senorplain you can't help it can you? LOL...

(Guilty.)

why did you respond to me if you really didn't want to feed me? LOL...

(I'm in a bad mood, and when I am, I like to amuse myself by debating half-wits just to get my ire up. It's an unfortunate character flaw, I admit, like when I tune in Rush just to get annoyed.)

Seriously, I am waiting for your arguments against mine but I am not holding your breath. You have none, ad hominem is the easiest way out for a cultist.

(If you're going to call out people for sloppy spelling and grammar, seems you lose your argument if you don't respond in kind. The phrase is "I'm not holding MY breath." Just sayin.)

-- indigo218

As to your arguments, what, that you think that blacks only vote for black candidates? That can be shown to be demonstrably untrue. (Where was all the support for Al Sharpton four years ago?)

So what's left of your argument? That if Obama were white, he wouldn't have won? I guess we'll never know, but I doubt it. Edwards isn't a fair comparison, because he was somewhat tainted goods from 2004 and he couldn't come close to Obama in terms of connecting ground-roots support or in fund-raising. Plus, his speeches, while good, didn't have nearly the hair-raising effect as Obama's. I just think based on previous campaigns that a white Obama, same campaign, same policies, same ability to inspire (whether you personally choose to buy into it or not is irrelevant), routs Clinton. JMHO.

And if you're so superior to us "cultists," Ahab (look it up; you're smart), at least have the courtesy to address me by my proper fake name.

for affirming my point yet one more time that you are a mindless obamabot who can't put sensible words together to make a compelling argument and can only throw a fit.

Case closed.

This black dude once again sums up of what you are:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUDNJ0ysiwM&feature=related

Enjoy!

ON LOOKING OVER SOME OF THE EARLY LETTERS IT SEEMS THAT SOME PEOPLE ARE NOT GETTING THE FACT THAT THE RIGHT-WINGERS HAVE BEEN EXHORTED TO VOTE FOR CLINTON WHENEVER THEY CAN -- AND THAT THE COUNTS FOR CLINTON ARE PARTLY MADE UP OF THEM. During the actual election, those people won't be anywhere to be found.

Clinton would lose, in any case. She can't win the election, though she says she is 'the most electable' over and over again.

[NOTE to List Conversation Holders: How about letter-writers not having irrelevant and mutually-insulting conversations with each other on these lists? It just swells them unnecessarily and grosses out the other readers. And wastes our time. Could you talk to someone on IM, for instance? Someone you know is willing to read such a conversation? or call someone and have the conversation there. Thanks.]

Check this out:

"After moving past the magic number of 2,118 Democratic delegates this evening and addressing the nation's most powerful pro-Israel lobbying organization on Wednesday morning, Obama will head to Virginia on Thursday -- right smack in the heart of Appalachia, where he is often thought to be toast because of his outsized losses to Senator Clinton in some of the region's primaries."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/03/obama-to-head-to-appalach_n_105031.html

Is that something?

Your point? What point? You've been spewing absolute bullshit all day and I don't see a point yet.

So, why don't you answer my question? That is, how do you figure Obama's presumtive nomination has anything to do with Affirmitve Action? You've been dodging that question all day. Go ahead and answer. It's okay. I can't jump through the computer and hurt you, as much as I might want to.

Most of us just want an adult in the White House. If that person happens along in the form of a black guy, that might be an added bonus to some people. The rest of us don't give a fuck if he's purple.

In typical Right-wing fashion, you are trying to make an issue where there is none. It's a distraction, just like all of your family-values bullshit. What is left of your Republican Revolution has become so corrupted and intellectually vacant that even the likes of Rupert Murdoch are predicting a major landslide for the Democrats in November.

we do believe it's risky to give him the power of presidency when that's the only thing he's obviously interested in (otherwise he would have waited).

Senor...Al Sharpton doesn't have the "messianic" quality as O is, at least I can give it to him that he has charisma. He's "too black" and can't reach out to different race groups so there is no sense to even try promote him because non-black can't relate to him at all. But O has this multi-ethnic background that's exotic and appealing to the liberals. His narrative is much more fascinating than Al Sharpton's, and he's young, charming, Harvard graduate, bi-racial candidate who's grappling with his identity all his life, you name it...

He's got a captivating story, Al Sharpton doesn't.

The only things missing are experience, qualifications, the capacity to relate to white blue collar workers, concrete and workable plans.

And discounted his narrative, he'll be just another well-off Harvard graduate, plain and simple. If we are truly interested in merits, he's not the candidate to vote.

What does "ready from day one" mean? I heard HRC saying that throughout her campaign and it didn't matter. HRC has only herself and her camp to blame (not the party as you said)for losing. I remember when she had more support from black people than Obama did when these primaries started. She lost that partly because of Bill's slights and attitudes toward Obama in SC and the fact that people started to believe he could win after Iowa. Popular votes and the political map doesn't win the nod, but delegates do (remember Bush 2000)and Obama has that number now. I think HRC is still stunned that she actually lost to the junior senator from IL because as she said it would be over by Super Tuesday.

How quickly we forget.