posted
Something about how it's petty for a Republican to be rooting for Hillary (presumably because she will be easier to defeat), and why would I want to force her on anyone...
I may have missed some subtleties here because I haven't been involved in the thread. But I root for Hillary because yes, I do believe she will be much easier for McCain to defeat in the general election, but also because I actually think she would be better at the job than Obama. I think he'll be a disaster, or at least more so than Clinton (also a disaster.)
Besides, I'm not happy about having McCain forced on me. But he's a sight better than anyone else still in the race from any party, so he gets my support.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I fail to see how engineering the Savings&Loans Collapse, the MillenniumBubble frauds, $4 gasoline, and the SubPrime Crisis makes McCain better than anyone.....other than Dubya, Chavez, Mugabe, and a handful of other ThirdWorld despots, I mean.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Usually I don't dignify these kinds of posts with a response, but:
quote: (3) she has continued her claim that she wins all the big states that Democrats have to win in November, while almost all of Obama' victories have come in smaller states that will likely go Republican in the general election.
You mean she wins all the big states the Democrats would have won anyway, plus a couple they have no prayer of winning, and she has offended a lot of small blue states that are still crucial in November.
Well, I guess I should be happy about what's about to happen. With Huckabee out of the race, some evangelicals will probably got to Clinton (she is a Baptist from the south after all, at least her husband was). And any republicans dastardly enough to play dirty (probably 1/3) can vote in open primaries with no inhibition. I think we've already seen that. Looking around, I wonder if that isn't how Kerry got nominated. Hell, it may be how McCain got nominated.
But I'm not happy because despite my political leanings, I believe the better person should prevail, and even though he would quite possibly beat McCain, I think Obama would be better for America than Clinton.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought Clinton was a Methodist from the Midwest?
Other than that, I agree with you 100% on your refutation. Winning the states that Dems will win anyway is useless, it's taking a victory lap. Winning the states that Democrats will have to fight for, that's where it really counts. Thanks to our old friend the electoral college, you can't win by campaigning in the bluest of the blue, you have to campaign in the purple and hope to steal a red state or two.
posted
I wasn't under any illusions that Obama was spotless, but I'm still a bit disappointed that the guy campaigning against the same old politics said one thing on the campaign trail and, secretly through intermediaries, said something else to Canadian officials.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
Eh. Reading the section in question, I don't think it's that big of a deal. He's said all along that he'd want to renegotiate NAFTA for labor and environmental standards (I think he's mostly talking about Mexico frankly)(or using NAFTA perhaps as some sort of catchall term for free trade in general, which seems a bit more careless), and that's exactly what those intermediaries are saying. The gist is the same, the rhetoric is just toned way up on the campaign trail and way down on the private meeting with Candian officials.
If anything you could spin it as good diplomatic fence mending.
Lisa -
Even if he didn't, what does it matter now? Is there any serious dispute about him hitting it at some point in the next couple months? Huckabee has dropped out. You think Paul will take up the banner and stymie him to the convention where he'll be elected from the floor? I give it one in a gajillion odds. Huckabee had a claim to the Conservative mantle, he picked it up and ran with it. Paul has a claim to the Republican/Democratic fringe voting/hippy college vote mantle, and it's been running without him having any control over it for quite some time now.
He'll get reelected to his seat in Congress I think, and that's it, but McCain has this thing locked up, realistically, if not in actual numbers.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Even if he didn't, what does it matter now? Is there any serious dispute about him hitting it at some point in the next couple months? Huckabee has dropped out. You think Paul will take up the banner and stymie him to the convention where he'll be elected from the floor? I give it one in a gajillion odds. Huckabee had a claim to the Conservative mantle, he picked it up and ran with it. Paul has a claim to the Republican/Democratic fringe voting/hippy college vote mantle, and it's been running without him having any control over it for quite some time now.
<shrug> Huckabee's been pulling a lot of votes by pretending to be for some of the things that Paul is for. Even if McCain wins the next primaries, watch and see how well Paul does with ex-Huckabee people.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: He'll get reelected to his seat in Congress I think, and that's it, but McCain has this thing locked up, realistically, if not in actual numbers.
He kept his seat without breaking a sweat. And like I said, it's over when it's over.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
He didn't break 5% in his home state. If the Democratic race was over I'd say you might have a chance from Democrats coming over in droves to vote for Paul in the open primaries, but there's little chance of that with the race undecided (well, at least officially undecided, I still think Obama has a big enough lead and kept the margins slim enough last night to win). Assuming your math is right, and I see nothing to dissaude me from believing CNN's numbers at the moment, to stop McCain from getting the pledged delegates he needs, Paul would have to win every WTA state, and would need something like 65-75% of the vote in the proportional states that remain to keep McCain out. Has Paul ever gotten more than 15% in a single state? Even Huckabee wasn't breaking 50% in the states that voted yesterday. Other than hope and faith, I don't see where your math could possibly lead you to believe that anyone has a shot, barring unforseen circumstances.
