[UPDATED]Did Bill Clinton just insult young voters?

http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2008/0 4/16/bill-clinton-older-voters-too-savvy -to-fall-for-obama/

Bill Clinton: older voters too savvy to fall for Obama

Bill Clinton says older voters are supporting his wife because they're too smart to be fooled by Barack Obama's rhetoric.

so I read this and i have to ask, what does that say about the younger voters? am I not smart enough to not be fooled by Obama?

I just don't see how NOT to see this as a swipe at young voters, sure he doesn't mention us, but what does it say for young voters if only older voters are too smart not to be fooled?

for years I heard get the youth vote out, get them out, now we are out and now we are stupid?

well now I know I am voting for Obama because i wasn't old enough to be smart enough to not be fooled by Obama's rhetoric.

also what does that say about the 13 million people who voted for Obama? we were ALL fooled by rhetoric?

There's more...

Man In Clinton's 'Bitter' Ad Isn't Registered To Vote in PA.

now this is just plain funny and thats the only reason I am posting this, because I got a good chuckle out of it and I think you should too.

http://blogs.mcall.com/penn_ave/2008/04/ supporter-in-cl.html

Barack Obama can take some solace out of Hillary Clinton's new television ad in Pennsylvania. At least one of her supporters featured in the spot hammering Obama for his small town comments isn't registered to vote in Pennsylvania.

Clyde Thomas, who sports a goatee in the ad and says, "the good people of Pennsylvania deserve a lot better than what Barack Obama said," is actually registered in New Jersey. He voted there for Clinton Feb. 5. He only recently moved to Bethlehem, Pa.

"It shouldn't be a big deal. I explained it to the campaign," Thomas said in an interview. "I see Pennsylvanians for what they are. I grew up with the values of Pennsylvanians."

hehe well at least thats 1 vote he doesn't have to worry about on Tuesday.

as I saw someone note, first the 3am girl supports Obama now this, heh maybe they should vette the people in their ads.

I am watching Verdict tonight I bet he gives this a blunder.

There's more...

I think they owe us a Unity Ticket.

first of all I freely admit this is MY opinion and only applies for myself, everyone else is free to have their opinions and I respect that, and think I should be treated likewise. thus no need to flame me.

I am an Obama supporter, and I do believe the race is over and Obama will be the nominee. you can disagree thats fine, its just what I believe. I think the Vice Presidency is Hillary's to reject.

I know I know why should he have too. well for me I don't see ONLY the Presidency as beholden to the people, I see both of them.

more and more its about the ticket now, and I think the will of the people should really dictate both. basically I think Hillary has earned enough support to be on the ticket unless she chooses not to. The record turnout is NOT about only 1 democrat. The people are excited for these too.

I know polls suggest that people don't want a unity ticket right now, but that is only because of the entrenchment both sides are going through. but they are not going to vote against getting their candidate in the white house only because they don't like the other guy, sorry no I don't believe that but thats my opinion.

Thus to me the excitement creating record turnout in every state now is not just going to die. I think democrats as a WHOLE have shown that yes they do want BOTH these candidates in the white house.

yes, I believe the pledged delegate should be on the top of the ticket and yes I do interpret the math right now as showing that Obama will be the nominee, but you are free to disagree, don't flame me for my opinion.

but to me? the will of the people is a unity ticket.

I can't be the only one that wants a unity ticket?

There's more...

McCain, Military Oppose Expanding GI Bill

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id= 4652517&page=1

minee, seemed to give a thumbs down to bipartisan legislation that would greatly expand educational benefits for members of the military returning from Iraq and Afghanistan under the GI Bill.
Sen. McCain introduces his economic plan which includes an alternative tax code.

McCain indicated he would offer some sort of alternative to the legislation to address concerns that expanding the GI Bill could lead more members of the military to get out of the service.

I am trying my best to give him the benefit of a doubt here I really am. but 1) to be worried that expanding the aid we give to those who served the country would lead to more members getting out of the service? SO? didn't they do their part? now we are against helping them because we don't want them to leave?

I really want to give him the benefit of the doubt but his GOP colors are showing

"We are working on proposals of our own -- I'm a consistent supporter of educational benefits for the men and women of the military," McCain saidI want to make sure that we have incentives for people to remain in the military as well as for people to join the military. ... I've talked a lot about veterans' health care, so we'll continue to talk about those issues and how to care for vets. I know I can do that, having been one."

we can't sustain what we are doing and anything, that may lead to more people leaving the military is now bad.

1 of the best ways to get people to join the army was the GI bill, make no mistake its not about getting them to join, to me its about keeping them in.

