Its be honest, it is going to be Clinton.
The DNC doesn't put people of color in top positions, you need to go to the GOP for that.
Tuesday, August 07, 2007
Poll: Dems favor Clinton over Obama
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
29 comments:
lol..
"The DNC doesn't put people of color in top positions, you need to go to the GOP for that. "
Of course, if Obama was ahead of Clinton, you'd just switch "people of color" with "women"
Let me ask you, how many times has the GOP had a person of color OR a woman as one of their top two presidential candidates?
I said top positions....the DNC doesn't pick who runs for President...
The President does pick who works for him...Powell, Rice...
Dems: ___ and ___
What for, "realism?"
So yutzes like you can refer to him as an "uncle tom" or her as "aunt jamimah?"
Why f'cn bother?
Personally, I'm wanting JC Watts to come out and declare like Fred.
BTW, Game, you forgot "Ms. masturbating is good for you" - clearly unheeded by Mr. Clinton.
Yes, Condoleeza showed her mettle during Katrina, when she came to my city to shop for shoes and see "Spam-A-Lot", while tens of thousands of blacks drowned.
Now THERE'S just another reason to promote incompetent people based on race...yet now the Republicans are doing it! Thank you, Karl Rove, for pushing our great nation further towards diversity and the "gorgeous mosaic"!
"...it is going to be Clinton..."
WAY too early to say.
I do believe Clinton will be a front-runner right up until the end, though.
There are two distinct and likely possibilities, though. Edwards could possibly close the gap with voters who previously favored Obama, OR an entirely different candidate, who has not yet entered the race, could jump into the fray.
But, no, it would be premature to declare Hillary the likely winner of the Democratic primary yet.
"Personally, I'm wanting JC Watts to come out and declare like Fred."
Will never happen.
"BTW, Game, you forgot..."
and the whole list of guys in trasportation, energy and vet. affairs.. oh.. not to mention the rest of the govt. Just a little bit of research would be nice. Please.
That's a really stupid parsing of your own comment.
You said "Its be honest, it is going to be Clinton.
The DNC doesn't put people of color in top positions, you need to go to the GOP for that."
To any rational person that sentence means "It is going to be Clinton (because) the DNC doesn't put people of color (like Obama) in top positions (like their nominee for president), you need to go to the GOP for that (because they do)"
You said that it was going to be Clinton because the DNC would not allow a "person of color" to be the nominee. I simply asked how many women or "people of color" the GOP has had as presidential nominees.
Now, if you want to compare the number of cabinet positions that each respective party has given to minorities, well that is another subject. A subject that is different than the subject of your post.
It's really sad that I have to explain your own comments to you.
"Women made up about 37 percent of the 2,786 political appointees in the Bush administration in 2005, compared with about 47 percent in the Clinton administration in 1997, according to the report and supplemental data released last week by the Democratic staff of the House Government Reform Committee. Similarly, about 13 percent of Bush administration appointees last year were racial minorities, compared with 24 percent in the fifth year of Clinton's presidency, the report found."
The Barack Hussein Obama implosion continues. The guy wants to invade Pakistan, eliminate all of our nukes, and have talks with the Iranian Mullahs.
Even Democrats can tell he doesn't have his head on straight.
"Even Democrats can tell he doesn't have his head on straight."
Oh, that's where you are wrong, Jason..he is actually very well put together, and would in fact perform far better in the job than any of the Republican candidates thus far.
It's simply that he is not the best Democratic candidate for right now, his positions on certain key issues do not line up with those needed for the country's best interests right now, and he is still very inexperienced.
But he may well come in handy, further on down the line...
"The DNC doesn't put people of color in top positions, you need to go to the GOP for that. "
I didn't see any person of color when I watched the GOP debate last time! I didn't see a woman either!!
"I didn't see any person of color when I watched the GOP debate last time!"
Even in the audience?!?!
color me suprised...not.
realism,
you know what I am talking about!! :)
I have already explained it "american." If you can't understand it once, I'm sure you can't understand it after a second time.
