So Sad. Obama is doing a terrible job.

Obama really seems to think that he can argue his way to the White House.  If he calls the McCain camp cynical enough, the voters will be reassured and like him, as if the voters know what the word means.

He's the God-awful, terrible choice I always assumed he would be.  

Vain.  Smug.  So politics as usual.  FISA? Flip-flop.  New drilling?  Flip-flop.  I understand the need for compromise, but his flip-flops have the stink of desperation all over them.  Its kind of sad.

All I can say, really, is that Hillary Clinton would not have stood around, staring at herself in the mirror and let the McCain camp plot, plan, and execute as they wished.  

Is it too late for her, seriously?

Tags: obama, Presidential Race (all tags)

Comments

170 Comments

Is it too late for her, seriously?

Yes, it is too late for her.

by MS01 Indie 2008-08-02 09:04AM | 0 recs
And apparently, it's too late for the author too

I knew the sock puppets, red staters, and trolls would strike back after voices of reason started appearing on puma sites.

by iohs2008 2008-08-02 01:55PM | 0 recs
Re: And apparently, it's too late for the author t

I'm tempted to write a diary lauding Hillary Clinton and dissing McCain. Compare his stances on the issues to her's. Show just how bad McCain is compared to Hillary. I'd make it extremely complimentary of Hillary. Something along the lines of "If only Hillary had won." I could cross-post it on alegre's corner and flowbee's hate site. I'm curious of how people would react to it and just how long it would stay up.

by MS01 Indie 2008-08-02 04:21PM | 0 recs
Re: So Sad. Obama is doing a terrible job.

Great diary.  You should spin it out and try to land a book deal.

by rfahey22 2008-08-02 09:09AM | 0 recs
s/he's right about one thing

Obama has this false notion he can use argument and reason to persuade voters.

Emotion is the best voting tool....

McCain is so mockable yet Obama isn't using humor/ridicule in his ads...

by TarHeel 2008-08-02 10:31AM | 0 recs
I envision an ad starring Senator McCain

as Mr. Magoo. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Magoo - for folk too young to have watched the cartoons.)  

One the phrases I've heard bandied about by conservative talking heads and then by Senator McCain himself over the past 3 or 4 days has to do with Senator Obama and his supporters needing to develop a sense of humor. I think this commercial would be a good step in that direction.

Let's see if they maintain their appreciation of their own brand of "humor."

by Liberal Monk 2008-08-02 12:18PM | 0 recs
Re: I envision an ad starring Senator McCain

Instead of Mr Magoo, do an ad where he is Hans Moleman, or better yet, Mr Herbert from Family Guy...

Hey Barack, I got somethin in my pocket for ya...

by yitbos96bb 2008-08-02 01:19PM | 0 recs
Much better suggestions

Much more current and would appeal to the "under 30" crowd. I like it!

by Liberal Monk 2008-08-02 02:27PM | 0 recs
Give it up aleady

Hillary Clinton had a lot of things going for her. She's smart, shows command of the issues, and is a white woman able to appeal to blue-collar white woman like no other politician. But she had a lot of negatives too. She still has higher negatives than either Obama or McCain in polling. And those negatives are not JUST based on 1990s-era right wing smears.

by elrod 2008-08-02 09:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Give it up aleady

so true --- there were a lot of smears generated and/or resurrected during the Primary --- by short-sighted DEM supporters that certainly contribute to those 'negative' polling numbers.

by swissffun 2008-08-02 10:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Do Democrats ever

refer to themselves or their fellow Democrats as  DEM supporters?

I think you just exposed your private parts.

by QTG 2008-08-02 11:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Do Democrats ever

No he referred to them as "short sighted DEM supporters".

by gaf 2008-08-02 11:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Do Democrats ever

BINGO.

by venician 2008-08-02 11:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Do Democrats ever

Swissmiss is just your average Clintroll

by venician 2008-08-02 11:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Do Democrats ever

Again with a 0 rating from swillfun. WTF? It seems you have been a ratings abuser for some time:

swissffun troll rated this post.  It is not troll rate worthy.  How long must we suffer these unnecessary troll ratings (here is another one by swissffun) before the Admins do something?  swissffun clearly doesn't know how to properly use his/her mojo abilities.  

on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:47:35 PM EST

by venician 2008-08-02 12:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Do Democrats ever

i refer to supporters of Obama in the primary as DEM supporters as well. is that wrong? do you prefer to not be referred to as DEM? the one's that recycled winger memes against HRC during the primary I refer to as short-sighted, and generously also as DEM. short-sighted? why? because using winger smears that were debunked over 8 years of exhaustive winger congress investigations during a DEM primary against one of the DEM leaders is at best, short-sighted.

something still not clear for you??  or did you think that it was oki doki to trot out winger smears against HRC during the primary?

by swissffun 2008-08-02 11:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Do Democrats ever

We all know who uses the terms DEM or DEMs when referring to Democrats or the Democratic Party. Anyone wishing to have any chance at pretending to be a Democrat or a member of the Democratic Party would be well advised to avoid those terms.

You'll be needing to get yet another username or 2 - and next time, please be more careful.

by QTG 2008-08-02 11:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Do Democrats ever

do 'we all'???? jeez what a dweeb. i'm taking it that you're calling me some sort of winger sock. idiot, seriously. not everyone that disagrees with you, nor everyone that points out something pro-Clinton is a winger. the party did exist pre-2008 primary, and some of us have been active in the DEM party (Democratic if you don't appreciate my short-hand, excuuuuussseee me) for a good many years. even HRC was around for the DEM party a good many years, and fighting the exact VRWC smears that some in her own party recycled against her in 2008. Oh, never mind, i seem to also remember quite a few people on the blogs calling her DEM credentials into question. guess I have good company.

by swissffun 2008-08-02 12:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Do Democrats ever

That's complete BS and anyone who is parsing the abbreviation of DEM vs. the complete spelling of Democrat is grasping desperately for straws.

I've been a DEM since 1984.  If you can't handle abbreviations on a blog, then maybe your not really a progressive blogger.

See how idiotic statements like that are?  Give it up.  If you can't handle criticism or argue your point, then then only avenue left is to fall back on insinuations and attempts at character assassination.  Nice strawman, but we all see through it for what it is.  Pathetic

DEM's included.

by TxDem08 2008-08-02 12:31PM | 0 recs
Oh, and one more thing....

Democrats don't sound like that. The posters at Redstate and Free Republic sound like that. So, in addition to losing the Republican slang, you need to lose the whole Republican dialect if you hope to fool anyone on MyDD as to your true leanings.
 Democrats also don't feel the need to prop themselves up with resume enhancers like "I've been a DEM" or "I served in the military in Iraq" or "I where a flag pin". Such obvious bullshit is a sure give-away.