But I'll give you credit for that hope and faith. In the face of certain defeat, there's something to be said for it.
PS. He hasn't won his seat back yet. That happens in November. But he did secure a crucial win towards that eventually happening last night.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
What's with the delay on the Caucus results? Is it just waiting on all of us looking up their byzantine rules to make sure we all know how weird they are?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
After all the dust settles, how many net delegates will Clinton pick up? 7, give or take.
quote: Todd [Chuck Todd, MSNBC's political director] was just on and said, not surprisingly, that Rhode Island and Vermont (the battle of the New England micro-states) basically cancel each other out. What he seemed quite confident of is even with Clinton's currently very solid spread in Ohio, she nets only 7 delegates. He seemed pretty solid on that number.
Josh Marshall went on to say he sees a 4-9 net delegate pick-up.
But it did stop Clinton's free-fall. She earned the right to keep going. I just hope the race doesn't turn nastier now.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyrhawn, do you have any objection to my putting the readers guide in it's own thread? I'm back to page 25 now. I found what I was looking for on page 30, but much to my D'ohness, it was a wikipedia page. Why do I never think of that?
I think I will take a break from that and work on a spreadsheet about who wins in open v. closed primaries.
P.S. Clinton nets one or two delegates from Texas, as it currently stands (between the primary and the caucus).
posted
Texas really wasn't prepared on the caucuses. It was crazy madness. We were told that to plan on midnight if we wanted to be a delegate. Also, something I found interesting is that all the temporary precinct captains were Obama supporters. The only Hillary people there was the guy recording mistakes made in the process. Someone asked him what his job was and he said he was there to oversee the election. I said, so, your here to make sure our rights don't get violated. He said, no, I am just making sure everyone gets to vote. I am not quite sure what the difference in those two are.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I disagree. I think Texas could net Obama 1 or 2 (possibly a few more), including both the caucus and primary.
After my traumatic experience looking under the hood of the Washington GOP caucus rules and seeing nothing but squirming snakes, I'm skittish about even looking at the Texas Two-Step procedures.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Noemon, you know I adore you, but more than half your state sucks. Again.
Hey, it's not my state; I'm a Kansan. I just happen to be living in Ohio. But yeah, I know. If Obama hadn't won my county I'd be feeling horrible for not having done more to help his campaign.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dang it- Hillary won in my county. And by not even 500 votes. When I went to bed last night, Obama was winning my county. of course, my district in the one that voted for Tom Delay how many times?
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
The people of Ohio made it clear they think she should top the ticket -- another reminder that this is the United Stats of New Califlorihio.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: CNN doesn't get to decide the election any more than Diebold does.
So you are saying that CNN gets to decide the election? [/sarcasm]
I know Paul won't win. For a while I had real faith he could. I do think he has crystallized an influential movement in politics. I do not regret any of the money I donated to him. I will still donate more money.
Last time I donated it was to keep him in Congress, and it looks like he has enough to put up a fight. My next donation will be small, but it will be for his presidency.
I wonder how he would have done had Obama not been in the mix. Had Obama not been in NH, Paul would have garnered more support. Maybe not enough to get the masses behind him but enough to further his message.
I also think the damn truthers hurt Paul more then they helped. Being an ass on the campaign trail doesn't further any cause. Making it seem like Paul is a truther was just...counter-proudctive, wrong, a misrepresentation, an excuse to just further the group's own goals, and very irritating.
Paul himself believes in open government (Sunlight Policiles) as a cure for government ills. Ineptitude and poorly thought out policies does not make controlled demolitions.
I stopped brining people to my local meetup because their influence was a turn off to Paul's message. IMHO.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
lem, You may be the only Ron Paul supporter I encountered that didn't make me less likely to vote for him, and I'm actually a pretty big fan of shrinking the federal government and it's power.
But, even if you leave the detrimental effect of people like Lisa (and she's one of the less scary), Ron Paul never had a chance. Unless the make up of America changes drastically, the best he can hope for is to et his message more into the public consciousness, so that it affects the decisions that the mainstream makes. He and his supporters didn't position himself to do that, so ultimately, he had little effect on the overall landscape.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:No, actually, he didn't. He needs 1,917 delegates, and he has 922 actual pledged delegates. Ohio's delegates, for example, are unpledged.
