« Clinton Camp: Obama Shouldn't Get Away With Writing Off West Virginia Loss | Home | GOP House Candidate: "Sometimes A Leader Has To Step Forward" To Spread Abortion Story About Opponent »
Clinton Camp: Obama Shouldn't Get Away With Writing Off West Virginia Loss
With Hillary Clinton simultaneously expected to win big today in West Virginia but lose overall for the nomination, the campaign has sent out a memo insisting that Barack Obama shouldn't be allowed to set low expectations here.
"Given the attempts by our opponent and some in the media to declare this race over, any significant increase in voter turnout, coupled with a decisive Clinton victory, would send a strong message that Democrats remain excited and energized by Hillary's candidacy."
Full memo after the jump.
To: Interested Parties
From: Clinton Campaign
Date: Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Re: Why West Virginia Matters
With a record turnout expected in today's primary, West Virginia Democrats will make clear who they believe is the strongest candidate to take on Sen. McCain in the Fall.
The Mountain State is used to picking winners. Every nominee has carried the state's primary since 1976, and no Democrat has won the White House without winning West Virginia since 1916.
Democrats carried West Virginia in 1992 and 1996, but lost the state--and the White House--in 2000 and 2004. Hillary has predicted victory against Sen. McCain in West Virginia based on the strength of her economic message.
Given the attempts by our opponent and some in the media to declare this race over, any significant increase in voter turnout, coupled with a decisive Clinton victory, would send a strong message that Democrats remain excited and energized by Hillary's candidacy.
In the face of grim poll numbers, the Obama campaign has attempted to dismiss today's outcome despite the fact that Sen. Obama has outspent us on advertising, has more staff in the state, and more than double the number of offices.
He has also benefited from the support of the most high-profile endorsers in West Virginia--Sen. Jay Rockefeller and Congressman Nick Rahall. By every measure, the Obama campaign has waged an aggressive campaign in the Mountain State.
Despite being the so-called "presumptive nominee" and benefiting from these advantages, Sen. Obama has been unable to close a significant gap in the polls.
Sen. Clinton has already won Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida and Michigan. With a win in West Virginia, Sen. Clinton will have once again proven her greater ability to win in the key swing states.
Advertisement
Comments (464)
Yawn....
May 13, 2008 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does she mean "he shouldn't be allowed to write off WV" the same way SHE has written off the 30+ states she has lost?
May 13, 2008 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's see, FL, MI, WV, KY, all written off.
PA and OH, ignored.
NY and CA being worked on
by the media (ranting hate rhetoric on AA radios
here in NYC, plus NYT vacuous propagandizing).
Like forcing a running star to carry a 200
pound weight, because to be as good as she is
just plain hurt's a guy's ego.
And yet, he still can't beat her.
May 13, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
You seem to have missed the point: He CAN'T beat her OR McCain in the states that really matter. He can ONLY beat her in states that he can't and won't carry this fall. His entire candidacy is a fraud and a house of cards waiting to crash to the ground.
May 13, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is that your head?
May 13, 2008 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Poblano's analysis seems to indicate otherwise. What analysis are you relying on to make that sweeping statement?
May 13, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Um, actually, there are numerous pollsters saying that he does better overall in a state-by-state basis nationwide against McCain than Clinton does, as they each have their strengths and weaknesses. Obama will expand democratic victories into new territory this year, which is something that Clinton cannot do.
May 13, 2008 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yea right. The real miracle is how people like you have gotten away with spouting this sort ludicrous nonsense.
"Don't look behind the curtain folks, at what a lousy candidate Obama really is in the states that really matter. Just keep listening to what a remarkably transformative candidate he really is, and believe in all the remarkable things he's going to do for our country."
Translation: Just drink the Kool Aid and shut up.
May 13, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Again I ask, what polling do you have to put up against the polling on Poblano's site? Where are your numbers coming from?
May 13, 2008 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dueling monkeys- kinda a metaphore for the current state of the race :-)
May 13, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
All the polls show Obama doing much worse than Clinton in critical states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, and West Virginia. And that's just the people who will admit to voting along racial lines. It will be much worse once McCain/Rove get through with him.
May 13, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
If this was an election for President of the United states of Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida and West Virginia, you might have a point. As usual, though, the only states that count are the ones Clinton wins. Pay no attention to those other 46 states.
May 13, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
You sound as gooffy as your picture. The simple fact is that the ability to win states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida and West Virginia IS more important for a Democratic candidate than winning states like South Carolina and Montana because of the electoral college and the relative Democratic strength in those states. Though it is very clear to me that you won't understand that until the fall election proves it to you.