I dunno,

But the bill, which would dramatically increase educational compensation for American troops, has run into some unexpected resistance, both at the Pentagon and now from McCain, who has remained silent on the issue, saying he had not studied the bill close enough.

to not support this bill and the only reason you give is that it may lead to to many people leaving the military?

They can sign up and die for the country but don't expect us to help them if they survive and come back, right John?

There's more...

How much are PA local news covering this "Bitter" stuff?

first I refuse to call it bittergate, the putting of gate at the end of everything has to stop, bosniagate, bittergate? are we kidding? NOT everything is a gate.

but those of you who actually LIVE in PA, how much are the local news and your local papers covering this?

I am really curious what this whole thing is like to those who DON'T watch cable news.

so PA residents step up! what was this weekend and today like?

also what are some of the Big PA papers so I can look em up on line and see what they are doing with this.

There's more...

Wow I am Tired of the Media!

I am tired of the media, well not the media I am tired of capitalism, that says the only news stories that matter are the ones that get people to watch the commercials so the networks can make money.

Obama starts giving a speech this morning saying lets tell the truth people. not ALL jobs are coming back, not ALL trade agreements are bad, we are in a global economy people, this whole trade deals are bad, just won't work there are good trade deals.

now I am getting excited we are going to have a deep talk about this and what does MSNBC do, they voice over! and then they went to commerical. WTF!!!

you want to know why people think Obama is an empty suit, because that what they want to think, luckily I just checked and CNN kept the speech going. now I need to find the transcript for what I missed all because apparently the damn COMMERCIALS were more important then what a potiential future president has to say about trade and China.

screw you GE!

There's more...

Late Night with Saturaday Night Live

Anyone watching the opening, lol making fun of the Petraeus hearings?

it had some good spots, I love Sen. Byrd, sooo

whats up with you other people?

(please if you wanna argue or tear down Obama or Clinton there are ENOUGH threads, is it ok if we have 1 civil thread?)

There's more...

If the Media is against Hillary, why is she better for the GE?

I just realized that no matter where I go, Hillary supporters always say that Obama has not won the primary, it was handed to him by the media. now I disagree but one question.

If the Media is so powerful that they were able to defeat Hillary in the Primaries because they liked Obama better, why am I suppose to believe that she will beat them in the GE?

I mean ok I get it rezko will be back, wright will be back, blah blah will be back, and its because of the Media that Obama will win, but then I gotta ask, if the Media has already said McCain will win, and Hillary was so ineffective to stop them from handing it to Obama in the primary. why am I suppose to believe she can stop them from handing it to McCain?

I mean the whole arguement is yes, Obama will win the nomination but the supes should go based on electability and over turn the people because Obama just can't win. but once again, what proof do you have that Hillary can do any better?

oh because she did it in the 90's? NO Bill Clinton did it in the 90's and as you guys love to point out when he screws up, She is running not him. if it were Bill running I would agree he could beat the media and win, but he is not running. you want me to look at her senate campaigns? are you kidding did anyone really consider those challenges?

THIS is BO and Hillarys first tough fight, and according to all of you, Hillary could not stop the vast left-wing media conspiracy.

so why can she do it in the fall?

we get it we really do, Obama has no chance he won't win, but according to you guys Democrats NEVER had a chance, the Media will choose the winner and if you are right then Hillary HASN'T shown me that she can stand up to it.

I am just confused. so Hillary who couldn't stop the media in the primary should be handed the nomination because only she can stop the media in the General election,(even though she couldn't do it in the primaries) and the reason I should believe she can do this, is because of who she is married to?

There's more...

Obama in trouble, for NOT buying votes?

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2 008/04/11/877410.aspx

"Flush with payments from well-funded campaigns, the ward leaders and Democratic Party bosses typically spread out the cash in the days before the election, handing $10, $20 and $50 bills to the foot soldiers and loyalists who make up the party's workforce. It is all legal -- but Obama's people are telling the local bosses he won't pay. That sets up a culture clash, pitting a candidate who promises to transform American politics against the realities of a local political system important to his presidential hopes."

"Obama's posture confounds neighborhood political leaders sympathetic to his cause. They caution that if the senator from Illinois withholds money that gubernatorial, mayoral and presidential candidates have willingly paid out for decades, there could be defections to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York. And the Clinton campaign, in contrast, will oblige in forking over the money, these ward leaders predict."

does this sound like buying votes to anyone else?

anyone in PA help me out here? I mean they are volunteering their time so its not like he is refusing to pay them. Isn't this basically give us money or you lose our votes?