I'm just trying to help you. Thinking up new usernames all the time must be a pain in the ass, I'm just giving you some pointers so they won't wear out so fast.

by QTG 2008-08-02 12:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, and one more thing....

your abuse has been reported

by zerosumgame 2008-08-02 01:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, and one more thing....

 Truth is 'abuse' to Republicans. Another sure sign you should try to avoid when impersonating a Democrat. Truth has a distinct Liberal bias.

by QTG 2008-08-02 02:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Correction

not 'you' - that was a typo. I meant to refer to the impersonators.

by QTG 2008-08-02 02:27PM | 0 recs
This is the fallacy in which you are indulging

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Sco tsman

by itsthemedia 2008-08-02 05:46PM | 0 recs
Re: This is the fallacy in which you are indulging

Whatever. It's a well known fact that Democrats don't refer to their Party as the Democrat Party, They don't call themselves "DEMS", they don't entertain the possibility of voting for John McCain, and they don't trash the Candidate while veiled under the thin disguise of concern about his lack ideological purity.

People who do that aren't Democrats, and aren't fooling anyone when they insist that they are. They may not be Republicans, but I suspect that most are.

I respect their right to choose which Party to belong to or to support while not formally belonging, but I don't respect subterfuge or prevarication, especially when it is so transparent.

by QTG 2008-08-02 06:31PM | 0 recs
Re: This is the fallacy in which you are indulging

swissfun troll rating me (or anyone) is ridiculous.

by QTG 2008-08-03 01:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, and one more thing....

Obviously your wrong, and I think thou might protest just a bit too much.  I THINK YOU MIGHT BE A REPUB, trying to stir up crap

Your flailing attacks on what DEM's sound like or verbage they use is pure crap.  Just b/c someone doesn't agree with you, *YOU TROT OUT THE BUSH, "with us or against us" line and think you're just gonna lay it down.

Well I'll tell you what, you've got another thing comin'.  You can take your "enhancer's" and stick 'em you know where.  You've only been here approx. a month, and you don't have any clue as to who I am, what I've done, or what my leaning's are.  So, why don't you quit it with the username crap, and try defending your arguments, instead of trying to argue and defame others here on the board.  This ain't your echo chamber DK.  So get that through your abuse ratings skull.

by TxDem08 2008-08-03 11:58AM | 0 recs
Sorry, the Sun Queen shall not be rising

from the ashes.

by JJE 2008-08-02 09:11AM | 0 recs
But she still shines,

like shimmering polished Gold!!!!!!!

Or something.

by Hill4Life 2008-08-02 09:20AM | 0 recs
Newsflash......

Hillary has flip flopped. She now supports Obama as the democratic nominee.

She will be voting Democratic this year and will work her heart out to get Obama elected.

Join the crowd, or go back to NoQuarter where you belong.

by missliberties 2008-08-02 09:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Newsflash......

Nice try, but no.  She has not flip-flopped, and your assertions only continue to do you a disservice.

She is supporting Obama in the nomination process.  However, while working hard for him, is not compromising her values on FISA, drilling, Healthcare and a host of other issues.  She can also question his decisions, w/out being disloyal.

She and a host of others will be voting DEM this year, like they always have.  However I doubt she falls into the 'your with us or against us' group either.

Maybe you should quit that crowd, and join the rest of us who support DEM candidates, but want them to adhere to what they ran/run on and keep the promises and pledges they make.

by TxDem08 2008-08-02 12:37PM | 0 recs
Have a great life

in purist paradise.

Right now I just want a Democratic President. And I am happy that it will be Obama.

I am absolutely positive that Hillary would have moderated her positions to get elected if she had won the nomination.

Just like she flipped 180 on illegal immigrants getting drivers licenses.

by missliberties 2008-08-02 12:42PM | 0 recs
Are moderators anything on MyDD?

I come here to discuss politics, not to fight with trolls.  This kind of thing is meant to destroy logical discussion.

Without some form of moderation, this site will continue to bleed (real) participants.  I hope that doesn't continue to happen.

by Hill4Life 2008-08-02 09:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Are moderators anything on MyDD?

Title should read... 'Are moderators doing anything on MyDD?'

I guess a better question would be... 'Are mods allowed to do anything on MyDD?'

by Hill4Life 2008-08-02 09:17AM | 0 recs
Re: So Sad. Obama is doing a terrible job.

I just can't stop myself from typing this...

Is this snark?

Serious question.

Okay, I won't need to that again for several weeks.

Thanks for letting me get that off my chest.

by Purple with Green Stipes and Pink Polka Dots Dem 2008-08-02 09:21AM | 0 recs
Is this Snark?

Seriously,

Is this Snark?

by Al Rodgers 2008-08-02 09:23AM | 0 recs
Re: So Sad. Obama is doing a terrible job.

What's that smell?

by QTG 2008-08-02 09:24AM | 0 recs
Re: So Sad. Obama is doing a terrible job.

Troll poop.

by Purple with Green Stipes and Pink Polka Dots Dem 2008-08-02 09:31AM | 0 recs
Re: So Sad. Obama is doing a terrible job.

The stench of values broken and compromised.

Or the new refineries off our coast lines.

Take your pick.

by TxDem08 2008-08-02 12:38PM | 0 recs
sorry

by linfarted 2008-08-02 09:51AM | 0 recs
Re: sorry

Good one.  ;)

by Purple with Green Stipes and Pink Polka Dots Dem 2008-08-02 01:36PM | 0 recs
Re: So Sad. Obama is doing a terrible job.

Concern trolling.  Please delete.

by ArtVanDelay1774 2008-08-02 09:31AM | 0 recs
Re: So Sad. Obama is doing a terrible job.

as if the voters know what the word means.

Just as you did, anyone who finds 'cynical' to be too large of a word can Google it.

by Kysen 2008-08-02 09:42AM | 0 recs
Re: So Sad. Obama is doing a terrible job.

And don't you just love the vain and smug line? I mean why not just come out and call Obama an uppity negro? Those are the repugs code words.

by venician 2008-08-02 09:47AM | 0 recs
seriously: the race card doesn't work

and is not working for Obama. Not everything that doesn't make him a god is calling him an "uppity negro." The race card is backfiring on Obama badly with his little "dollar bill" remark.

by Lakrosse 2008-08-02 10:26AM | 0 recs
Re: seriously: the race card doesn't work

You do know that McCain made an ad with Obama's face on the $100 dollar bill, right?  Just because reporters didn't bother to check their facts doesn't make McCain's smear true.

by rfahey22 2008-08-02 10:38AM | 0 recs
Re: seriously: the race card doesn't work

Sorry, but that wasn't "the race card."  When people circulate pictures of you in tribal garb, emails that you're a secret Muslim terrorist, and all the other things that have happened, it's not "playing the race card" to point out that basic theme.  

by freedom78 2008-08-02 10:40AM | 0 recs
Re: seriously: the race card doesn't work

Wrong.  There is no evidence whatsoever that Hillary's campaign or any Hillary supporter was behind the 'Muslim garb' incident.  In all likelihood it was David Axelfraud and Donna Brazile using the tricks they learned from her good friend Karl Rove (google it).   That picture showed up on the Obama mouthpiece Huffington Post on a day when Hillary Clinton was giving a big foreign policy speech and not one MSM outlet covered her speech.  Now, why would her campaign do something like that?  Answer:  They didn't.  

by miker2008 2008-08-03 01:06AM | 0 recs
Re: So Sad. Obama is doing a terrible job.