May 13, 2008 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
One problem with you're scenario. Hillary Clinton CAN'T win Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida and West Virginia. Know why?
SHE WON'T BE ON THE BALLOT.
Get over it.
May 13, 2008 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
The fact that you're so determined to lost the upcoming general election is not necessarily an argument in your favor.
May 13, 2008 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Which polls? Poblano, at www.fivethirtyeight.com has done an analysis of HRC vs McCain and Obama vs McCain. Where are your numbers?
May 13, 2008 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like all good monkeys, he's simply tossing scat loaded with Innuendo and Smoke to see what sticks. He has no numbers.
Let me revise that. He has no numbers that don't show his party soaking in a warm bloodbath in November unless they can manage to somehow sow enough discord amongst Dem ranks heading into November to scuttle turnout, given they're well aware at this stage of the game they won't be running against Senator Clinton.
May 13, 2008 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
And we've heard time and time again from Clinton supporters like you how things are going to turn out. How Obama was going to get his ass kicked.
Hasn't happened. What makes you think your crystal ball is good on this one? Particularly when the people who have done deep analysis don't agree with you.
Screaming about it without any facts to back it up, isn't going to convince Obama supporters and isn't going to convince super delegates. So, frankly it doesn't matter what you think.
May 13, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
That Obama is going to lose West Virginia and Kentucky in a blowout is a fact.
That he lost Pennsylvania is a fact.
That he lost Ohio is a fact.
That he lost Florida is a fact.
That he lost Michigan is a fact.
That he Lost California is a fact.
That he lost New Jersey is a fact.
That he lost Massachusetts is a fact.
That he lost Indiana is a fact.
That he has lost every big and important swing state that a Democrat must carry in the fall is a fact.
That all these facts don't matter to you in the least is a fact.
That you are delusional in that you completely discount the most important facts about this primary is also a fact.
May 13, 2008 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
That Clinton is losing the nomination is a fact.
May 13, 2008 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately for you, the subject under discussion is electability.
May 13, 2008 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, electability!
The same argument that led to Kerry being the nominee!
May 13, 2008 7:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're on the verge of hysteria, little monkey.
There's no one to convince here, so settle down. You've got just a few weeks left of watching your candidate's campaign slowly ebb away. Enjoy it while it lasts.
May 13, 2008 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not worrying about my candidate as much as I'm worrying about my country. Hillary will survive for another four years. The country may not.
May 13, 2008 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Hillary will survive for another four years. The country may not."
Wow. Strong words.
Sounds like you should logically become a strong, motivated Obama supporter ASAP then, doesn't it?
...or do you want McCain to bring us eight more years of McBush?!
May 13, 2008 10:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not logical to jump off a cliff just because all the lemmings around you are jumping off a cliff.
May 13, 2008 11:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like Missouri? Oh, right - if it's not a "swing state" by your definition, then it doesn't count.
That she lost over 30 states is more of a indicator of where this race stands. You don't like Obama - we get it. But he's going to be the nominee, unless Clinton wants to alienate a huge portion of Democratic voters, specifically African-Americans and young voters. If you think those people are just automatically going to vote for Clinton were she to wrest this nomination away in some feat of magic, you need your tiny little head examined. (Hey, I'm just going by the photo.)
May 13, 2008 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great point! Have you taken a look at the polls from Missouri recently? After Revernd wright occured he tanked big time and is recovering slightly but still losing to McCain 47-41. Hillary is doing better 53-43.
http://www.pollster.com/08-MO-Pres-GE-MvO.php
May 13, 2008 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
For pity's sake, that is just not true. Look at those trendlines. His decline in MO started well before the Wright story broke. If anything, the emergence of the Wright story corresponds with the point at which his support began to recover. There is no doubt but that Clinton does better than Obama in head-to-head polls in Missouri, so that point is quite sound. I do not understand, however, why you will insist on trying to make this into a story about Wright when plainly the data are not compatible with the interpretation you are offering.
May 13, 2008 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sure Oregon doesn't count but the polls say he ahead there by 15 to 20%. Hillary has had just one blowout and that was Arkansas. Obama has blown out Hillary by 25 to 50 pts about 10 times (SC, GA, MS, CO, WY, HA, ID, UT, LA, MD, VA, DC, Il,NB, MN). I know, they don't count because Hillary said they don't.
