Again,
"NBC News, which is projecting delegates based on the Democratic Party’s complex formula, figures Obama will wind up with 840 to 849 delegates, versus 829 to 838 for Clinton."
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8358.html
You can't post numbers that have 120 Delegates unaccounted for, and declare those the end result. NBC NEWS AGREES WITH THE OBAMA NUMBERS. Ghostmonkey, your politico.com article is now 30 hours old. The numbers on MSNBC's website remain consistent. We can quibble back and forth over the +/- 10 delegates, but it is still basically a numerical tie.
BTW, you may want to work on reading and comprehension. I did not call my total "the end result". In fact, read my post .... I say that is what we have thus far. You're relying on 1 article with a projection. Projections change. Clearly MSNBC hasn't managed to finalize things yet and the 120 delegates in question are still "in question".
One comment by a random poster on a random blog? That's your evidence? I thought you said that Senior members of her campaign were doing this? Why you backed off of that one quick. BTW, did you notice the attacks on Hillary by other random posters?
Nope, that isn't what I said but way to spin. The garnishing wages idea was introduced by John Edwards. This led reporters to ask Mrs Clinton whether she would be in favor of garnishing wages. She said she wouldn't take anything off the table. You, and other Obamites, have spun this to claiming that her position is garnishing wages. A total misrepresentation.
It is a shame your tactic isn't to present a plan of your own and talk about its virtues. It is much easier to just attack someone else's plan that to present one of your own.
To a high degree, NO. Which is one of the reasons that Senator's have not traditionally done well when facing former Governors. [/quote]
That and Senators have a voting record they have to defend and frequently issues in Congress are not as black and white as the pundits make them out to be.
I'd be happy to have Bill back in the White House. I think it is funny that you think you know more about the goings on of said administration than the man who ran it.
The biggest point is that it doesn't use Mandates. [/quote]
Actually it seems that the point is that you don't know much about it ... just that it "doesn't use mandates". You know what else doesn't use mandates? Doing nothing. The problem is that doing nothing rarely solves problems.
I love how you continue to avoid the question about why Obama voted against the Kerry Bill to end the war.
Are you being anti-semitic now? I sure hope not. Sarcasm or not, that's not a very nice statement to make. Please retract it.[/quote]
Yes, I'm clearly an anti-semite for pointing out how ridiculous your question about my gender was with a sarcastic retort. Well, let's be fair, I'm only hateful towards red-headed, blue-eyed Orthodox Jews who smoke.
You're not very good at remembering topics, are you?
The Supreme Court Justice issue debate went like this .... you said you would never vote for Hillary if she wins the nom. I said that this election is too big to be selfish and that returning the GOP to the White House would mean 1-2 more conservative Justices. You pulled the "you must be a woman" thing out of your pocket and accused me of only caring about abortion. I pointed to many issues a Conservative Supreme Court would hurt America on. You come back with "Obama won't appoint Conservatice Justices". So somewhere in that you lost the fact that we were talking about McCain appointing them .... which he most assuredly would do if he wants a 2nd term (he won't win without the conservative base twice).