COT DAYUM, OBAMA IS BEASTING!!!!! HAHA!!!

[devineone]

Michael Eric Dyson exploding dem Obama myths & representing the "next president of the United States"....


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/23353081#23353081

Thanks Legacy, this was awesome I watched Professor Dyson and I wish he were on the Today show so more people can hear him speak about Obama. 
One question, what does your topic post mean?  I don't understand it
Cot Dayum Obama is beasting? 

[Legacy]

Just means Obama was doing very well in the race for the democratic nomination.

[MzSheel]

One question, what does your topic post mean?  I don't understand it.  Cot Dayum Obama is beasting? 

Just means Obama was doing very well in the race for the democratic nomination.

ROFL!!!!!                  ROFL

[MzSheel]

Have you ever wondered how Hillary can claim near-presidential experience for her 8 years as first lady on matters that equips her better than anyone else to handle national security, international affairs and the like.  During her entire time, she did not have a national security clearance.  So, then, how could she have more experience and have been involved in any national security discussions? How can she claim her readiness any more than Obama on issues like that when she could not even have been in the same room when national security matters were discussed. If she was in the room, then Pres. Clinton and any others involved violated the terms of the clearance. So, do you think she can claim that time on anything other than her failed attempt at national health care?  If she does claim it and had been involved in discussions that exceeded her non-clearance status, then she broke the law.

...just wondering...

[devineone]

Have you ever wondered how Hillary can claim near-presidential experience for her 8 years as first lady on matters that equips her better than anyone else to handle national security, international affairs and the like.  During her entire time, she did not have a national security clearance.  So, then, how could she have more experience and have been involved in any national security discussions? How can she claim her readiness any more than Obama on issues like that when she could not even have been in the same room when national security matters were discussed. If she was in the room, then Pres. Clinton and any others involved violated the terms of the clearance. So, do you think she can claim that time on anything other than her failed attempt at national health care?  If she does claim it and had been involved in discussions that exceeded her non-clearance status, then she broke the law.

...just wondering...

Maybe her husband talked policy over with her so she got a second hand knowledge of it.  Sort of like my older sister went to school before I was old enough to go, but she liked to play teacher with me and would teach me how to write and my ABC's so by the time I started first grade I already knew a lot of that stuff.

I'm not supporting Clinton, just answering MzSheel's question.

[MzSheel]

Maybe her husband talked policy over with her so she got a second hand knowledge of it. 
I'm not supporting Clinton, just answering MzSheel's question.

LOL, DevineOne!  It's okay to support Clinton, McCain, Huckabee or what's his name  if you choose.  That's YOUR right!  As long as  you don't squander the right to vote and participate in the electoral process that your ancestors died and fought for - it's alright with me.

Now, IF he discussed specific national security issues with her, then that was a clear violation of our laws.  People are not even supposed to tell other people (that don't have the "need to know") that you HAVE a clearance either - and to discuss issues that are considered classified - even with spouses or best friends, is a compromise and specifically prohibited.

So, assuming he DID discuss these things with her, and therefore she can claim that time and knowledge - then they are law breakers... Federal law breakers!  Hmmmm

[DianaPrince]

Maybe her husband talked policy over with her so she got a second hand knowledge of it. 
I'm not supporting Clinton, just answering MzSheel's question.

LOL, DevineOne!  It's okay to support Clinton, McCain, Huckabee or what's his name  if you choose.  That's YOUR right!  As long as  you don't squander the right to vote and participate in the electoral process that your ancestors died and fought for - it's alright with me.

Now, IF he discussed specific national security issues with her, then that was a clear violation of our laws.  People are not even supposed to tell other people (that don't have the "need to know") that you HAVE a clearance either - and to discuss issues that are considered classified - even with spouses or best friends, is a compromise and specifically prohibited.

So, assuming he DID discuss these things with her, and therefore she can claim that time and knowledge - then they are law breakers... Federal law breakers!  Hmmmm

Interesting post, Sheel.  Hmmm...maybe that is one of the reason for all that stalling that the Clintons are doing about releasing the files that would show what Hilary may have played in various policy issues...aside from healthcare.  Not that she'd actually take responsibility for anything that didn't turn out positively...ex. NAFTA.

[DianaPrince]

And if the media is SUPPOSEDLY so biased against her, how come I haven't ever heard any of the major networks addressed that point?

[devineone]

Maybe her husband talked policy over with her so she got a second hand knowledge of it. 
I'm not supporting Clinton, just answering MzSheel's question.

LOL, DevineOne!  It's okay to support Clinton, McCain, Huckabee or what's his name  if you choose.  That's YOUR right!  As long as  you don't squander the right to vote and participate in the electoral process that your ancestors died and fought for - it's alright with me.

When I turned 18 my grandfather took me to the courthouse down south to help me get my voter registration card.  Along the way he told me stories of how he couldn't vote when he was my age.  He marched most of his grandchildren to the courthouse to do this.  This maybe why Obama carried southern states so heavily.  I believe something like 80 to 90 percent of blacks voted for him in Ga, Al TN SC, LA.  However blacks in the Northeast didn't vote for him as heavily.
I think blacks in the south (which is where I'm from) have that history because their grandparents told them stories so it resonated with them.  Man if my 93 year old grandmother lives to see a black president that will be something else.  If Obama wins, I'm going to the inauguration in January.  As Legacy says Cot Dayum!! 