May 13, 2008 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Given that Barack Obama is your party's presumptive nominee, why do you feel compelled to say he hasn't got a chance?
I mean, the American people decided that they didn't want the alternative, so why are you doing the Republican's job nowadays?
May 13, 2008 10:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's such a lousy candidate that he's ahead of Clinton and on the verge of sealing the deal. What an amateur!
May 13, 2008 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I never said that Obama stole the election. I've always said that he bought it.
May 13, 2008 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
BOUGHT it? Wow. A Clinton supporter wants to talk about another candidate buying an election? She had a $10M advantage at the start of the campaign! It's not Obama's fault her campaign was run horribly.
May 13, 2008 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bought it? Um... hello?! Clinton had a *HUGE* headstart in fundraising from wealthy donors.
He won because *WE* fought and personally invested ourselves in his campaign, and because the American people believed he was the best candidate to change the failing dynamics of American politics, towards integrity and actually getting things done for a change.
May 13, 2008 10:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're spewing the same conjecture that you're accusing Obama supporters of.
I envy the life you lead, to be as naive as the early morning dew is fresh and so blissfully unaware of your own hypocrisy and foolishness.
I will give you credit for balls, however. It takes a serious amount of nerve to expose yourself as rube the the public, day after day after day.
May 13, 2008 8:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
rstephen:
Being a poor loser, because he wants Republicans to win in '08!
May 13, 2008 10:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you see some crazy fool walking off the edge of a cliff because they think they can fly, what do you do? Do you keep screaming at them to stop before it's too late, even though they seem determined to do it? Or do you just sit back and enjoy the show?
People like you seem to expect me to jump off the cliff with you. But suicide is against my religion.
May 13, 2008 11:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Only Clinton wins the states that count."
"Clinton only counts the states she wins."
You decide.
May 13, 2008 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're one smart monkey...
and you're EXACTLY right!!!
May 13, 2008 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Black sheep and monkeys for Hillary... that's gotta be excellent news!
May 13, 2008 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
What she's trying to say is that only large states count unless they're named Illinois, Missouri and North Carolina.
And small states don't count unless they're named West Virginia and Kentucky.
And voters don't matter unless they're white.
And caucuses shouldn't count, but primaries where the candidates agreed in advance not to campaign and to take their names off the ballot should count.
And the sun rises in the west and sets in the east.
And if you repeat a lie often enough, everyone will accept is as the truth.
May 13, 2008 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can Obama's campaign and supporters, now that he in on course for winning the party's nomination, write off West Virginia as a bit too rural, too rustbelt, too uneducated, and too racially and politically slanted for it to justify going all out there? Can we concentrate on the general election instead of worrying about what Hillary does?
Yes we can.
May 13, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whatever. Hillary wrote off South Carolina and Louisiana as too Black. So save it.
May 13, 2008 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're right. Obama has a better chance of carrying South Carolina and Louisiana this fall than he does carrying Pennsylvania or Ohio.
May 13, 2008 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Certainly West Virginia. What is your point, other than to be a pain in the ass?
May 13, 2008 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
That IS my point.
May 13, 2008 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can Obama lose every state that really matters and give McCain the biggest upset victory since Truman beat Dewey?
Yes we can.
May 13, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did the general election happen already? Was there some new information that actually correlates primary victories with general election state wins?
Talk about being beholden to the "talking points memo"...sheesh.
May 13, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
There certainly is a correlation between primary votes and votes in the general election. You can take all the polls you want and twist them any way that you like. It doesn't mean anything. All that matter is what individual voter actually DO when they come out and vote on election day. And the best indication of what voters are going to DO this November is what the voters in those states have already DONE in the primary. And if you don't understand that, you don't understand anything.
May 13, 2008 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Typical Clintonspeak. No polls, results or knowledge means anything unless it bears out the thesis you present. I can't wait until this madness is over with.
Well, shit. Then I guess I'm just an idiot. Seeing as you presented so many facts to back up your argument. Sheesh.
May 13, 2008 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Last I checked, those votes in the primary were for the Democratic nomination, which mean most of those voters will vote for the party. Except for the ones that can't let go of the dream.
May 13, 2008 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Last I checked, those votes in the primary were for the Democratic nomination, which mean most of those voters will vote for the party. Except for the ones that can't let go of the dream.
May 13, 2008 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
The fact that a majority of Democrats in those states still want another candidate, in spite of the fact that Team Obama has been claiming for months now that they already have the nomination sewed up, should tell you something about the relative strength of his candidacy not only among Democrats, but among Independents who will be much harder to win over.