Oh please.    Fact is, Obama and his associates are the only people casting this campaign in racial terms, and they've been doing it since Obama's June 2007 "D-Punjab" memo about Hillary Clinton, right through all the dirty racebaiting executed against the Clintons and Geraldine Ferraro during the primary.

McCain's watched that and learned how to deal with a bully.   Good for them.  They're moving on to deal with the issues, and so should you.

by miker2008 2008-08-03 01:03AM | 0 recs
Re: So Sad. Obama is doing a terrible job.

You sicken me.

by Spanky 2008-08-02 09:59AM | 0 recs
Re: So Sad. Obama is doing a terrible job.

As do Clintrolls who use repug talking points sicken me.

by venician 2008-08-02 10:17AM | 0 recs
Re: So Sad. Obama is doing a terrible job.

Swissfun you're violating TR privileges. Giving me an O rating is not called for.

by venician 2008-08-02 11:04AM | 0 recs
Re: So Sad. Obama is doing a terrible job.

need an explanation? fine.

Clintrolls is extremely offensive, and essentially calling nearly 50% of DEM primary voters in 2008 trolls. please, there's no need for that cheap inflamatory name-calling. It certainly doesn't help unify the party --- and I hope that's something you're interested in, considering you're interested in getting Obama into the WH.

there's a few slurs against Obama supporters that'd get people TRd as well. This slur against Clinton supporters (we can still support her, even if we don't support her being the nominee now that the primary fight is over) seems to be your creation and  it's TR worthy. just don't slur.

by swissffun 2008-08-02 12:14PM | 0 recs
Re: So Sad. Obama is doing a terrible job.

As do Clintrolls who use repug talking points sicken me.
S/he didn't apply this to all Clinton supporters. This is clearly aimed at the ones who are still fighting the primary wars in an effort to get Obama knocked out of the top spot on the ticket. Their goal is to invalidate Obama as the candidate. It doesn't matter to them if that means a victory by McCain in November. As such, they have no standing on a site dedicated to progressive values.

by MS01 Indie 2008-08-02 12:30PM | 0 recs
Re: So Sad. Obama is doing a terrible job.

Thank you MS01. And swiss their is a big difference between a TR rating and a 0/hide rate.

by venician 2008-08-02 12:35PM | 0 recs
Re: So Sad. Obama is doing a terrible job.

yeah there is, i know. what about the comment you HRd was HR worthy? just so i can learn the difference? flame wars are silly.

by swissffun 2008-08-02 01:11PM | 0 recs
Re: So Sad. Obama is doing a terrible job.

BINGO. And they are silly and you habitually try and start them. The whole ratings system is ridiculous and people should only be allowed to give mojo, alas some people LOVE to TR.

by venician 2008-08-02 01:26PM | 0 recs
Re: So Sad. Obama is doing a terrible job.

yep --- it's always someone else. i did explain my HR and it fit with the guidelines perfectly - response to a gratuitous attack. what's the justification for your HR? only bothering to ask since you've made such a deal of this tonight...

by swissffun 2008-08-02 01:50PM | 0 recs
Re: So Sad. Obama is doing a terrible job.

To show you how stupid and childish it is to TR & HR

by venician 2008-08-02 02:33PM | 0 recs
Re: So Sad. Obama is doing a terrible job.

my HR was explained based on use of a derogatory attack slur you've used more than once. justified, even if you disagree with the guidelines. you're telling me you HR as retribution to 'teach a lesson'???

not cool, not guidelines.

enjoy your stay at MyDD, just please don't slur when you disagree --- exhibit some level of maturity and civility.

by swissffun 2008-08-02 02:49PM | 0 recs
Re: So Sad. Obama is doing a terrible job.
And yet Tarheel did the same thing and you didn't HR her. Gee I wonder why.
HYPOCRITE
by venician 2008-08-02 04:13PM | 0 recs
Re: So Sad. Obama is doing a terrible job.

this is getting wackier and wackier....    whose tarheel and what does my not policing whatever you think they should have been HRd for have to do with you HRing not for content of a comment but 'to teach a lesson' and for using the slur 'Clintrolls'???

good night.

by swissffun 2008-08-02 05:07PM | 0 recs
Re: So Sad. Obama is doing a terrible job.

MS, it was used against me personally, and I don't fit the restricted definition you laid out. it's offensive and 'obviously' being bandied about far too loosely. regardless there's really no need for it or all the other childish names being created and tossed at people that disagree. i'm not talking about the one's that really want to destroy Obama's candidacy, but those aren't the only ones being hit with these silly names.

by swissffun 2008-08-02 01:06PM | 0 recs
Re: So Sad. Obama is doing a terrible job.

How bad would it be if they actually used a Republican attack ad, almost verbatim?

by TxDem08 2008-08-02 12:41PM | 0 recs
Re: So Sad. Obama is doing a terrible job.

I am hoping that something happens so Hillary can become the nominee.

but realistically, I don't see it.

I think, however, he is being arrogant and short sited not to bring her in as his VP.

If you think about it, Hillary as VP would help him alot with women over 40, seniors, working class dems, all the ones he needs to win and that are currently hovering around Mccain. Plus he will get all those Hillary supporters - millions of them.

Hillary is a very good debater, she will be able to make the case for him and for their candidacy better than anyone else in the party.

I think he would be making a huge mistake to bring anyone other than Hillary in as VP.

Biden, Bayh, Sebillus, Richardson - they simply cannot bring in the votes the way Hillary will be able to with all of her supporters.

Hillary is excellent at playing "bad cop" - we have all watched the "fighter" fight the fight and if he puts her in the ring with Romney or whoever, she will WIN these rounds.

by nikkid 2008-08-02 10:16AM | 0 recs
Re: So Sad. Obama is doing a terrible job.

She is also Manna for the Repugs. They couldn't wait to vote, not For McCain, but Against Hillary.

by venician 2008-08-02 10:19AM | 0 recs
Re: So Sad. Obama is doing a terrible job.

Yes but his problem is not with republicans - it's with the base of his party. He has a problem with women over 40, white working class, seniors. He only has 75-78% of the dem voters - this is not a good sign.

You've got to get the dems WANTING to vote for him and her supporters aren't fully behind him.....