Hash said,
"Yes, Condoleeza showed her mettle during Katrina, when she came to my city to shop for shoes and see "Spam-A-Lot", while tens of thousands of blacks drowned."
A couple of obvious things wrong with this statement. First, are politicians required to spend the duration of a crisis, and the aftermath of Katrina lingers still to some extent, are they required to spend the duration in sackcloth and ashes, constantly in mourning? Second, exactly what part does someone in Rice's position play in a situation like Katrina. Third, a quick scan of Google showed that the term "tens of thousands of blacks" is far from accurate and lastly that blacks constituted less than half of all victims---about 47%. I just couldn't let that lie. Even if the numbers have been revised up, I doubt that we're anywhere near the "tens of thousands" level.
Once again, I just wish to restate that I don't give a flyin' rat's ass what color or gender the candidate, only that their ideas, track record, etc are in line with what I think a president, or any other office holder for that matter, should be. Neither Clinton, Obama or Edwards fit the bill in any way shape or form.
"Even if the numbers have been revised up, I doubt that we're anywhere near the "tens of thousands" level."
Some bogus numbers you choose to believe, Marshall, and some you deliberately ignore.
But when it comes to Americans, and when Americans that are flown home in flag-draped coffins that are not permitted to be photographed, or inner-city slum dwellers rotting in unmarked mass graves in Haley Barbour's Mississippi, I've come to realize that your math tends to get a little hazy (and that this is in your interests).
"Neither Clinton, Obama or Edwards fit the bill in any way shape or form."
Don't like 'em. Tough.
Maybe you should consider emigrating to a nation whose future leaders you hold in higher esteem.
May God merit that this come to pass with great haste.
All you can say to either choice---
"OH NO"(Obama)or---"HORRIBLE"(Hillary)
Hash.. thank you for the Condoleezza comment. Bush is eating cake with McCain and Condi is out buying shoes. Remind me.. just how long was it 'till Bush actually showed up? And then only to give his "heckava job" comment. Compassionate conservatives at their finest. The actions and comments by conservatives during this disaster was equivalent to pulling back the curtain. The indifference they have for the poor of this nation is astounding.
scorpion--
Well, Hillary at least knows a little bit about national security, and doesn't want to be a propaganda tool for our enemies and bomb our friends. I give her credit for this. I know I'm setting the bar pretty low, but I'm glad she's not clueless unlike Barack Hussein Obama.
Lo "Game",
Who is asking you to explain again? Stop making a fool of yourself, dude!! ;-)
wow, the super-crazy left is out in full force. Still talking about Katrina. You know what, I'm not even getting into this. What someone is so flat out wrong there is no use in talking to them. And its obvious Hash is off the meds again.
"And its obvious Hash is off the meds again."
I think he's *on* them, and using them with, uh, other substances.
"Tens of thousands of black people drowned".
Marshall how dare you question bogus statistics, "lying parasite" that you are? And then you have the nerve to bring up the boondoggle that was the Democrat political machine in Louisiana?
You should know by now it doesn't matter all that money was wasted, stole, and mismanaged, all that matters is throwing money at the problem. After all, how can Dems pat themselves on the back if you keep bringing up the pesky details?
"After all, how can Dems pat themselves on the back if you keep bringing up the pesky details?"
Because the "details" you choose to highlight have nothing to do with the facts on the ground, which you choose to either suppress, or ignore.
For you it's about supporting an agenda, right or wrong, as opposed to seeking the truth.
It's NEVER about the truth for you, and that's why four-fifths of the nation have turned their backs on you.
"For you it's about supporting an agenda, right or wrong, as opposed to seeking the truth."
Black kettle? Meet the pot.
signed,
The vermin
Glad you finally know who you are.
Acceptance is the first step.
Oh I know who I am, Hashpipe. More importantly, I know who YOU are.
Here's a straw poll that actually means something, because plurality (vote for one) voting performs horrendously when you have more than two candidates. That's because candidates Y and Z can be preferred by a huge majority to candidate X, but can split the vote such that X still "wins". Here's a severe hypothetical example to illustrate this phenomenon.
The solution is Range Voting.
Post a Comment