following Tuesday's Kentucky and Oregon primary elections meant his campaign could claim victory.

"That will be an important day," Obama told NBC's Brian Williams when asked if he would declare victory after the May 20 Kentucky and North Carolina primaries. "If at that point we have the majority of pledged delegates, which is possible, then I think we can make a pretty strong claim that we've got the most runs and it's the ninth inning and we've won."

The NBC quote was widely interpreted as a move by Obama to end to the race, but context was missing: He went on to state that he wants to "let this play out."

After an ABC News blog used Obama's NBC quote to question whether he was making a "huge miscalculation," the campaign sought a clarification, which was posted, saying Obama was not talking about winning the nomination but rather an "important metric."

Indeed, Obama aides have spent the last week trying to reverse the perception that he will declare victory May 20 -- saying instead that he will simply recognize a milestone -- in an attempt at message-shifting that underscores the sensitive nature of this phase of the campaign.

When asked again Wednesday whether he still planned to declare victory following the results from Oregon and Kentucky, Obama dispatched the suggestion with a cool stare.

"We will declare that we have the majority of pledged delegates," Obama said, giving the question only three seconds of his time before pivoting towards the front cabin of his campaign plane.

Obama said Sunday that he has not sent mixed messages.

"What we have consistently said is that we will have the majority of pledged delegates at that point and obviously ware going to make the argument to any superdelegates remaining that we should be the nominee," Obama said. "But until those pledged delegates actually commit to us, we won't have achieved that number yet."

Although not declaring victory, Obama is returning to Iowa May 20, the state that launched his campaign, offering a symbolic bookend to the primary season. He acknowledged Sunday that holding his rally there Tuesday was a "terrific way to kind of bring things full circle."

"We still have some contests left, but if Kentucky and Oregon go as we hope, then we think we will have a majority of pledged delegates at that point, and that's a pretty significant mark," Obama told reporters at an ice cream shop. "That means that after contests in every state, or almost every state and the territories, we have received the majority of the delegates that are assigned by voters."

A moment later, though, he emphasized he was not claiming victory.

"It doesn't mean we declare victory because I won't be the nominee until we have enough of a combination of both pledged delegates and superdelegates to hit the mark. But what it does mean is that voters have given us the majority of delegates that they can assign. And obviously that is what this primary and caucus process is about."

Obama spokeswoman Jen Psaki said the senator will campaign in the two remaining primary states and perhaps Puerto Rico -- a move that contradicts suggestions that he views the race as over.

At the heart of the bid to steer reporters from the he-will-declare-victory narrative is a recognition that Clinton, who trails by a historically small margin, claims millions of supporters who don't want her unceremoniously pushed out of the race. And the Democratic party views its chances in November as dependent upon its ability to reunite these opposing camps.

"Right now, it is all about unifying the party," said Peter Fenn, a Democratic strategist unaffiliated with either campaign. "This election should be won by the Democrats if the Democrats unite behind a candidate. The one hope that McCain has is if the party splits. For Obama, who has so far been very concerned about antagonizing Clinton's supporters, you are walking a fine line."

Not to mention the fact that the Clinton campaign refuses to recognize the Obama math, stoking an intra-campaign conflict at a time when both candidates are avoiding personal attacks.

Hillary staying in, and even her obvious attempt to see he loses to McCain, is really telling of how lame, fucked up, and useless democrats are, and how utlra-mega lame she is.... Where was she when Kerry ran? She didn't want him to win either. Got to hand it to Republicans, at least they get behind their candidate, despite not liking him so much!!!

He also seems kinda shady.






(And by "shady," I mean "black.)

 

Wild Bill wrote on May 9^th, 2008 at 9:51am:


Answer B.  Sure I may participate in the football thread.  However, only one football thread was created last yeat and it went on until it maxed out, then a new one was created. 

Your posts would have been just fine if added on the the 7 or 8 all ready existing Obama threads.   I am looking foreward to your Hillary is a bitch thread tomorrow.   

The list as to why this neophyte is unfit is endless. However, one of my main concerns about the man is that he so strongly believes that the federal government is the answer to all social ills. He is a flat out Marxist and the fact that so few know that about him scares the hell out of me.

He also said this today in freakishly leftarded Oregon.


"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," Obama said.

"That's not leadership. That's not going to happen," he added.

So this fucking asshole is now going to tell me what kind of car I can drive?! He's going to mandate the setting of my thermostat?! He's going to tell me how much I can eat?!


Here's an idea you stupid fuck. Why don't you try promoting capitalism and free market solutions to the backasswards countries that are lagging behind the USA. Instead of trying to limit our way of life why don't you promote upward mobility across the globe!


FUCK HIM!!! He will ruin this country, and mark my words. Everyone that is slamming Bush today will be begging for another Bush should this assshole get into office. As crazy as that may sound I can assure you that Obama will be ten times the disaster that so many people perceive Bush to be.