And

It's about the economy. Hillary wins on this one too. Far more people trusted her on the economy in all polls than Obama or McCain.

by nikkid 2008-08-02 10:23AM | 0 recs
Re: So Sad. Obama is doing a terrible job.

And what exactly do you hope happens to Obama so Hillary can step in?  

by venician 2008-08-02 11:11AM | 0 recs
Re: So Sad. Obama is doing a terrible job.

Well you know, Bobby Kennedy was still running in June.

by MS01 Indie 2008-08-02 12:31PM | 0 recs
She motivates the Evangelical faction

of the Republican Party to get off their couches and go vote against her. Right now, they're not all that enthusiastic about the upcoming General Election.

No need to whack that hornets' nest and get them all fired up.

by Liberal Monk 2008-08-02 12:37PM | 0 recs
Re: So Sad. Obama is doing a terrible job.

It's worse than that.  Obama is only carrying roughly 54% of the registered DEM's at this moment.  I assume (who know what happens when you assume), that the % will go up as Nov., nears.  But right now with the National polls on avg. being 48-44, we really need that % to be much, much higher.  If he were in the 70+% range I think the National polls would be in the 50-42 range, but he's not even carrying 80% of the Party.  And the compromises and flip-flops are only making the decisions more complicated and making the race closer than it really should be.

We should be blowing McCain out of the water.  Right now, that's not happening.  

by TxDem08 2008-08-02 12:45PM | 0 recs
Re: So Sad. Obama is doing a terrible job.

forgot the link.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/04/c linton.poll/

by TxDem08 2008-08-02 12:47PM | 0 recs
Check again

The article you linked to was a month old. Do you have more recent numbers for registered Democrat support of Obama, "at this moment"?

by jere7my 2008-08-02 01:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Check again

Not at the moment, they should be out by Tue/Wed of the coming week.

However, this turd of a gem popped out yesterday.

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm

Tied up.  2600 registered voters.  44% apiece.  Simply disgusting.  There is no reason it should be tied up.  

by TxDem08 2008-08-02 02:25PM | 0 recs
Just to clarify:

When you said, "Obama is only carrying roughly 54% of the registered DEM's at this moment," you actually meant a month ago, and you have no data since early July?

Moreover, the poll you linked to measured the preference of registered Democrats between Clinton and Obama. So, what you intended to say was, "Obama was only carrying 54% of registered Democrats in a matchup against Clinton a month ago." Obviously, that is no longer relevant. Today, given a choice between Obama and McCain, registered Democrats choose Obama to the tune of 80%+, according to CNN.

I'm not sure why pollsters would continue to ask about an Obama-Clinton matchup, and, if they did, why we would care.

by jere7my 2008-08-02 02:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Just to clarify:

No, what I meant was at this moment he is only carrying 54% of the registered DEM's, with all available information taken into consideration.  You can not, despite your willingness to creat information of that sort arbitrarily.  Otherwise we would be Republicans.  The information currently available is what we have to work with.  I don't see how that is no longer relevant.  The data is, what the data is.  When the new poll comes out, the there will be new data.

What you're trying to spin and failing at is funny.  Clinton dropped out in June.  This poll was taken more than a month after that.  And I can find no where any information to back-up or attribute to your claim from CNN or any other organization of your 80+% of registered DEM's, regardless of the sample size.

Easily the article and the poll is indicating that Obama's support is variable and is not increasing as quickly as it should be.  I believe it's largely due to his compromising on the issues, the failure to take McCain on directly, and the laizefaire attitude that he has taken since Clinton suspended her campaign.

What is the poll telling us?  It tells us that he has dissapointed his base.  He has slipped a little in support.  But that he can still right the ship if he takes heed.

What's worse in what you do correctly point out, and which I believe helps to bolser my argument.  Is that in a direct head-to-head matchup, Obama is only taking 80% of registered DEM's.  80%.  Yet, in a choice between Clinton who has suspended and Obama, he's only carrying 54%, down from 60% last month (June) when she was still in the running.

Pollsters are still asking, because they see his falling numbers.  They hear the rumblings, and are curious as to how his "compromising" affects his electibility and/or preference of registered DEM voters, hence the continued questions.

by TxDem08 2008-08-02 05:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Just to clarify:

What? No. You're contradicting yourself here, and typing sentences that don't actually make sense. First you dispute my 80%+ figure, then you cite it? What are you trying to say?

"At the moment" does not mean "a month ago".  We do not have any data on how Obama is faring against Clinton in voter preferences since early July -- for reasons that seem pretty obvious to me, to wit she is no longer running against him.

I mean, I guess I could tell you how Dewey is polling against Truman at this moment. After all, we have polling data from 1948, and it hasn't been superseded by any new data, so at this moment it's pretty close between the two of them.  That's how polling data works, right? It keeps on being true until a new poll is taken?

The number you cited is a month out of date, and measures something that no longer matters: whether registered Democrats prefer Obama or Clinton. It says nothing at all about whether they prefer Obama or McCain, and says nothing at all about what's happening at this moment. And yet you keep talking as though that month-old number somehow reflects the events of the past week. I am puzzled.

by jere7my 2008-08-02 06:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Just to clarify:

First of all I didn't dispute your 80% figure.  I said I can't find any reference or quantitative poll or survey to back up or even reference your claim.

In other words I call Bull Shit.

At the moment, does encompass "a month ago", since that is the only data set that is readily available to compare with.  Your assertion that it does not matter will only become valid when the next availabe set of data becomes available.  Then the poll/data that I have laid out will be not the latest polling data.  That is why your Truman reference is not only in-valid, but shows you don't understand how polling information and the dissemination of that information works.  There is further information of how Dewey v. Truman faired...yet you still fail to understand that.

The number I cited was published a month ago, and continues to measure something that does matter.  The DEM convention has not taken place yet, Obama has continued to fall in numbers for reasons I already cited.  It does matter whether registered DEM's prefer for those reasons, once the base line paramaters change the questions change.  Obama/Clinton questions will continue to be brought up until the nomination is secured, that's plain to see.  That indeed does reflect what has happened in the past week and two weeks.  It does reflect upon how many registered DEM's at this moment feel about Obama.

The poll didn't reference a direct Obama v. McCain at all, hence no mention of how he's doing against McCain.  If you want iformation on that, you would need to reference a different poll.  But just to keep you updated, it's all tied up Nationally 44% apiece.

I continue to point this out, and yet you keep talking as if that number DOESN'T reflect the events of the past week.

I know now why you're puzzled.

by TxDem08 2008-08-03 05:49AM | 0 recs
You keep contradicting yourself

"First of all I didn't dispute your 80% figure. ...
In other words I call Bull Shit."

Do you know what words mean?

by jere7my 2008-08-03 08:45AM | 0 recs
The data is easy to find, btw...

http://www.gallup.com/poll/109042/Candid ate-Support-Political-Party.aspx

Obama carries 80% support among registered Democrats (as of last week). That 80% has remained remarkably consistent (+/-2%) since Clinton dropped out of the race in early June, and if anything it's increased slightly.  (CNN had him at 83% last week, but that's their "poll of polls".)