According to the Post, McCain has 1,224 delegates, of whom 129 are unpledged, leaving him with 1,095 pledged delegates. He needs 1,191 to clinch the nomination. That means he only needs 96 additional pledged delegates to absolutely clinch it.
Even if all Huckabee's supporters moved to Paul, Paul would still not win in the remaining states.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The good thing about Obama's Teflon-coating finally being punctured and him finally being subjected to the same close, critical scrutiny as all the other candidates, is that it allows him to be properly vetted, something especially important in his case since he has not spent decades in the national public eye. I would be very unhappy to see someone elected president by the acclaim of star-struck fans, without being properly vetted.
Now everyone sees that Obama is just another politician, capable of saying one thing to one group, and something contradictory to another group--like when his chief economic advisor talked out of school to the Canadian consuler officer and told them not to take seriously the harsh language Obama would be using about NAFTA in Ohio. This alone probably hurt him greatly in Ohio, where NAFTA is a big issue.
It is also likely that Obama's name will come up in the trial on federal corruption charges of his supporter and long-time friend, Tony Rezko, over the course of the next eight months until the election. Obama admits he did have business dealings with Rezko. He has admitted vaguely to making some "bone-headed decisions" in that regard. We will undoubtedly see just how bone-headed they were as the trial proceeds.
Dragonee, in your count of delegates for McCain, don't forget the delegates won by Huckabee that he will ask to vote for McCain. People who would vote for Huckabee are not likely to vote for Ron Paul. And running virtually without opposition in the remaining ten Republican primaries, McCain will wind up with enough delegates to satisfy anyone.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The picture is still confusing in Texas with its ridiculous caucus on top of a primary, but it looks like Sen. Clinton will win the popular vote by three or four percentage points. I see the networks have finally called Texas for Clinton. Analysts on Fox are saying she will probably wind up gaining around 23 delegates over Sen. Obama, closing his lead in delegates by that amount. But in view of her smashing double-digit win in Ohio, and in Rhode Island, in addition to gaining a small victory in Texas, Clinton has accomplished her three main goals: (1) She has stopped Sen. Obama's momentum, (2) she has gained somewhat in the delegate count, and (3) she has continued her claim that she wins all the big states that Democrats have to win in November, while almost all of Obama' victories have come in smaller states that will likely go Republican in the general election.
Another accomplishment is that Obama's Teflon coating appears to have been pierced; he has lost his rock star status, and now the media and voters are finally begining to give him the same kind of critical examination that they have been giving to Clinton and Sen. McCain. Regardless of who wins, I am glad that now it is less likely anyone is going to be elected by the acclaim of star-struck fans, without proper vetting. Because Obama is so new, it was especially important that he be vetted, the way that McCain and Clinton have over their long careers in the national spotlight. His name still may come up in the federal corruption trial of Tony Vezko, in the eight months we have before the November election. Obama also should impress upon all his staff and advisors not to talk out of school to foreign government officials, the way his chief economic advisor did. Evidently, that did hurt him, in Ohio especially.
posted
First, I'm somewhat disturbed by the Bauer allegations of Obama-squad foul play in the TX caucuses. The two anecdotes of Hatrack Texans who caucused seem to indicate 1) the environment was sufficiently dis-organized for such shennanigans to occur and 2) that Obama supporters were over represented in their particular caucus site leadership. Anyway, the idea of Obama's team doing some real dirty politicking bothers me, a lot. That's probably why the Clinton people made the accusations, regardless of their truthfulness.
Second, here's a thought experiment. Let's say we get to the convention and it's brokered, and we go 10, 12, 14 ballots without a winner. Who's the dark horse? Edwards? Richardson? Biden? someone else entirely?
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Peter, Bob Bauer is Obama's top lawyer. About the Texas caucus, TPM said there were various allegations from both camps but it's still unclear what the really serious matters there are.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am appreciating the irony of the fact that, as things have played out, if Michigan and Florida had just stayed put their votes would have counted, people would have paid attention to them and their elections wouldn't have been bumble...screwups.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyrhawn, what you referred to as "the section in question" is not. You were evidently talking about section 7 of page two of the memo.
More suggestive of the real problem are these words, in the first paragraph of the introduction on page one:
"He was frank in saying that the primary campaign has been necessarily domestically focused, particularly in the Midwest, and that much of the rhetoric that may be perceived to be protectionist in more reflective of political maneuvering, than policy. On NAFTA Goolsbee suggested that Obama is less about fundamentally changing the agreement and more in favour of strengthening/clarifying language on labor mobility and environment and trying to establish these as core principles of the agreement."