May 13, 2008 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm an Independent. He had me at "Not Clinton."
May 13, 2008 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL!
May 13, 2008 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am a Republican. He had me at "not Clinton" as well.
May 13, 2008 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
And the fact that a majority of democrats in MN, MO, CT, WI, WA, CO and IL wanted another candidate despite months of Clinton claiming that she had it sewed up should tell us something about her candidacy. There is no denying that each candidate draws heated opposition from certain segments of the party, but I am not clear why the opposition to Obama (who is, after all, winning the popular vote) should count for more than the opposition to Clinton. Both have strengths and both have liabilities, but evidently Obama's strenghts trump Clintons, because Obama has beaten her.
May 13, 2008 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
It isn't Obama's strengths that have beaten her, it's his race, his money, and the fact that he seems new and different. And though those things may seem like strengths in the primary, they will either not matter (money) or become a liability (race & inexperience) in the general election.
May 13, 2008 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ahhhh...Bad Monkey.
You pulled the race card. You just undermined what little credibility you might have been floating here.
Despite your considerable verbiage, what you're arguing here is that Obama is kicking Hillary's ass, because he's Black. You just went from being an empassioned, but slightly misguided Hillary supporter to a grasping, deliberately misleading troll.
Bad Monkey.
May 13, 2008 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anytime you mention that Obama is receiving the votes of 94% of blacks and 100% of guilty white liberals, primarily because he is black, the alarm sounds and Team Obama pulls the race card out of their sleeve by pointing out that these are facts that can never be pointed out without making you a racist.
Voting for a candidate because he is black = a good thing
Pointing out that there are many more white people who are going to vote for McCain only because he is white = a naughty and racist thing
May 13, 2008 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
But that is the point. Obama can indeed win those states, but more importantly can win states Clinton can't which make OH, PA, FL not the make or break wins. It makes the GOP play defense in states they normally can ignore to try and win OH, PA, FL.
The electoral map changes with Obama where we have a cushion nad make it so that OH, FL and PA are NOT make or break states.
May 13, 2008 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you believe that Obama can carry South Carolina and Montana, you can convince yourself of anything. There is no reasoning with people so caught up in their own crazy hubris.
May 13, 2008 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Says the person caught up in their own crazy hubris.
May 13, 2008 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Says the person without a comeback of his own.
May 13, 2008 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
But you want a McCain Presidency, don't you? I mean, there's really no meaningful difference between McCain and Clinton. Both are committed to unending war in Iraq; both will devote their Presidencies to maintaining our system of terror, exploitation and global dominance (what is generally called 'Democracy' in the MSM). Where is there a difference.
See, you make it sound as though something will be at stake if Clinton is the nominee. Isn't the goal of proto-fascists such as yourself to have two fundamentally interchangeable candidates, thus insuring stability for all (for all who count, anyway)?
May 13, 2008 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
HELL NO I DON'T WANT MCCAIN. Which is why I'm hoping my party comes to its senses before noninating a kamikaze candidate. Your lies about Hillary's positions is an insult to her and her supporters who I am assuming Oama will want in the fall. We are not warmongering Republicans. We are democrats who care about universal healthcare and the problems of the middle class and foreclosures, etc etc. All thing I believe Hillary speaks to much more strongly than Obama. Not republican ideals at all.
May 13, 2008 9:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
HELL NO I DON'T WANT MCCAIN. Which is why I'm hoping my party comes to its senses before noninating a kamikaze candidate. Your lies about Hillary's positions is an insult to her and her supporters who I am assuming Oama will want in the fall. We are not warmongering Republicans. We are democrats who care about universal healthcare and the problems of the middle class and foreclosures, etc etc. All thing I believe Hillary speaks to much more strongly than Obama. Not republican ideals at all.
May 13, 2008 9:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely we can.
The situation today is the equivalent of a basketball game where one team is ahead of the other by 25 points with two minutes to play. The team that's losing can run off 10 straight points to close out the game and lose by 15. Maybe that makes them feel good about themselves. But it doesn't change the fact that they lost. It doesn't change the fact that most of the fans left the building to beat the traffic. And they would never have the gumption to claim that they actually won the game.
But that's what Hillary's trying to do -- claim victory when all she's doing is scoring points in garbage time after the outcome is already known to the world.
May 13, 2008 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
All that Hillary is trying to do is save you from yourselves. But you're too wrapped up in delusions and misogyny to see it.