[devineone]

You're right Mzsheel,
I remember all of that uproar over the outing of that CIA covert lady and the Vice presiden'ts scooter libby taking the fall.  So they do take that stuff seriously at least they look like they do.  But really, how can they police what a husband tells his wife.  And can they hold it against them?  Isn't it priviledged when a husband talks to his wife?  It's pretty shady.

[Legacy]

Obama got Vermont...

Hillary's Math Problem
By Jonathan Alter
Newsweek

Tuesday 04 March 2008

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/030408R.shtml

Forget tonight. She could win 16 straight and still lose.

Hillary Clinton may be poised for a big night tonight, with wins in Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island. Clinton aides say this will be the beginning of her comeback against Barack Obama. There's only one problem with this analysis: they can't count.

I'm no good at math either, but with the help of Slate's Delegate Calculator I've scoped out the rest of the primaries, and even if you assume huge Hillary wins from here on out, the numbers don't look good for Clinton. In order to show how deep a hole she's in, I've given her the benefit of the doubt every week for the rest of the primaries.

So here we go: Let's assume Hillary beats expectations and wins Ohio tonight 55-45, Rhode Island 55-45, Texas, 53-47 and (this is highly improbable), ties in Vermont, 50-50.

Then it's on to Wyoming on Saturday, where, let's say, the momentum of today helps her win 53-47. Next Tuesday in Mississippi - where African-Americans play a big role in the Democratic primary - she shocks the political world by winning 52-48.

Then on April 22, the big one, Pennsylvania - and it's a Hillary blowout, 60-40, with Clinton picking up a whopping 32 delegates. She wins both of Guam's two delegates on May 30, and Indiana's proximity to Illinois does Obama no good on May 6, with the Hoosiers going for Hillary 55-45. The same day brings another huge upset in a heavily African-American state: enough North Carolina blacks desert Obama to give the state to Hillary 52-48, netting her five more delegates.

Suppose May 13 in West Virginia is no kinder to Obama, and he loses by double digits, netting Clinton two delegates. The identical 55-45 result on May 20 in Kentucky nets her five more. The same day brings Oregon, a classic Obama state. Oops! He loses there 52-48. Hillary wins by 10 in Montana and South Dakota on June 3, and primary season ends on June 7 in Puerto Rico with another big Viva Clinton! Hillary pulls off a 60-40 landslide, giving her another 11 delegates. She has enjoyed a string of 16 victories in a row over three months.

So at the end of regulation, Hillary's the nominee, right? Actually, this much-too-generous scenario (which doesn't even account for Texas's weird "pri-caucus" system, which favors Obama in delegate selection) still leaves the pledged-delegate score at 1,634 for Obama to 1,576 for Clinton. That's a 56-delegate lead.

Let's say the Democratic National Committee schedules do-overs in Florida and (heavily African-American) Michigan. Hillary wins big yet again. But the chances of her netting 56 delegates out of those two states would require two more huge margins. (Unfortunately the Slate calculator isn't helping me here.)

So no matter how you cut it, Obama will almost certainly end the primaries with a pledged-delegate lead, courtesy of all those landslides in February. Hillary would then have to convince the uncommitted superdelegates to reverse the will of the people. Even coming off a big Hillary winning streak, few if any superdelegates will be inclined to do so. For politicians to upend what the voters have decided might be a tad, well, suicidal.

For all of those who have been trashing me for saying this thing is over, please feel free to do your own math. Give Hillary 75 percent in Kentucky and Indiana. Give her a blowout in Oregon. You will still have a hard time getting her through the process with a pledged-delegate lead.

The Clintonites can spin to their heart's content about how Obama can't carry any large states besides Illinois. How he can't close the deal. How they've got the Big Mo now.

Tell it to Slate's Delegate Calculator.

[devineone]

Thanks for the wrap up Legacy and for doing the math.  I was a bit down after hearing that Hillary took Ohio, but now I feel much better after reading your post.

[Legacy]

Thanks for the wrap up Legacy and for doing the math.  I was a bit down after hearing that Hillary took Ohio, but now I feel much better after reading your post.

Hillary might come out with a +10 delegate gain when it's all said & done tonight. And, if the TX Caucus goes as expected, she won't even have that.

Obama predicted losses in OH, TX & even PA. The thing is Clinton had a double digits lead in TX just over 2 weeks ago & that was her last chance to make a big splash ( +200 delegates in TX).

Aside from a MAJOR, & I MEAN MAJOR Clinton win in PA & NC, she's all but toast.

Don't let the smooth taste fool you. She's prolonging the inevitable.

[oceanus1]

It's not like Hillary had a landslide victory in Ohio, he was nipping at her heels.  And as of right now Texas is very close  Legacy I hope you're right.  I stayed up to watch coverage. George Stephanopolous (sp) on ABC agrees with you, altho he said in different words.

[MzSheel]

Aside from a MAJOR, & I MEAN MAJOR Clinton win in PA & NC, she's all but toast.

Don't let the smooth taste fool you. She's prolonging the inevitable.

I agree with your premise, but I don't think she's done yet.  Just as her campaign tactics are scortched earth (would rather damage the party than accept loss), I think she is gearing up to take this battle up until the bitter end, hoping that the increased pressure, burgeoning rumors and negative spotlight on Obama will significantly weaken him.  She's shooting for the last one standing.