I have highlighted in boldface the portion of particular concern.
Later on page one, in section 4 of the Report section:
"Noting anxiety among many US domestic audiences about the US economic outlook, Goolsbee candidly acknowledged the protectionist sentiment that has emerged, particularly in the Midwest, during the primary campaign. Consistent with CHCGO/WSHDC's analysis, he cautioned that this messaging should not be taken out of context and should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans."
Again, note especially the portion in the above that I have highlighted in boldface.
Also we find this in the second paragraph under the Comment section on page two:
"As Obama continues to court the economic populist vote, particularly in upcoming contests like Ohio, we are likely to see a continuation of some of the messaging that hasn't played in Canada's favor, but this should continue to be viewed in the context in which it is delivered."
Once again, note the portion I have highlighted in boldface.
Admittedly, some of this--especially in the comment section--is the conclusion of the writer. But much of it was his summation of what was said by Goolsbee to Georges Rioux, consul general for the Canadian government. The memo was written for Canadian Ambassador Michael Wilson.
So when the Canadian Ambassador said no one from the Obama campaign had talked to him about these matters including NAFTA, technically he was telling the truth. But he did receive this information in the form of this memo.
Also note this: On page one, section four, this appears: "(unintelligible)"
This leads me to conclude that DeMora wrote this memo from a recorded summation made by the consul general of Goolsbee's conversation with him. So the opinions expressed are not DeMora's (a mere consular staffer), they are those of Rioux, the consul general.
[ March 05, 2008, 12:45 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I am appreciating the irony of the fact that, as things have played out, if Michigan and Florida had just stayed put their votes would have counted, people would have paid attention to them and their elections wouldn't have been bumble...screwups.
Alternatively, if the parties hadn't tried to dictate electoral procedural to the states, this bumblescrewup wouldn't have happened.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Morbo: Peter, Bob Bauer is Obama's top lawyer. About the Texas caucus, TPM said there were various allegations from both camps but it's still unclear what the really serious matters there are.
Oops. Thanks, Morbo. Replace "Bauer" with "Wolfson" in my post. I read the transcript last night just before bed and got a little confused on the names.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Alternatively, if the parties hadn't tried to dictate electoral procedural to the states, this bumblescrewup wouldn't have happened.
Yes, and now it all comes down to Pennsylvania. Oh my!
edit: All across the state, registered Democrats are slowing coming to grips with the fact that their vote actually matters in the primaries this year. By a series of improbably twists, the democratic candidates actually to have listen to what PA wants. And by gosh, we'll use this for good. We'll make them promise to start an investigation of whether the Patriots spied on the Eagles before they beat them in the Super Bowl./edit
---
The democratic party hasn't really shot themselves in the foot yet and now they've got 2 whole months to really screw it up. I still have my money of the superdelegate shuffle, where the nomination is decided by the superdelegates supporting Hillary Clinton far out of proportion to the popular vote, but with the democrats, the only sure thing is that they are going to really look for a way to lose, not what form this is going to take.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The good thing about Obama's Teflon-coating finally being punctured and him finally being subjected to the same close, critical scrutiny as all the other candidates, is that it allows him to be properly vetted, something especially important in his case since he has not spent decades in the national public eye. I would be very unhappy to see someone elected president by the acclaim of star-struck fans, without being properly vetted.
Now everyone sees that Obama is just another politician, capable of saying one thing to one group, and something contradictory to another group--like when his chief economic advisor talked out of school to the Canadian consuler officer and told them not to take seriously the harsh language Obama would be using about NAFTA in Ohio. This alone probably hurt him greatly in Ohio, where NAFTA is a big issue.
It is also likely that Obama's name will come up in the trial on federal corruption charges of his supporter and long-time friend, Tony Rezko, over the course of the next eight months until the election. Obama admits he did have business dealings with Rezko. He has admitted vaguely to making some "bone-headed decisions" in that regard. We will undoubtedly see just how bone-headed they were as the trial proceeds.
Dragonee, in your count of delegates for McCain, don't forget the delegates won by Huckabee that he will ask to vote for McCain. People who would vote for Huckabee are not likely to vote for Ron Paul. And running virtually without opposition in the remaining ten Republican primaries, McCain will wind up with enough delegates to satisfy anyone.
Dude man, we were all hoping held win those primaries we didn't think he would we all KNEW though that he'ld gain a nearly 50-50 split of the delegates. And once more whole Canadian thing, bunk. Your like one of those moon landing conspiracists.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: First, I'm somewhat disturbed by the Bauer allegations of Obama-squad foul play in the TX caucuses. The two anecdotes of Hatrack Texans who caucused seem to indicate 1) the environment was sufficiently dis-organized for such shennanigans to occur and 2) that Obama supporters were over represented in their particular caucus site leadership. Anyway, the idea of Obama's team doing some real dirty politicking bothers me, a lot. That's probably why the Clinton people made the accusations, regardless of their truthfulness.