I mean anyone else? thoughts?

I hope that Obama doesn't pay out I don't understand it and it seems like buying votes to me.

There's more...

Obama Is Actually Leading Hillary By 1-2 Million Votes

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shawn-chri stensen/dont-be-fooled-obama-is-a_b_9611 8.html

this was a very interesting article that I thought raised some good points about this whole popular vote issue.


Obama leads in the popular vote by anywhere between 2 million to 3 million voters. How is this possible? The reason lies in the ever elusive math of the Democratic caucus.

   When voters everywhere were watching the returns of, say, Kansas on Super Tuesday, most of them naturally assumed that Barack Obama won 27,172 votes to Hillary Clinton's 9,462. But those aren't voters they're counting, they're really just more delegates. County delegates. The county delegates represent an undefined amount of peoples' votes, depending on how many people arrive to the caucus and how many county delegates are assigned. This number could be anywhere from 5 to 100 people and beyond.

now this I agree with, too often were people quoting the delegates as the pop. vote saying that only 35,000 caucused in Kansas which is untrue, it meant there were 35,000 delegates elected.

and he did raise a great question HOW many people did each delegate represent?

    Since there is no exact number of how many votes are actually represented in a caucus, let's just round it out to 20 voters per delegate, out of morbid curiosity. That means each delegate, on average, represents about 20 people, and we will multiply the final tally by 20.

   Therefore, in Kansas, Barack Obama gained 543,440 votes to Hillary Clinton's 189,240 votes. This is a far wider margin of victory than Clinton supporters would like to admit, but decidedly more accurate.

what this would mean is, if there were 4 delegates awarded, then 80 people were there to caucus to elect those 4, that seems a bit high.

    But let's just say, for arguments sake, that we're overestimating how many people a county delegate represents. Let's call it 10 rather than 20. Then the tally becomes 271,720 votes for Obama, and 94,620 for Clinton. Still a substantial victory. And that is the absolute rock bottom lowest average estimate.

these means in a place where 4 delegates were elected, only 40 people showed up. now anyone here caucus this year? does only 40 people at your place of caucus seem a bit low? I know here in MN we had a couple hundred at mine.

    There have been 13 caucus states so far in the Primary and Clinton has only won one of them. Obama handily defeated her in Iowa, Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota, Colorado, North Dakota, Nebraska, Washington, Maine, Hawaii and Wyoming. Clinton won Nevada.

   The current tally of county delegates (that are available) for these states, has Obama at 366,764 and Clinton at 156,563. When we multiply these numbers by 10, it puts Obama at 3,667,640 and Clinton at 1,565,630, a margin of roughly 2 million votes.

ok ok but maybe each 1 presenting 10 people is still to high, lets drop it down to 5. if a place had 4 delegates to elect ONLY 20 people showed up to caucus, once again in a season of RECORD turn out does each delegate representing 5 people really make sense? but alas lets see

   366,764 * 5 = 1,833,820 people
    156,563 * 5 =   782,815 poeple
    Difference = 1,051,005

now even if we say each delegate represents ONLY 5 people, Obama still would have a 1 million vote lead JUST from the caucuses!

but what about MI and FL

I am just going to seat MI and FL as is because that is the easiest thing to do, also we know Obama has a lead when every other state is counted in so we will ignore those numbers and just work from this.

    Clinton MI vote = 328,309
    Clinton FL vote = 870,986 - 576,214(obama) = 294,772
    ---------------------------------------- -
    total = 623,081
    subtracted from 1,051,005
    Obama Pop. Vote lead = 427,924

thus when we actually try and figure out the actual votes from the caucuses and we seat MI and FL as his, Obama lead is still 427K more then Hillary (ignoring his lead gained form all other states)

but incase some how you still think that each county delegate repsenting 5 people is still to high because of states like Utah or something, lets drop it to 3

   366,764 * 3 = 1,100,292 voters
    156,563 * 3 =   469,689 voters
    Difference =    630,603 voters
    - the FL/MI     623,081 voters
    Obama lead =      7,522 voters*

   *Ignoring his lead from all states that are not a caucus or FL/MI

any lower then 3 and I think we are kidding myself, obviously this is all estimates, but we really need the caucus states to release their numbers because as we have seen here we may just not be getting the full picture.

and as someone who voted in a caucus state, I want to make sure my vote is represented in that Pop vote total, as much as anyone from MI or Florida want to be counted.

so discussion what do you think the number of voters is that the county delegates represented?

There's more...


Advertise Blogads