May 13, 2008 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
And there's the other sign of the weakling's ploy. He's playing the sexist card.
I expected more of you, little monkey.
Tsk, tsk.
May 13, 2008 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're killing me...thanks for the laughs!
May 13, 2008 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
The trolls are keeping this place hopping today, aren't they?:)
May 13, 2008 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
What misogyny? Her gender has nothing to do with it. In my opinion, Hillary will be the worst president America has ever had, and ever will.
Thank God neither will be the case.
May 13, 2008 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pot calling the kettle black
Name me one thing I've written anywhere that's misogynistic. Every criticism I have made of her has nothing to do with her gender and everything to do with the content of her character.
May 13, 2008 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Hillary is owned by the Kazakhs"
May 13, 2008 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
????
May 14, 2008 9:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
She needs to give it to freak up; I am starting to dislike the witch more and more, and the STUPID people who are buying her BULL SH*T. IF it were up to that witch, LA, MD, VA, DC, ME, MS et al. would have been long forgotten since super Tuesday, Feb 05. She can only fool the idiots of America with that. Unfortunately for us, it appears a vast majority of Americans are idiots. Who would have thunk?
May 13, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
"freak" "witch" "STUPID" "BULL SH*T" "idiots" = misogyny
May 13, 2008 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, don't forget me! Don't forget me! I'm still here, people! Hillary is still here! Don't ignore me!!!!! STOP IGNORNING ME!!!!
Hillary once again trying to make people remember she still exists - declaring West Virginia the most important state - just like she said Ohio was...PA was...NH was...TX was...this is really getting old!
May 13, 2008 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh dear, she's getting that hysterical tone:
"I will NOT be ignored!"
May 13, 2008 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
MMMMM smells like boiled rabbit.
May 13, 2008 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Getting a little nervous?
Relax. He already won!
May 13, 2008 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
"You Will Respect My Authoritah!"
Let's hope she doesn't go cooking Barack any Chilli.
May 13, 2008 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess Missouri and Wisconsin have always been in the bag then?
May 13, 2008 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
FL & MI? They're delusional.
May 13, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does this mean Hillary doesn't care for the rights of Obama voters in Michigan?
I think that is pretty small of her campaign managers, TO SIMPLY DISREGARD, WITH SUCH A CASUALLY INCOMPLETE REFERENCE, the 700,000 to 1 million Michigan voters who did not get to cast their ballots for Obama?
Pretty selective democracy going on here.
Really, what bout the Michigan Obama voters? Why does Hillary's campaign refuse to acknowledge that little anomoly in their "truncated democracy" strategy.
I bet she wishes she could ignore Iowa and Carolina, and all the other states' Obama voters. She sure seems willing to disrespect their votes in Michigan.
"Democracy, MY way!" with a photo of Hillary pointing her finger at some sucker in the crowd, now there's her new logo and bumpersticker!
They may as well say "pull my finger!"
That's obviously Hillary's new strategy, "the good ole' girl," which apparently works well in some inherently prejudiced states like West Virginia.
May 13, 2008 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
She really, really, needs to stop including MI and FL. According to what I read by Simon Rosenberg, who probably knows better than most of us, the super delegates, especially the DNC types, are extremely unhappy with the idea that they will likely have to count them in any form or fashion. She's just rubbing salt in the wound.
May 13, 2008 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Relax. He already won!"
We've known that for a while now.
May 13, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pish! Posh!
May 13, 2008 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
MEMO TO THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN:
no one cares what you "think" anymore.
May 13, 2008 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Memo to Eric
We don't care what Clinton camp thinks anymore.
May 13, 2008 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Memo to team Obama: If you really cared about winning in November you would care about what other Democrats think. But since you are on a self-righteous ego trip, you don't.
May 13, 2008 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
That really takes the cake. With all the condescending invective you're crapping all over this site, you're accusing others of being self-righteous?
Look, either get back on your meds, or don't. But find another hobby that puts you in fresh air away from the computer for a while. It might do you some good.
May 13, 2008 8:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't have to conform to your latte-drinking airs of delusional snobbery. If you can't handle the truth, take another Xanax and go bop the downstairs maid.
May 14, 2008 12:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
And if you really cared about what other Democrats think, you wouldn't back a lying, race-baiting shill who most Democrats feel cannot be trusted, and who is hated so much by Republicans that she motivates their base of supporters to come to the polls.
May 14, 2008 3:57 AM | Reply | Permalink