tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5027045200173644956.post2296619303984291721..comments2023-11-05T02:58:27.295-05:00Comments on Campaign Diaries: Prolonging cruel game, Pennsylvania voters satisfy neither candidateTanielhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17333289018970623022noreply@blogger.comBlogger89125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5027045200173644956.post-49158224557391348762015-11-15T22:36:43.179-05:002015-11-15T22:36:43.179-05:00louis vuitton, prada handbags, kate spade outlet, ...<a href="http://www.louisvuitton.ar.com/" rel="nofollow">louis vuitton</a>, <a href="http://www.prada-handbags.in.net/" rel="nofollow">prada handbags</a>, <a href="http://www.katespadeoutlets.cc/" rel="nofollow">kate spade outlet</a>, <a href="http://www.rayban--sunglasses.org/" rel="nofollow">ray ban sunglasses</a>, <a href="http://www.nikeairmaxinc.net/" rel="nofollow">nike air max</a>, <a href="http://www.air-jordanshoes.net/" rel="nofollow">jordan shoes</a>, <a href="http://www.nikeoutlet.us/" rel="nofollow">nike outlet</a>, <a href="http://www.michaelkors-handbags.in.net/" rel="nofollow">michael kors outlet</a>, <a href="http://www.raybansunglasses.us.com/" rel="nofollow">ray ban sunglasses</a>, <a href="http://www.longchamp-outlet.in.net/" rel="nofollow">longchamp outlet</a>, <a href="http://www.longchamphandbags.us.com/" rel="nofollow">longchamp outlet</a>, <a href="http://www.longchamphandbagsoutlet.us.com/" rel="nofollow">longchamp</a>, <a href="http://www.tiffanyjewelry.net.co/" rel="nofollow">tiffany jewelry</a>, <a href="http://www.cheapoakleysunglasses.us.com/" rel="nofollow">cheap oakley sunglasses</a>, <a href="http://www.replica--watches.com/" rel="nofollow">replica watches</a>, <a href="http://www.oakleysunglasses.ar.com/" rel="nofollow">oakley sunglasses</a>, <a href="http://www.toryburch-outletonline.in.net/" rel="nofollow">tory burch outlet</a>, <a href="http://www.tiffanysandco.in.net/" rel="nofollow">tiffany and co</a>, <a href="http://www.oakleysunglasses.us.com/" rel="nofollow">oakley sunglasses</a>, <a href="http://www.uggs-outletboots.in.net/" rel="nofollow">ugg boots</a>, <a href="http://www.louisvuitton-outlets.org/" rel="nofollow">louis vuitton outlet</a>, <a href="http://www.raybansunglasses.ar.com/" rel="nofollow">ray ban sunglasses</a>, <a href="http://www.cheap-uggs.in.net/" rel="nofollow">ugg boots</a>, <a href="http://www.rolex-replicawatches.us.com/" rel="nofollow">replica watches</a>, <a href="http://www.redbottoms.in.net/" rel="nofollow">louboutin outlet</a>, <a href="http://www.christian-louboutin-shoes.in.net/" rel="nofollow">louboutin shoes</a>, <a href="http://www.michael-korsoutlet.in.net/" rel="nofollow">michael kors outlet</a>, <a href="http://www.nikeair-max.net/" rel="nofollow">nike air max</a>, <a href="http://www.burberryoutlet.gr.com/" rel="nofollow">burberry</a>, <a href="http://www.nike-freerun.com/" rel="nofollow">nike free</a>, <a href="http://www.chanelhandbags.ar.com/" rel="nofollow">chanel handbags</a>, <a href="http://www.uggboots.qc.com/" rel="nofollow">ugg boots</a>, <a href="http://www.cheapuggboots.in.net/" rel="nofollow">ugg boots</a>, <a href="http://www.michaelkorsoutlets-online.us.com/" rel="nofollow">michael kors outlet</a>, <a href="http://www.christianlouboutin-outlet.in.net/" rel="nofollow">christian louboutin outlet</a>, <a href="http://www.poloralphlaurenoutlet.us.org/" rel="nofollow">polo ralph lauren outlet</a>, <a href="http://www.louis-vuittonhandbags.org/" rel="nofollow">louis vuitton</a>, <a href="http://www.polo-ralph-lauren.in.net/" rel="nofollow">polo ralph lauren outlet</a>, <a href="http://www.michaelkors-outlet-online.us.org/" rel="nofollow">michael kors outlet</a>, <a href="http://www.oakleysunglassesoutlet.us.org/" rel="nofollow">oakley sunglasses</a>, <a href="http://www.uggs-outlet.in.net/" rel="nofollow">uggs on sale</a>, <a href="http://www.outletonline-michaelkors.com/" rel="nofollow">michael kors</a>, <a href="http://www.louisvuittonoutlet-store.org/" rel="nofollow">louis vuitton outlet</a>, <a href="http://www.christian-louboutin.org.uk/" rel="nofollow">louboutin</a>, <a href="http://www.guccioutlets.com.co/" rel="nofollow">gucci outlet</a>, <a href="http://www.oakley--sunglasses.com.co/" rel="nofollow">oakley sunglasses</a>oakleyseshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02221561593432696548noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5027045200173644956.post-66394642223667710052010-10-06T10:03:44.302-04:002010-10-06T10:03:44.302-04:00Sorry for my bad english. Thank you so much for yo...Sorry for my bad english. Thank you so much for your good post. Your post helped me in my college assignment, If you can provide me more details please email me.