Google Saul Alinsky and read what he's all about. Once you've digested that Marxist bullshit. Then remember that Barrack Obama is a Saul Alinsky acolyte of the worst kind. This man isn't qualified to be a fucking dogcatcher much less POTUS. Too bad there are so many ignorant voters out there.



Riffy

Riffhard wrote on May 19^th, 2008 at 6:43pm:


It's actually really worse than that, I'm a firm believer that Obama is Joseph Stalin reincarnation... And it is so scary that nobody wants to believe me...
But I KNOW.

Riffhard wrote on May 19^th, 2008 at 6:43pm:


I am sure that will be an eventual consequence of national health care.

TenThousandMotels wrote on May 20^th, 2008 at 1:46pm:



Please cite one country where national healtcare works the way it was envisioned. You can't because it has been a disaster in every contry where it's been instituted. It's an insane tax burden. It drives private insurance rates through the roof. It kills motivation from pharma companies to do R and D work, and it drives qualified doctors out of bussiness. There is a reason that the USA has consistently been rated the highest quality healthcare provider of any country on the face the of the earth. The reason is because market based economics make it finacially feasiable for the US to develop state of the art healthcare techniques, and facilities. Any government that can grant a family free healthcare can also refuse that same family service. And,btw, it's never free. The countreis that have already adopted this fiasco are constantly deciding what they consider to be "elective" surgery, etc. If the surgery that you may need is considered to cost prohibitive then you're SOL.


No thanks. I'll pay my own way thank you very much. Conservatives like myself want the government out of my life as much as possible. I don't need a government tit to suckle from. Why do liberals love to be coddled so goddamned much? I mean shit, it's not like people aren't already getting free healthcare from emergency rooms across the country. If I go to my local hospital for an emegency I am waiting behind dozens of illegals looking for free handouts. I'm already paying for that shit via the outrageous taxes incurred by living in this liberal nightmare state of NJ. Now liberals want national healthcare?!?!


To a liberal the consequences of their insane actions aren't important. It's all about their good intentions. Consequnces be damned. It's already given us generation after generation of blacks that have allowed the government to be the daddy figure. That the black community has not told the Democrats to fuck off long ago still stuns me. I guess when you are treated as a victim for decade after decade you just naturally become one. Now the Democrat party is trying to do the exact same thing with the ever expanding Hispanic population. It's a no wonder why the Dems are so adamant about not allowing a border fence from being built. They are already counting on a new constituency of victims that only Dem policies can protect! It's so goddamned transparant that I'm shocked that anyone can not see it for exactly what it is.




Riffy  

lotsajizz wrote on May 20^th, 2008 at 7:15pm:



A nice and concise vapid answer that we have all come to expect from you jizzy. The only thing that I will concede is that there are certainly some Republicans that would gladly exploit the illegals in this country for cheap labor. That goes both ways btw. However, I was refering to conservatives here jizzbot. Please try and explain who is screaming the loudest for the enfocment of our sovereignty on the borders. Are you trying to tell us that liberals are the one's that are so adament about the border issue?


As for your stupid little crack about my military knowledge I can assure you that I am much more versed in the subject than you are. Much more. It ain't even close jizzstain.



Riffy

What am at a total loss here is how terribly bad the media has long ago thrown Hillary under the bus and has touted over and over as her campaign and it's efforts as being doomed.

Even with hundreds of Super Delegates yet to choose and the race being so close the media has trounced Clinton's chances months ago. Bad press does not sit well with the general public. In other words....would you support a loser or would you jump on the Ohbama bandwagon. Sad to say, many, without analyzing the two would jump just because of the bad press.

It is like they think Ohbama is Superman. He can do no wrong, and there is no chance for Hillary.

Even his bad press (reverend wright, clinging to guns) has been swept under the carpet in relatively no time by the media.

I think they have acted terribly bias this whole campaign and have favored Ohbama by a land slide.

I cannot see why and don't get it? It puzzles me. Is he paying them off (that remark is a sarcastic joke) ....Geez

Ian

[/quote]
You are nothing but Sweet William now.   [/quote]


Yo G, that is some first class postage right there, tater. So good I need a bib! (reference may be slightly archaic and lost on younger posters.)

Riffhard wrote on May 20^th, 2008 at 7:01pm:


well Riffy we have a version of it here and while the system is not perfect it is by no means a disaster - there's no doubt i would much rather a private to a public hospital but all australians are ab;e to see a doctor often completely free of charge and prescription meds are heavily funded by the gov. - it's a good idea it means that health care is not just for those who can afford it

and i dispute your notion that this is "socialism" - the mark of any civilzed society is how it treats  the young, the old and the infirm - for me provision of some basic health care should be one of a governments big priorties  - like roads and schools these are things that a community needs for the benefit of the whole community - i'd rather my tax money gets spent on stuff like that as oppossed to funding what I consider to be real looney left stuff -   to paraphrase Goering "When i hear someone mention 'Government Funded Social Inclusion Groups ' I reach for my revolver" - or worse still taxing my income  to amass huge surpluses - if they don't need to spend the money they should give it back!!