I'm afraid I don't see the eroding support you're basing your thesis on. To remind you, you said "Obama is only carrying roughly 54% of the registered DEM's at this moment. [...] If he were in the 70+% range I think the National polls would be in the 50-42 range, but he's not even carrying 80% of the Party."

by jere7my 2008-08-03 10:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Just to clarify:

Also, you write, "Clinton dropped out in June.  This poll was taken more than a month after that."

Clinton formally dropped out on June 7th. Your article was published on July 4th (it says so right there in the URL), and the data was collected in the days before that. You will note that June 7th to July 4th is less than a month -- 27 days, in fact. Not "more than a month". OK?

Kindly take a little more time for fact-checking before you post. And stop citing month-old polls; you aren't helping whatever case you're trying to make.

by jere7my 2008-08-02 06:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Just to clarify:

LOL!  You are getting desperate in your mania.

Clinton dropped out on June 7th.  The poll was taken on the Tue/Wed of that week and published on July 4th/5th.  Yes, 27 days later...roughly 1 month after she suspended her campaign.  Please tell me...how many days are in a month?  

Please, your mania is making a fool out of you.  If you don't like the facts that are coming out, quit making maniac assertions like this is grade school.  Man up and face the facts.  Your continued asssertion that this is a non-vaild poll is only making your mania transparent, and is not helping Obama or your case.

If you want to get worked up, wait till the next poll comes out, which should be next week...yes taken, then compiled and then published all within a couple of days from Friday.  Then you can say all you want about old-polls.

And if you need help understanding other things, like the electoral college, required delegates, DEM convention process,etc. just ask.  I'm sure it will take quite a few back and forths for you to get it, but I'll try to explain as simply as I can.

'Kay.

by TxDem08 2008-08-03 06:02AM | 0 recs
Okay...

You said "more than a month". It was actually 27 days. You were wrong, yes?

Admit that, instead of trying to turn your own math error into an attack on me, and we might get somewhere.

by jere7my 2008-08-03 08:41AM | 0 recs
Well...

...technically 24 or 25 days, since the data was collected on July 2nd and 3rd.

24 days is not "more than a month". 25 days is not "more than a month".

I explained all this to you more than a year ago, yesterday.

by jere7my 2008-08-03 08:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Well...

See above post to be pnwed.

by TxDem08 2008-08-03 11:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Well...

Typing to fast...please excuse the mis-spelling.

Pwned!

I assume you'll want an in depth analysis of this also.  I'll tell you what, give 1500 words on why and then we'll discuss your being pwned within 3 days.

Until then, 54% is still less than 60%...and 27 days is still approx. 1 month.

by TxDem08 2008-08-03 11:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Okay...

I'm so glad your arguing the points of the poll and your supposed point of argument.

Instead your going playground, since you can't and trying to put up a strawman argument.  The actual math results were approx. 27 days.  I said that.  However, how long is approx. 1 month in mathmatical terms?

Bueller?  Bueller?  Yes, Einstein, 1 month is approx. 30 days...how many days from 27?  Class?  How many days difference is 27 from 30?  That's right class!  THREE!

So your semantically arguing over 3 days give or take a day for polling information to be compiled and dissemenated.

Admit that, instead of arguing over your supposed math error, like I did previously and then maybe, just maybe you'll begin to see the light.

If you want to argue over 3 days the significance of those 3 days to a poll in which it is still the only relevant data, since it's the only current polling information that we have, then I am more than willing to argue over the statistical significance of the 3 days in which your are kindergartenly trying to pin down.

This is a prime example of why we are floundering, because people like this are arguing over something like 3 days instead of what the significance of polling indicated and the reasons behind the problems of those polls that took place in a time period more than 3 days longer than mathmatically mentioned.

this is why we get our hats handed to us like in '04, because instead of fighting and helping to steer the candidates, and keep the messaging clear.  Some of us want to argue about 3 days.

Instead I'm sure you'll want to keep your head in the sand and walk around squawking, 3 days, err, 3 days.  Get back to me, when you want to discuss the poll and it's significance or when the new poll which should come out early this coming week for the new data points.

Until then....err...jere7my want another 3 days?

by TxDem08 2008-08-03 11:38AM | 0 recs
Kindly admit you misspoke

You were attempting to shore up a weak argument by exaggerating, and I called you on it. You said it was "more than a month." It was not. Seems pretty simple to me.

We both agree that you were wrong to say "more than a month", right? None of your many words, even the bold-faced ones, change that.

by jere7my 2008-08-03 12:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Kindly admit you misspoke

No, what you got called on was 3 days.  Everything must seem pretty simple to you.  You don't argue the point of the poll or the validity of the argument.  You're whining about 3 days.

You can try and harp, and whine about your 3 days, but it still doesn't change the facts that you couldn't refute the evidence or even provide a counter argument to the discussion.

You degeneratd into a playground taunt and are attempting to hang your hat on that peg.  Your all hat and no cattle.

by TxDem08 2008-08-03 03:57PM | 0 recs
Yep, got hats

I notice you've spent quite a few more words on defending your error than I have in pointing it out, so I wonder which of us is harping. But, really, I'm only "harping" because I'm idly curious as to whether you're willing to admit to a simple mistake, or whether you'd rather try to obfuscate your exaggeration with a lot of insults and irrelevancy. So far, it's the latter.

I notice that you've so far ignored the recent Gallup poll I linked to above, showing that Obama does indeed have the support of 80% of registered Democrats, as I originally claimed:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/109042/Candid ate-Support-Political-Party.aspx

Note that that number hasn't changed more than 2% either way since Clinton dropped out. Since that undermines your entire argument about Obama's eroding support, I can see why you'd rather keep this irrelevant side-bloviation going, but for the record I'm not the one refusing to provide actual points for discussion here.

I do have several hats, and no cattle, so I guess you got me there.

by jere7my 2008-08-03 05:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Yep, got hats

Alright, now were getting down to it.  I didn't know we were under a word limit here, but I guess if you can't effectively argue your point, you might want to restrict those who can.  Fine, no problem, let me know how many words you want to use and we'll now play by those boundaries as well.

To be honest, I didn't see you link to your Gallup poll until now.  I went back to the main thread and see that yes, in a seperate response you did include it, but I don't think it was in the thread we were discussing.  But none the less it is interesting to see it.  I for one don't put much stock into Gallup after the Primaries, but that's neither here nor there.

Let's examine it.  How many respondents did it have?  What were the key cross-tabs?  I see it says weekly aggregate, and that's why you're getting your steadiness of +/- 2, statistically, but before I would take it as pure faith, I would like to see sample size, and the other key tabs before passing any kind of negative judgement.