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5027045200173644956.post-895050135073715422008-04-27T10:36:00.000-04:002008-04-27T10:36:00.000-04:00I just hate leaving people who are utterly wrong u...<I>I just hate leaving people who are utterly wrong under the impression that they're right. But, I suppose sometimes there's just no hope.</I><BR/><BR/>I empathize with you. But there are some people who still believe that Saddam's WMDs are waiting to be discovered in Syria. They pay attention to the data they like and won't consider anything else because they've already made up their minds.<BR/><BR/>I believe in the power of facts and reason at least to investigate where the real disagreement lies. But with some folks, you can't even get started. And at that point, one is better just moving on.dsimonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01997716795133693794noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5027045200173644956.post-91156517473084578622008-04-27T02:29:00.000-04:002008-04-27T02:29:00.000-04:00All right, I suppose this is fairly ridiculous. I ...All right, I suppose this is fairly ridiculous. I just hate leaving people who are utterly wrong under the impression that they're right. But, I suppose sometimes there's just no hope. Allow me to follow your advice, then, thanks.Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15744706170470964887noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5027045200173644956.post-78719644568387861262008-04-26T23:27:00.000-04:002008-04-26T23:27:00.000-04:00Stephen, this person isn't worth your time. This p...Stephen, this person isn't worth your time. This person, after repeated requests, still hasn't explained his answers to questions I posed directly, and supports results of votes only where excluding large portions of the electorate skews the results to his or her preferred candidate.<BR/><BR/>People who refuse to engage in real discussion are best left alone.dsimonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01997716795133693794noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5027045200173644956.post-86305173204846215902008-04-26T13:16:00.000-04:002008-04-26T13:16:00.000-04:001: Excluding those states is voter suppression. In...1: Excluding those states is voter suppression. Including them? Also voter suppression! Shit, I guess that means they're both unelectable.<BR/><BR/>The only way to go was a revote. The legislatures nixed that, not Obama. He won't suffer for it any more tha Clinton would.<BR/><BR/>2: He didn't campaign in Florida, one regional ad buy happened to include some Florida markets ncidentally. The DNC didn't find him to have violated the rules.<BR/><BR/>3: He didn't send people to lobby against a revote, he had people lobby against a mail-in revote, which his campaign considered unfair. The same way Clinton lobbied against caucuses, because she considered them unfair.<BR/><BR/>4: *His* campaign manager making racist remarks? You're off your rocker now....Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15744706170470964887noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5027045200173644956.post-86425971267139807662008-04-26T12:03:00.000-04:002008-04-26T12:03:00.000-04:00None of your points changes the fact that excludin...None of your points changes the fact that excluding those states constitutes voter suppression and makes Barack unelectable. And he campaigned in Fla. violating the rules, so "abiding" isn't a good term for his actions. He didn't have to send people to lobby against a revote. That speaks much louder than words. Maybe a public apology for interfering in their voting rights might help. Probably too late now. It's all moot now with his campaign manager making racist remarks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5027045200173644956.post-36411564672762800982008-04-25T12:38:00.000-04:002008-04-25T12:38:00.000-04:001: "No choice" but to flip on them? Wouldn't the c...1: "No choice" but to flip on them? Wouldn't the choice have been to either, A: maintain that they should be counted beforehand, which she didn't, or B: maintain that they should not count afterward, which she also didn't?<BR/>2: How is this issue the "mainstay" of her support when most Florida Democrats don't believe the existing vote should count?<BR/>3: Barack never took a position of excluding them--he took the position of abiding by the DNC's rules. He has never, ever stated that a revote shouldn't happen--only that it would need to be done in a fair way (i.e., he didn't like mail-in voting). It's the legislators in the states who rejected revoting, not him.Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15744706170470964887noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5027045200173644956.post-7722763082315852212008-04-25T11:59:00.000-04:002008-04-25T11:59:00.000-04:00Excluding 9% of the Democratic base is unfair as w...Excluding 9% of the Democratic base is unfair as well. Hillary had no choice but to flip on those states and it's that issue that is the mainstay of her support now. Barack may still win with those states. He definitely has a better GE chance with them than without. His position of excluding them is unteneble.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5027045200173644956.post-11138615405214658812008-04-25T11:34:00.000-04:002008-04-25T11:34:00.000-04:00Obama's ethics are low? What about Clinton, who ag...Obama's ethics are low? What about Clinton, who agreed MI and FL wouldn't be counted beforehand, but now that she needs them to count she's changed her position?<BR/><BR/>Those contests were clearly slanted toward Hillary. In a democracy, you don't let unfair elections stand. Period.Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15744706170470964887noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5027045200173644956.post-7373252267998093412008-04-25T11:20:00.000-04:002008-04-25T11:20:00.000-04:00I see Obama's support crumbling like his debating ...I see Obama's support crumbling like his debating skills. Maybe he can pull it off, maybe not. Time will tell. I think if he falls apart before the convention you'll see an overwhelming number of supers jumping ship. His ethics ar as low as you can get. Dsimon shows us that. It's his ceiling. Dsimon argues that "tens of thousands" that voted republican are a reason for disenfranchising 2.3 million. That just about sums up the issue.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5027045200173644956.post-25368467250417852612008-04-24T22:52:00.000-04:002008-04-24T22:52:00.000-04:001: The beginnings? If this is the beginning, the e...1: The beginnings? If this is the beginning, the end is nothing to worry about, because they're already grasping at straws. Rezko, Wright, and Ayers have had minimal impact on Obama thus far.<BR/><BR/>2: And what do you mean "what happened to those supers flocking to Obama"? They haven't stopped, he's added several in the last couple of days.<BR/><BR/>3: Exactly how do you imagine Clinton's going to win the nomination? Get 60% in North Carolina when she couldn't in Pennsylvania, Ohio, or New York? Have 300 superdelegates swoop in and hand her the nomination when only five have endorsed her in the last two months and many interviewed SDs have said they plan on going with the pledged delegate leader? How do you see this playing out for her?Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15744706170470964887noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5027045200173644956.post-64451832613741595182008-04-24T18:55:00.000-04:002008-04-24T18:55:00.000-04:00Dsimon 1. No, 2. No"No" is obviously not an argume...<I>Dsimon 1. No, 2. No</I><BR/><BR/>"No" is obviously not an argument. Why "no"? You have to back it up. I could just as easily say "yes," and it wouldn't get us anywhere.<BR/><BR/>1. If Obama "can't win" because he lacks Democratic party member support, how can national polls, which would include cross-party defections, have him doing just as well as Clinton in head-to-head match-ups against McCain?<BR/><BR/>2. If states aren't penalized for voting early, how is chaos to be prevented next primary season? What's your enforcement mechanism?<BR/><BR/><I>Any argument you have for denying the voting rights of those residents is unethical on it's face and morally unacceptable.</I><BR/><BR/>Well, then you're disenfranchising the tens if not hundreds of thousands of voters who were eligible to vote in the Democratic primary but voted in the Republican primary instead because Clinton said the Democratic primary wasn't going to matter. That sounds unethical.<BR/><BR/>From an Oct. 11 AP report: "It's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything," Clinton said Thursday during an interview on New Hampshire Public Radio's call-in program, "The Exchange."<BR/><BR/>And if you can look at the totality of the circumstances and call it a fairly contested election, I'd say that's unethical too.<BR/><BR/>I'm done with you.dsimonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01997716795133693794noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5027045200173644956.post-2263635914172050492008-04-24T16:52:00.000-04:002008-04-24T16:52:00.000-04:00Stephen-you fail to recognize that this "pastor" i...Stephen-you fail to recognize that this "pastor" issue and the Rezko fiasco is only at the very beginning stages. You have much more agony to suffer through. What happened to those supers flocking to Obama? Seems they don't like his feeble chances of winning. It is failed logic to think that this primary race or the soon to start election season is somehow already over. Ostrich comes to mind.