On another site, a former Hatracker mentioned how at his precinct the disorganized site leader was a Clinton supporter. Since we're throwing anecdotes out there.
posted
MrSquicky, you said: "The democratic party hasn't really shot themselves in the foot yet...." They emptied an Uzzi at their feet, and you say they missed?
Blayne, read the memo. Especially note the portions I highlighted in boldface. How do you honestly think these words played in Ohio? This memo is real. It came from the consul general of Canada. Nothing has been debunked; it has been proven. Unless you are living in De Nile. In which case you'd better watch out for the crocks.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: ... I give it one in a gajillion odds. Huckabee had a claim to the Conservative mantle, he picked it up and ran with it. ...
I think Lisa might still take that bet for $1 or so. Hell, I'd take the bet for a cent, a gajillion divided by 100 is still bigger than a billion right? Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:MrSquicky, you said: "The democratic party hasn't really shot themselves in the foot yet...." They emptied an Uzzi at their feet, and you say they missed?
Ron, my comment was directed at people who were primarily concerned with reality. As such, you should feel free to disregard it in favor of your normal partisan talking points.
---
edit: You know, honestly, I feel I was unfair there. While Ron often bases his views on a foundation of talking points, what he ultimately comes up with is often times a great deal more creative. At times, he has been almost Seussian in his partisan hackery.
As such, I really should have left it with my original thought, which was "Ron, my comment was directed at people who were primarily concerned with reality. As such, you should feel safe in disregarding it."
posted
MrSquicky, there are those who try to control reality with their vain pronouncements, and there are those who recognize it honestly for what it is. Those of you who think you can control reality with your pronouncements, are not primarily concerned with reality, you are primarily concerned with your own agenda.
Anyway, if you think that Democrats have not yet shot themselves in the feet, just stay tuned, and watch what happens now. Soon they'll be shuffling around on the stumps of their thighs.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The great thing about Ron is that even if Obama is elected President, he still doesn't have to admit it. And he can feel superior to anyone who does, because clearly only he knows the truth. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: First, I'm somewhat disturbed by the Bauer allegations of Obama-squad foul play in the TX caucuses. The two anecdotes of Hatrack Texans who caucused seem to indicate 1) the environment was sufficiently dis-organized for such shennanigans to occur and 2) that Obama supporters were over represented in their particular caucus site leadership. Anyway, the idea of Obama's team doing some real dirty politicking bothers me, a lot. That's probably why the Clinton people made the accusations, regardless of their truthfulness.
On another site, a former Hatracker mentioned how at his precinct the disorganized site leader was a Clinton supporter. Since we're throwing anecdotes out there.
-Bok
Fair enough.
After my last post I read a little more (courtesy of Morbo's link on the previous page). The site leadership issue being raised seems to be that in a few precincts Obama-supporters showed up early and grabbed hold of the "packet," (hehe) meaning they would be the (self-annointed) leader, rather than waiting until the beginning of the actual caucus. Most people have said that it wasn't a big deal, and that generally the leadership question (which is the only one being officially alleged by the Clinton people, from what I can tell) is simply political posturing. So I'm less concerned than I was. I should know better than to get caught up in the sturm and drang of primary night politics.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: MrSquicky, you said: "The democratic party hasn't really shot themselves in the foot yet...." They emptied an Uzzi at their feet, and you say they missed?
Blayne, read the memo. Especially note the portions I highlighted in boldface. How do you honestly think these words played in Ohio? This memo is real. It came from the consul general of Canada. Nothing has been debunked; it has been proven. Unless you are living in De Nile. In which case you'd better watch out for the crocks.
whats in bold clearly says other then you think it is.
IP: Logged |
posted
The democrats haven't shot themselves in the foot yet. It is more like they are standing there with a gun against the foot, finger on the trigger, saying "this is going to be awesome." But while they may have an itchy trigger finger, they haven't actually shot yet.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scholar, you're ignoring the blood and spent cartridges already on the floor, and the gunsmoke in the air. They already pulled the trigger. And held it until the clip was empty. Now they are reloading.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
But he did secure a crucial win towards that eventually happening last night.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
And by not even 500 votes. When I went to bed last night, Obama was winning my county. of course, my district in the one that voted for Tom Delay how many times?
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
[/sarcasm]![[Monkeys]](graemlins/monkeys.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
scholar