I haven't checked out Gallup very much since the Primaries, and use pollingreport.com more often, but I will check into what they have now and browse around and see if I can find their cross-tabs.

by TxDem08 2008-08-03 08:13PM | 0 recs
Fortunately not all republicans

are as hateful as some of the dems.  Sad but true.

I know a lot of republican women who would vote dem in a NY minute if Hillary were on the ticket.  They do not like McCain at all and Obama has failed to impress them.  Hillary on the other hand knows how to get work done and can multitask amazingly.  Women, regardless of affiliation, identify with those characteristics.

by Jjc2008 2008-08-02 04:18PM | 0 recs
Re: So Sad. Obama is doing a terrible job.

Yeah, but it's unlikely to happen:   a) Obama cannot stand Hillary, as he, his campaign, and his bazillions of Hillary-hating supporters have made abundantly clear;  b) She doesn't really want it.   Why would she want to play second banana to a second banana?   She has shown generosity and party loyalty in saying that she would serve if asked.   And a lot more than some of the other people who's names were added -- then had to be struck -- from the VP list.  

by miker2008 2008-08-03 01:10AM | 0 recs
He's crushing McCain on economy

it's Paris Hilton that giving him grief.

by Neef 2008-08-02 10:30AM | 0 recs
Re: He's crushing McCain on economy

LOL!  Please, I don't need Obama to start hanging out with Paris.  I don't need that image of him getting out of a car...  :o

by TxDem08 2008-08-02 12:48PM | 0 recs
Obama is not the nominee yet,

and will not be unless a majority of delegates vote for him at the convention. The convention starts on August 25. Obama's "presumptive nominee" status is only because a bunch of people have said he is. However, they have a right to change their minds if Obama continues to drop, and if it looks like he's already been defined.

part of the problem is that to win the nomination, he had to pander to the far left. Hillary was square in the center, which was better because she'd be much harder to dub as a flip flop. FISA, offshore drilling, and we can only imagine what is next.

by Lakrosse 2008-08-02 10:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama is not the nominee yet,

Back to the denial stage of your grieving process are we?

by venician 2008-08-02 11:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama is not the nominee yet,

Obama's "presumptive nominee" status is only because a bunch of people have said he is.

This and the fact that nobody else is still campaigning for the nomination.

by Koan 2008-08-03 11:35AM | 0 recs
Re: So Sad. Obama is doing a terrible job.

I really thought this was going to be a snark diary.

Maybe it is?

by Steve M 2008-08-02 10:31AM | 0 recs
Re: So Sad. Obama is doing a terrible job.

Nope.  And now it's on the Rec List.

by rfahey22 2008-08-02 10:38AM | 0 recs
Re: So Sad. Obama is doing a terrible job.

Don't be so sure.  I am starting to think there is such a thing as unintentional snark.

by Steve M 2008-08-02 11:29AM | 0 recs
Re: So Sad. Obama is doing a terrible job.

I've always been against Hillary, but she is a bulldog (relax, I call my wife a bulldog , also).  I know she would fight and fight hard as veep, but I can't get around the knowledge that she would mega-motivate the other side.

by lqbruin 2008-08-02 10:33AM | 0 recs
Re: So Sad. Obama is doing a terrible job.

Conservatives will be fully motivated against Obama by the time McCain's and the Machine are done with Obama.  The dip in the polls you are seeing is the result of this very thing happening.  

Its a matter of fighting or dying.

Obama should have come back to the US, all claws and teeth.  He didn't.

by MKyleM 2008-08-02 11:34AM | 0 recs
Re: So Sad. Obama is doing a terrible job.

Agree 100%.  However, how much do you think they will get motivated by the fact that right now, they're not sure they'll even be able to staunch the losses in the Congress, while the WH is pretty much written off.

Like sharks if they smell blood in the water, they will come after him, and that will rally their base.  The gaffes he's making now, are just piquing their attention.  If he seems beatable, and somehow they think they can keep the WH, they sacrifice the Congress.

He needs to stop giving it away, and start drawing a line in the sand.  As he himself said:

"On the national level, bipartisanship usually means Democrats ignore the needs of the poor and abandon the idea that government can play a role in issues of poverty, race discrimination, sex discrimination or environmental protection," Mr. Obama said.

Working across the aisle is great, but sometimes you've got to take a stand.  He understood that at one point.  I don't know why he's deviating now.

by TxDem08 2008-08-02 12:56PM | 0 recs
Re: So Sad. Obama is doing a terrible job.

Just fyi:  I know Republicans who don't like McCain; will not vote for Obama; but actually would have voted for Hillary Clinton as President.

by cameoanne 2008-08-03 05:39AM | 0 recs
Re: So Sad. Obama is doing a terrible job.


Calm down.  It's too steep a learning curve for a lot of people.  They'll excuse anything and everything Obama does until January 21 and harass anyone who dissents.  After that date they'll admit that they knew it was all going to be a lot less than they pretend to now.

Don't forget the basic facts of the primary: the average  Party members split evenly between the priority of the gussied up moderate short term agenda of Obama versus the long term hardcore agenda of HRC.  Conservative party insiders decided it for Obama.  Obama has pretty much tuned out liberals.  It's all pretty much the 1976 Carter game.

Take a wild guess at what kind of Presidency he'll have, that is if he manages to squeak by McCain.  In polling threads Obama supporters are starting to talk openly of a 52% Obama ceiling.  Landslide, here we come.

by killjoy 2008-08-02 10:33AM | 0 recs
Re: So Sad. Obama is doing a terrible job.

Because the Clintons are oh so well known for their liberal stances... Gimme a break.

by LtWorf 2008-08-02 11:01AM | 0 recs
landslide here we come
Take a wild guess at what kind of Presidency he'll have, that is if he manages to squeak by McCain.  In polling threads Obama supporters are starting to talk openly of a 52% Obama ceiling.  Landslide, here we come.

52% would be pretty damn good. If you factor in Nader and Barr at 3% combined then you have McCain coming in at 45%. That would be a huge win. Of course, that's being optimistic for McCain. His ceiling seems to be around 44%.
by MS01 Indie 2008-08-02 11:13AM | 0 recs
So sad I visited here. n/t

by cultural worker 2008-08-02 10:38AM | 0 recs
This POS is on the Rec List with TWO RECS? n/t

by Koan 2008-08-02 10:42AM | 0 recs
Re: This POS is on the Rec List with TWO RECS? n/t

The number of comments a diary receives affects it's rise to the rec list. Also, I believe that the amount of mojo doled out within the diary affects it as well.

So, yeah, sadly a Troll diary can easily make it to rec list based on a large number of comments calling it a Troll diary.

I am ever-hopeful that updates to the rec/rate system will someday be under the tree at MYDD.

by Kysen 2008-08-02 11:01AM | 0 recs
Re: This POS is on the Rec List with TWO RECS? n/t

I'd rec you for that explanation, but I know now what the effect would be...

