Today someone from the Obama campaign doorbelled me.
Choices, choices - go with the campaign that got more delegates (Obama) or go with the one that has been involved in insider politics for 35+ years (Clinton).
Hmm, wonder how Edwards will do?
hey we all love Obama but we all aren't drinking the kool aid -- Here's the delegate scorecard:
Clinton 210, Obama 123.
How about going with the candidate who can grab independents and doesn't poll worse than the generic democrat in polls?
So are they training them on the same voter suppression tactics that Clinton's team used in Nevada?
Also, the Culinary Union's endorsement just became worthless. If you can't deliver the votes, why bother courting you?
I was there all day today. If it seemed low energy towards the end it was mainly because most of us were becoming tired after having called Nevada and Washington voters all morning... a 8 am start is early for a Saturday, but it worked! Go Clinton!
The problem with posting essentially the same exact thing on three separate threads (as you did regarding the delegate count) is that when your comment is found to be in fact incorrect (as yours was), you look 3x less credible.
Better luck next time!
I was there too... by the end of the day there were about 70 people there!
And what's with the "suppression techniques" crap? Since when can you hold a caucus where it's most convenient for your candidate of choice? bullshit.
@7--Watcher. Read what went down in NV. It's slimy and not befitting a Democrat. Of course, seeing that the Clintons are behind it doesn't surprise me. It's a shame, really.
Whoops. Now the NV Dems are backtracking. WiS is probably right about the count.
Yeah, you'd never think a campaign with an advisor who specializes in union busting would ever have anything to do with suppressing union vote. Gosh!
Of course Sen. Margarita Moneytree was there. Corrupt minds think alike.
As far as I know, "Clintonista" was a term invented by Dick Morris about 8 years back. It's used by people who believe every trumped-up rumor about the Clintons, from Whitewater to gun-running. It doesn't really make me happy to see it here.
@3 Did you mean to link to the straw poll results?
The spin is amazing.
Going to court -- to ask a judge if the voting system violates your rights -- is now "voter suppression techniques."
What sanctimonious bullshit.
Nobody at my caucus site better try to pull that "present votes" bullshit. Lame! Maybe I'll photocopy and highlight this New York Times article just in case.
So filing a lawsuit is now "asking a judge"? Pot and kettle.
Annie, I think the "present" votes bs might be the least of the problems.
According to CNN's main website, Obama has 2 more delegates than Clinton on a national level.
Don't bring a knife to a gunfight.
What a bunch of fuckin' crybabies. I guarantee you, we Clinton supporters won't be such touchy grumpy douches if she loses in SC.
Just to be clear: I'm not talking about annie or Will in Seattle or elenchos or any of the other sane people. I'm talking about the kind of oversensitive under-contextuals who would, for instance, quote the dailykos blog of a paranoid Obama supporter.
Nice one Sven...
What is with Obama supporters and their inability to lose gracefully?
If you keep thinking you are winning, you'll continue to lose.
Hey Annie, maybe you should take a look at this snappy NY Times article (since you are so fond of "facts").
People that support people THINK they are actually voting for Bill Clinton (the return.)
I wish I could find an older poll (from the fall) that asked GOP voters who they supported and Obama placed 3rd or 4th with the GOP. If the Democrats are going to clearly win (remember there are more Katherine Harris & Ken Blackwell's out there), we will need the independents and Republicans that Obama will pull in. Clinton will NEVER have the support of the GOP base.
Yes, Jim Kainber is "buoyant".
(Hi, Jim, if you're reading this...)
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).