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5027045200173644956.post-35855416903701229362008-04-24T16:47:00.000-04:002008-04-24T16:47:00.000-04:00Dsimon 1. No, 2. No, 3. Obama had his name on the ...Dsimon 1. No, 2. No, 3. Obama had his name on the ballot and removed it by choice, not by agreement with anyone except Edwards. All the candidaters knew the decision would be appealed and the state went ahead with the intent of seeking a reversal. Michigan voters count and their delegates will be seated. Any argument you have for denying the voting rights of those residents is unethical on it's face and morally unacceptable. Now you can take your hands off your ears. If you persist it is at your own expense to your side.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5027045200173644956.post-70996565732306735892008-04-24T15:40:00.000-04:002008-04-24T15:40:00.000-04:00you both act like children holding your hands over...<I>you both act like children holding your hands over your ears screaming "I don't hear you". I've supplied more than enough factual information to support my statements and neither of you have effectively refuted them.</I><BR/><BR/>Then, one last time, respond to my last three points so clearly that even I can understand them. They were:<BR/><BR/>1. You've said Obama can't win because he doesn't have the support of enough registered Democrats. Wouldn't any candidate's strength and weaknesses with various groups already be reflected national polls against McCain? And overall, don't they show both candidates running equally well (or poorly) against McCain?<BR/><BR/>2. If states that vote early are not subjected to sanctions, won't that just make for more chaos the next time around?<BR/><BR/>3. Who is it fair to "count" Michigan when the party said it wasn't going to count, the voters though it wasn't going to count, only one major candidate's name was on the ballot, and even she said it wasn't going to count?<BR/><BR/>I await (though do not expect) your answers.dsimonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01997716795133693794noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5027045200173644956.post-63913682731403964802008-04-24T15:13:00.000-04:002008-04-24T15:13:00.000-04:001: "Organizing" Indiana for a presidential bid mak...1: "Organizing" Indiana for a presidential bid makes you an effective leader now? Boy, that makes sense, I guess that's why she's running such a good campaign now, right?<BR/><BR/>2: Oh, and Ford beat Carter in Indiana. This is your example of her "running" a "successful" campaign?<BR/><BR/>3: Not once in Rezko's trial has Obama been brought up in the context of any wrongdoing. Investigators have found nothing wrong that he did for Rezko. Supporting an urban housing deal isn't exactly unusual for a state senator. If Obama were dirty, someone would've brought it up by now--they haven't, because they know it's a loser issue, so they need to focus on his pastor instead. And *that* issue has flopped, badly, so far.<BR/>4: And the poor logic is yours--Clinton is leading by a handful of superdelegates because she started with a massive superdelegate lead. Since Super Tuesday, she has picked up FIVE and he has picked up nearly 100. Do you really expect the remaining 300 or so superdelegates to suddenly flock to her? Why? They've shown no willingness to do so so far--the opposite in fact.<BR/><BR/>Clinton took an early lead in supderdelegates because no one thought Obama was the real deal. Then he won THIRTY PRIMARIES, more delegates, and more votes. Now the superdelegates are trickling to him day by day and Clinton is fighting to hold on to hers. Good luck with that coup-by-superdelegate you're looking for.Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15744706170470964887noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5027045200173644956.post-61867061095521244332008-04-24T14:46:00.000-04:002008-04-24T14:46:00.000-04:00Wow you are clueless. Hillary ran President Carter...Wow you are clueless. Hillary ran President Carter's campaign in Ind. in '76. And Obama helped Rezko by writing letters on his behalf on state letterhead. These letters are part of the influence peddling investigation ongoing into Rezko. How about a public showing of all the influence Barack used on behalf of Rezmar? Obama's dirty and even he admitted it at one of the debates. (She's leading in superdelegates. That's just poor logic there.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5027045200173644956.post-44563800633444880242008-04-24T12:42:00.000-04:002008-04-24T12:42:00.000-04:00Running successful campaigns? The only campaigns s...Running successful campaigns? The only campaigns she's ever won were for New York Senate, and both were easy victories. Obama's been in elected office longer than her. Again, if she's such a skilled master, why can't she beat him? Why has her campaign been such a mess?<BR/><BR/>If the supers are planning on going against the delegate leader, why is he the one with the 20-1 superdelegate lead since March 5th?<BR/><BR/>And Fitzgerald isn't going to indict him, that's ludicrous. Obama's connections to Rezko are no more damaging the Hillary's to Peter Paul or Norman Hsu.<BR/><BR/>Also, there's no 5-day lag on Rasmussen, that's continuous, every-day polling, up to last night. It's a 4-day rolling average, to be sure, but as Obama's been going up for the last several days, that indicates the most current data is probably actually better for him than the numbers they have there.Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15744706170470964887noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5027045200173644956.post-82173056103415776942008-04-24T12:33:00.000-04:002008-04-24T12:33:00.000-04:00That Rasmussen has a five day lag. Not relevent an...That Rasmussen has a five day lag. Not relevent anymore.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5027045200173644956.post-49710821622846456622008-04-24T12:26:00.000-04:002008-04-24T12:26:00.000-04:00If you think that was testing, just wait. He's a n...If you think that was testing, just wait. He's a newbie and she's an old hand at this. He was in diapers when she was running successful campaigns. And one thing that hangs over his head is a possibility of Fitzgerald hitting him with an indictment in October. He is a republican you know. Democrats are going with a winner no matter how well he campaigns or how many delegates he picks up. Remember the supers were created precisely for the purpose of overriding the pledged in the event that the frontrunner couldn't hack it. Hillary is a failsafe against Barack's failure. That's why she should be the VP if he wins and vice-versa. Insurance.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5027045200173644956.post-85983047363928572792008-04-24T11:37:00.000-04:002008-04-24T11:37:00.000-04:00Untested? Where have you been for the last six wee...Untested? Where have you been for the last six weeks?<BR/><BR/>People threw everything they had at Obama. Remarks that weren't his, remarks that were his extrapolated into something they weren't, a lop-sided debate, an admittedly poor debate performance by him, attack ads, ads featuring Osama bin Laden, the decades-old terrorist ties of someone he knows casually, etc. etc.<BR/><BR/>And what was the result? Clinton got a 9-point lead, when six weeks ago she was up by 20. Clinton closed the delegate gap by 10-14, barley denting his lead of 150. According to the most recent polling by Rasmussen, Obama's chances against McCain have gone up, his lead over Clinton is holding strong, and his favorables are on their way up again--still miles over Clinton's.<BR/><BR/>Untested? He's run a good, efficient, effective campaign, while Clinton's camp has been torn apart by in-fighting, fund-raising failures, debt, and flawed strategy. If she can't run a campaign that can beat this untested, inexperienced empty-suit, what makes you think she can run the country?Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15744706170470964887noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5027045200173644956.post-51092210355014341812008-04-24T11:23:00.000-04:002008-04-24T11:23:00.000-04:00Idealism must be tempered by realism.Idealism must be tempered by realism.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5027045200173644956.post-59978430763960593172008-04-24T11:22:00.000-04:002008-04-24T11:22:00.000-04:00Obama is untested Stephen. (I'll set aside your ap...Obama is untested Stephen. (I'll set aside your apparent overlooking a direct reference to a post time.) CNN is reporting today the polling I quoted yesterday,hardly debunked. We'll see next week whether this week's contest affects his electability. Also next week the NC state republican party's attack campaign will have no doubt an effect on that race. At this stage an untested candidate like Barack looks plausible, but to assume that he can withstand the scrutiny that is to come is foolish. He can't even stand for himself at a debate.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5027045200173644956.post-88516888435514207142008-04-24T11:06:00.000-04:002008-04-24T11:06:00.000-04:00Ah, apparently I misunderstood your used of a plur...Ah, apparently I misunderstood your used of a plural as meaning you intended to target more than one person. This must be some strange new grammar not yet recognized by Chicago. Thanks for cluing me in, buddy.<BR/><BR/>So you actually have no response to the facts and arguments above, right? Okay, then.Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15744706170470964887noreply@blogger.com