And damn. I've now commented on this diary. Will I never learn?

by duende 2008-08-02 01:59PM | 0 recs
How does the rec system work?

This is on the rec list with two.

The Following Users Have Recommended This Diary:

nikkid
Lakrosse

by jere7my 2008-08-02 10:43AM | 0 recs
Re: How does the rec system work?

naked lacrosse is a wicked game.

by MS01 Indie 2008-08-02 11:11AM | 0 recs
Re: How does the rec system work?

No kidding...you really have to keep an eye on the ball.

by Kysen 2008-08-02 12:19PM | 0 recs
Re: So Sad. Obama is doing a terrible job.

Well right now here in NH we are about to get another thunder storm.

I am sure this bit of info is as useful to all as this diary.

by jsfox 2008-08-02 11:07AM | 0 recs
Re: So Sad. Obama is doing a terrible job.

This is no diary it's more like the place where deadenders go to whine.

by venician 2008-08-02 11:14AM | 0 recs
Re: So Sad. Obama is doing a terrible job.

What does that say about you, as you have come here and are whining.

by MKyleM 2008-08-02 11:35AM | 0 recs
Re: So Sad. Obama is doing a terrible job.

who's whinning, my candidate won I'm only defending him against all you BB's.

by venician 2008-08-02 11:42AM | 0 recs
Re: So Sad. Obama is doing a terrible job.

Brilliant analysis!  Highly rec'd!

by thatpurplestuff 2008-08-02 11:53AM | 0 recs
Re: So Sad. Obama is doing a terrible job.

Ooops. I was sure this was snark. But then I saw you had recommended this inane diary

nikkid
gaf
thatpurplestuff
Lakrosse

And now it's on the wretched rec list

Trash like this is destroying this site

by duende 2008-08-02 12:21PM | 0 recs
Engels.

That countless Obama supporters lost their rec privileges, but "Cult Leader" Engels still has his, tells me all I need to know.

by Shem 2008-08-02 01:18PM | 0 recs
Re: So Sad. Obama is doing a terrible job.

TPS is snarking AND shame rec'ing.

by fogiv 2008-08-02 01:18PM | 0 recs
Re: So Sad. Obama is doing a terrible job.

Good. Thanks for explaining. So many sockpuppets emulate other people's names I wasn't sure anymore

by duende 2008-08-02 01:58PM | 0 recs
Re: So Sad. Obama is doing a terrible job.

The mods here are allowing garbage on their site.  If they actually had to answer for these click-inducing diaries, they might reconsider letting people that bash the nominee/gays/etc post here.  I've made a point to rec every single one of these nasty diaries, especially the bullshit pumped forth by that homophobe yellowdem.  We as a community at MyDD are only as good as the nastiest shit we allow here.

Until Jerome, Todd, and Jonathan actually show some fucking moderation on this site, I'm going to continue to encourage the lowest common denominator to be on the wreck list.

by thatpurplestuff 2008-08-02 09:52PM | 0 recs
Re: So Sad. Obama is doing a terrible job.

Thank you.

by thatpurplestuff 2008-08-02 10:00PM | 0 recs
This is a comment not a diary.

by SocialDem 2008-08-02 11:53AM | 0 recs
Re: This is a comment not a diary.

Less a comment, more a boil on the ass of the blogosphere.

by fogiv 2008-08-02 01:19PM | 0 recs
Re: So Sad. Obama is doing a terrible job.


he only won with the help of party insiders.  hardly something to congratulate yourselves over.  

In the primary contests (you know, the ones that actually resemble the general elections), he lost miserably.  Miserably. The voters, they didn't like him.  

I can't wait to get my bumper sticker:  Don't blame me, I voted for Clinton.

by MKyleM 2008-08-02 11:53AM | 0 recs
Re: So Sad. Obama is doing a terrible job.

LOL, you really are dilusional. Obama won every metric in the primary. It really is getting sad how you people still can't come to terms with your loss.

by venician 2008-08-02 11:58AM | 0 recs
Re: So Sad.

As  some Japanese soldiers marooned on Islands in the Pacific after WW2, so some small bands of typers associated with Rush Limbaugh's "Operation Chaos" continue their FAIL on teh General Election.

They'd be pathetic if they weren't so damn pitiful.

by QTG 2008-08-02 12:04PM | 0 recs
Re: So Sad. Obama is doing a terrible job.

You mean those 100 superdelegate party insiders who backed Hillary Clinton before the primaries even began?

by elrod 2008-08-02 01:02PM | 0 recs
Re: So Sad. Obama is doing a terrible job.

I spoke of the PRIMARY contests, as opposed to the CAUCUSES.

Caucuses are held for several hours only, most often on a weekeday, and votes are made publicly.

Primaries are held all day long (allowing everyone the opportunity to vote) and votes are cast privately.  The primaries are the contests that are just like the general election.  

Clinton destroyed Obama in the primaries.  He destroyed her in the caucuses.  I think its more impressive that she destroyed him in contests that are exactly like the one that will matter.  

Caucuses. You can't even whipe your mouth or ass with them, they are so useless.  

Obama: big fat loser.  

by MKyleM 2008-08-02 12:06PM | 0 recs
Re: So Sad. Obama is

Take the plunger out of your ass and get the fuck out of here.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-08-02 12:12PM | 0 recs
Re: So Sad. Obama is

lol

by MKyleM 2008-08-02 12:17PM | 0 recs
Caucuses useless? Yes. Except for...

...allowing Obama to defeat Hillary by crushing her in them while being tied in primaries.

You do realise that South Carolina, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Missouri, Louisiana, Maryland, Virginia, Wisconsin, Vermont, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oregon and Montana were all primaries right?

by conspiracy 2008-08-02 12:22PM | 0 recs
The only sad thing is the amount of...

...handringing, jealousy, delusion, bittterness and child-like, un-informed, content-free, petty and divisive garbage, poorly disguised as serious political analysis around here.

by conspiracy 2008-08-02 12:15PM | 0 recs
Re: The only sad thing is the amount of...

And today it seems to be exceptionally bad.

by venician 2008-08-02 12:38PM | 0 recs
Insightful.

Frankly, I wouldn't offer this level of political analization for free if I were you. The breadth of your understanding and depth of your commentary is truly breathtaking.

by warmwaterpenguin 2008-08-02 12:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Insightful.

You're right.  This man needs representation!  The sky's the limit.  I can just imagine it:

TheShitheadReport

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-08-02 12:37PM | 0 recs
Lolol

He could come on right after O'Reilly.

by warmwaterpenguin 2008-08-02 12:43PM | 0 recs
Writin' PUMA
They see me trollin'
Down-rating
Cajolin'
They tryin' ta catch me writin' PUMA
by warmwaterpenguin 2008-08-02 12:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Writin' PUMA

My favorite comment!!

