There are only two plausible choices in this election, given the
climate, the character and the tumultuous times we are living in. It
will either be President Clinton or President McBush. This is an
election where all the votes should be counted, it is not about
staging the biggest rally money can buy in Tampa, to claim victory
after a pathetic voter tally in Kentucky. This is an election, not a
Madonna concert, get real, get serious, cut the stage production and
count all the votes.

http://surftofind.com/obama

On May 21, 9:01 pm, tobetbaa gmail.com> wrote:

tobetbaa gmail.com> wrote:

Please, the presidential election hasn't occurred yet. Currently in the
USA the parties are going through the process of deciding who will
represent them in the national election, how the parties choose to do
that is up to them and has little to do with counting votes.

The candidates for the Democratic ticket knew the rules at the beginning
and now the looser (Clinton) is insisting that they be broken (but only
because she is loosing.) Frankly, the fact that Clinton is pushing to
have the rules broken for her benefit is yet another example of why she
is unfit to be president.

On May 21, 9:23 pm, Immortalist yahoo.com> wrote:

On Wed, 21 May 2008 21:01:32 -0700 (PDT), tobetbaa wrote:

1 twerp or another.

If there wasn't enough rubbish about the election, the daft situation
where 1 party can't even pick a canidate amongst themselves. The aim
seems to win over the other party not beat up on people in your own
party.

Me

Hillary is not and can not violate any rules.

She is merely drawing attention to the fact that Obama will be weaker
than her in critical states. In a close election -- and Democrats
have been planning for close elections -- this comes down to a matter
of if we get a Democrat or 4 mores years of quagmire.

I personally like to listen to the feel good "hope and change and
change and hope and hope and change and change and hope and hope and
change and hope change hope" talk myself but it's a complete farce to
nominate someone who is clueless as to why the jingoistic media ("9/11
changed AAAAVERYthing") were singing "Obama, you are soooo
beEEeauUUutiful" in late 2006.

They did it for the same reason they were pumping another vain
unaccomplished unknown senator in late 2002:

They knew the weaker candidate would be just the ticked in stay in
Iraq four more years.

That's why the eternal jihad corp. media want Hillary out _now_.

They are chomping at the bit to start hyping madrasses and black
ministers along with their old standbys, abortion, gay marriage, naked
nazi flagburner parades, terrorism, etc.

Bret Cahill aol.com> wrote:

She's whining because the rules don't favor her, and wants them changed
because they don't favor her. She's been whining and boo-hooing a lot
this year.

I don't see how her whining about the rules infers that Obama will be
weaker than her in "critical states". Maybe you can enlighten me?

[snipped rant about media bias.]