:)

by Kysen 2008-08-02 01:12PM | 0 recs
Re: So Sad. Obama is doing a terrible job.

"Hillary Clinton would not have stood around, staring at herself in the mirror and let the McCain camp plot, plan, and execute as they wished"

heh, you mean like she did during the primaries.  She was the favorite, remember?  She lost because she wasn't prepared to run the race she needed to run.  This site is still in a sad state considering this diary is on the reclist, as others from desperate PUMA's and the like have occupied spots on the reclist recently.  Sad to see it still hasn't really recovered from all the anti-Obama stuff yet.  I thought it would when the primaries were over, guess not.  Maybe after Obama wins, who knows?

by JustJack 2008-08-02 12:24PM | 0 recs
No it won't stop when he wins

It will be ''...but, but, but...Hillary won have won by more. She would have won Arkansas!''

by conspiracy 2008-08-02 12:28PM | 0 recs
Re: So Sad. Obama is doing a terrible job.

Ahh . . . these back and forth exchanges bring back fond memories of all those enlightening debates we had over superdelegates, caucuses, electability, and white working class voters.  

Good times, good times.  

by ProfessorReo 2008-08-02 12:40PM | 0 recs
Oh come on.

This made the fucking rec list? I'm fine with criticizing Obama, but is this whiny-ass diary really the kind of serious analysis that deserves the spotlight?

This blog is a fucking joke.

by fwiffo3 2008-08-02 12:58PM | 0 recs
Obama is a joke. It is time to beg Hillary

fisa, faith initiative, drilling - obama will do and say anything - he is not a real Democrat either.
he joined his church for political reason and he left it for political reason.
he is not different, he is just unexperienced and bad candidate, in short he is a joke and dems let him full them.

On other hand, we know that Hillary is the best candidate and we know what she will do.

by engels 2008-08-02 12:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama is a joke. It is time to beg Hillary

Yes, I admit it, Obama fulls me.

by Kysen 2008-08-02 01:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama is a joke. It is time to beg Hillary

Full me once, shame on you.  Full me twice, shame on me?

Have you ever considered iambic pentameter?  It might actually make your posts funnier than they already are.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-08-02 01:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama is a joke. It is time to beg Hillary

Ahhh, it iz da Engels!

I 2 am for make Hailery prez.  she farz bettur more than bad bad black boy whos is havink no expuriance, und is joke yes?

I also for am make Engels a cabinet poster, or evenz ambazzador to dumbfuckistan.

by fogiv 2008-08-02 01:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama is a joke. It is time to beg Hillary

Teh Engels! Where have you been. We were so, so, so very worried.

by Jeter 2008-08-02 01:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama is a joke. It is time to beg Hillary

engels, are you related to anna shane?

by venician 2008-08-02 01:38PM | 0 recs
Yes

They have to be

by iohs2008 2008-08-02 01:56PM | 0 recs
Your signiature...

...it makes no sense.

Well, neither do you, so I guess it is par for the course.

So we're going to have an Obama landslide without these people? Poll after poll has shown women, latino/as, and pretty much all the rest flocking to Obama en masse.

And what are holding on sweeties?

by iohs2008 2008-08-02 01:59PM | 0 recs
does it not make sense

or does it make SO much sense that it just blew your mind?

by JJE 2008-08-02 02:33PM | 0 recs
Possibly

But someone has to explain to me what holding on sweeties are.

by iohs2008 2008-08-02 09:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Possibly

As an avid engels enthusiast I will assist.

During the primary, cult leader Obama said the most sexist comment ever uttered to a female reporter.

"Hold on sweetie!"

I think engels is "playing" off that.

I love teh engels!

by spacemanspiff 2008-08-02 10:12PM | 0 recs
Re: So Sad. Obama is doing a terrible job.

teh engels!!!!!!!! My day is complete.

by MS01 Indie 2008-08-02 01:07PM | 0 recs
Re: So Sad. Obama is doing a terrible job.

Yes, we've spotted the elusive Engels.  It's a rare breed of cat, avoided by even the puma.  A particularly anti-social animal, the Engels is known for stalking its prey all the while shouting "i'm gonna eat you and turn you into poo!"  as loud as it can.

Obviously such stealth ensures that the Engels is malnourished.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-08-02 01:15PM | 0 recs
Re: So Sad. Obama is doing a terrible job.

Ah I see the douchebag trolls and their friends are out this weekend.  Fun.

by yitbos96bb 2008-08-02 01:19PM | 0 recs
Name that film
Francine: "What are they doing? Why do they come here?"
Stephen: "Some kind of instinct. Memory, of what they used to do. This was an important place in their lives."
by BobzCat 2008-08-02 01:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Name that film

Dawn of the Dead?

by Koan 2008-08-03 11:39AM | 0 recs
MKyleM is a COWARD and a LIAR

That's all you need to know.

by Lefty Coaster 2008-08-02 02:57PM | 0 recs
Re: So Sad. Obama is doing a terrible job.

Those rec'ing this bring back such fond memories

bsavage
alamedadem
nikkid
engels
gaf
thatpurplestuff
Lakrosse

One of the reasons Clinton lost?
None of the above did the hard ground work for her.
They thought that typing on a keyboard and voting for her was enough..

by nogo postal 2008-08-02 04:38PM | 0 recs
Re: So Sad. Obama is doing a terrible job.

Ya know kyle...
there are frauds who can cut it..
and frauds who cannot..

You sir,; cannot cut it..
These guys could..

tape yer toes..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAgREeIOd LA

by nogo postal 2008-08-02 04:48PM | 0 recs
Re: So Sad. Obama is doing a terrible job.
no really ..tape(not tap) yer toes..
even though you may have been unfortunate to have been born with five,,,
..a simple tape job..can reduce them to three..
Just like your in-bred friends in Alabama..
by nogo postal 2008-08-02 05:00PM | 0 recs
You could have made this diary shorter.

He's the God-awful, terrible choice I always assumed he would be.

Everything else is just padding for this vacuous, bitter point.  I know, because these trolls told me so.

Isn't there a special blog just for variations on "Obama sucks, I knew it all along?"  There should be.  Maybe we could get all the best diarists to go there and make it the shiniest, best, most endearing "Obama sucks" blog in the world.  I know.  It's a dream.  John Lennon could have written a song about it.

"Imagine all the blog trolls,
blogging how 'Bama sucks...

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one

I hope some day they'll go there
And stop poisoning MyDD..."

by Dumbo 2008-08-02 06:05PM | 0 recs
Re: So Sad. Obama is doing a terrible job.

Mississippi says, this diary sucks.

by Countificus 2008-08-02 10:27PM | 0 recs
Why are you on a Democratice site

trashing the Democratic presidential candidate?  And why are you referring to the Democratic Party as the DEM party?

Oh, I see.  You are lost.  Free Republic is thataway -->

by GFORD 2008-08-03 12:33AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads