I love the responses on the page.

Shame on you CNN. You changed the article headline and deleted all 39 anti-obama comments. Too much pressure from the Obama camp huh? I thought the first title was much more accurate.
You changed the wording in the article too.. Where is his " I would quit" statement... Lame CNN, very Lame.

Right cause yours is still there and if they deleted all of them why wouldn't they just delete yours as well? Oh wait I forgot it's a conspiracy!

/adjusts tinfoil.

Wait... but the media is all PRO CLINTON, at least they were in December!

We have always been at war with Eurasia!

I Obama had lost 11 strait he wouldn't only be 100 delegates behind and with a chance to win depending on super delegates.

FTFA
"UPDATE: An earlier version of this report incorrectly stated Obama said he would quit if he had lost as many contests as Clinton."

If there was a wider stance in the delegate numbers, then yes, Hillary would have quit. She probably will quit after Texas and Ohio. Then the real fight starts.

Ground_Hog: wider stance

*snerk*

Oops, this correction had to be awkward when the campaign called it in:

UPDATE: An earlier version of this report incorrectly stated Obama said he would quit if he had lost as many contests as Clinton.

Hillary Clinton's campaign says it remains upbeat about the New York senator's White House chances, but rival Barack Obama said Saturday he would likely be treated differently if his campaign had suffered a similar string of losses as her's.


That's a true enough statement. I wonder if the few remaining hillariods are honest enough to admit to it tho?

FTFA: "I'm the insurgent..."

AH HA!!! So, he finally admits it!

submitter: if he had lost 11 times in a row to Hillary they'd be demanding that he quit

This statement is completely true. Even if Obama was barely trailing in delegates, if he went an entire month without winning a damn thing the media would have crowned Hillary the nominee.

Daddakamabb: Right cause yours is still there and if they deleted all of them why wouldn't they just delete yours as well? Oh wait I forgot it's a conspiracy!

/adjusts tinfoil.

CNN's comments are always hilariously retarded.

As shown by the headline, it's not that OBAMA said he'd quit if he lost this many times, it's Obama saying THE MEDIA would be TELLING him to quit. So shove the FTFA shiat up your ass.

mofroe: FTFA: "I'm the insurgent..."

AH HA!!! So, he finally admits it!

That's enough to sway me!

Nader/Paul 08!


/was going to post the same quote

Thankfully he said that it's because he's the challenger that he's getting different treatment.

Don't give them any openings, Barack.


/some idiot will still claim he's playing "the race card" anyway

stonerri: Nader/Paul 08!

WTF?

He's absolutely right. The media has given her a pass on losing 11 straight, and they gave her a pass on plagiarizing Edwards in her "we'll be alright" bit at the end of the last debate (after attacking Obama for plagiarizing earlier).

What I can't figure out is why. I figure it's either:
a) the devil you know. They want her to win because they know the kind of media access they'll get if she wins. Obama's an unknown, so they might get less access with him, or
b) Hillary can be a vindictive biatch and you don't want to piss her off in case she pulls a rabbit out of her hat and actually wins.

Or more likely some combination of those...

She's only down by 100 or so delegates. I can understand her waiting until after March 4.

And yes, I'm an Obama supporter.

sarcastrophe: stonerri: Nader/Paul 08!

WTF?

=o

sarcastrophe: stonerri: Nader/Paul 08!

WTF?

Remnant from an earlier thread - not actually serious

scary though if those supporters mixed...

I always hate the hypothetical-as-argument. It's so stupid. And I see people do it all the time.

"Look - they mentioned that the ghey sex pervert was a Republican in the first paragraph. If it was a Dem, they wouldn't have named it at all!"

"Look - a crazy white guy shot up a university and they explicitly mention his race in the story. If he was a Muslim, we'd never find out about it."

"Look - the media isn't calling on Hillary to withdraw from the race after losing 11 races. If Barack had lost 11 in a row, they would be demanding that he quit."

You know what? Prove it. Don't give me 'what if's'. Don't turn your cause celebre into a farking martyr based on assumptions. Classless.

I've been a big fan of Obama since the keynote at the 2004 DNC convention.

I'm starting to get really nervous about Texas and Ohio, and not just Texas and Ohio, either. I know that logically I shouldn't be, given that there's virtually no way Clinton can overtake his delegate lead - and maybe I've just been hitting refresh and laughing/crying at Hillaryis44 too much (very likely) - but I'm getting nervous nonetheless, like something is going down. Or maybe that I've spent so much time on Obama-friendly Fark that I've got a distorted sense of how much support Obama has. I'm not sure what it is. But the one thing that has been bothering me is that apparently (according to Wikipedia (new window) Puerto Rico doesn't award its 63 delegates in accordance with the popular vote, but does so in a winner-take-all form that doesn't necessarily reflect the vote. Never mind Michigan and Florida. If it's close, this could be disastrous.

What I'm saying is - please, someone reassure me.

/Canadian
//Far too personally invested in this election than I should be

Shaggy_C: I always hate the hypothetical-as-argument. It's so stupid. And I see people do it all the time.

"Look - they mentioned that the ghey sex pervert was a Republican in the first paragraph. If it was a Dem, they wouldn't have named it at all!"

"Look - a crazy white guy shot up a university and they explicitly mention his race in the story. If he was a Muslim, we'd never find out about it."

"Look - the media isn't calling on Hillary to withdraw from the race after losing 11 races. If Barack had lost 11 in a row, they would be demanding that he quit."

You know what? Prove it. Don't give me 'what if's'. Don't turn your cause celebre into a farking martyr based on assumptions. Classless.

This.

mofroe: FTFA: "I'm the insurgent..."

AH HA!!! So, he finally admits it!

What else do you expect from B. Hussein Obama.

Oh, right. Heath Ledger died.

DamnYankees: Oh, right. Heath Ledger died.

ha ha

headlessparrot:

Whoa, dude, calm down.

Even at this point, Obama's something like 150 delegates ahead, so a net +63 for Clinton wouldn't be a deal breaker. I saw on Meet The Press this morning that even if the polls right now were correct and Clinton won the two, ignoring the possible momentum from now til Mar. 4, she would have a net + maybe a dozen delegates.

In terms of Puerto Rico, I don't have any hard evidence, but Obama won Hawaii, and probably more valid to my argument, he won the Democrats Abroad primary. I wouldn't be too worried about it yet. All the momentum seems to be going his way since Super Tuesday, and my opinion is that happened because Democrats realized that they don't HAVE to vote for Clinton.

/I just hope Dodd or Biden gets VP

loser_death_spiral: He's absolutely right. The media has given her a pass on losing 11 straight, and they gave her a pass on plagiarizing Edwards in her "we'll be alright" bit at the end of the last debate (after attacking Obama for plagiarizing earlier).

What I can't figure out is why. I figure it's either:
a) the devil you know. They want her to win because they know the kind of media access they'll get if she wins. Obama's an unknown, so they might get less access with him, or
b) Hillary can be a vindictive biatch and you don't want to piss her off in case she pulls a rabbit out of her hat and actually wins.

Or more likely some combination of those...

They need to keep the race close, and therefore interesting. The Obama / Clinton race is drawing a lot of attention, which boosts their circulation/ratings etc.

Shaggy_C:

1. That was a question posed to him BY CNN. Not what he volunteered out of the blue.
2. The reason he gave was a perfectly legit one, that it was because he is an upstart challenger in the race, not someone who has been in washington politics for years and he was not critisizing the media for it.
3. He even went so far as to imply it would foolish for her to drop at this point as the race is so close.
4. Nice troll attempt sir.

Done
Dunne
Dun
Dunn

No matter how ya spell it, it all comes out the same.

Throw in the towel babe, you're finished. Got your granny panties all in a twist about the mailers huh...with the same info that has already been published/been announced/been out there for a while now?

Get over it, get out of it, clear the way, go home, pack your bags for nowheresville and be happy for the senate seat you still have for the next little while.

The Clinton legacy is finito and you have yourself to blame.

Before you ask, I'm a registered Republican that voted for Bill twice, George once and have been actively campaigning and donating for Obama since day uno.

This is a historic election people, a choice between a woman, a man of African American descent and another old white guy.

IMHO, not the right woman and certainly not the right old white guy.

Vote Obama '08.

Monarchibbs: 4. Nice troll attempt sir.



He was using speculation to make himself look like a victim. Yes, someone else asked him about it, but that doesn't change the crux of what I was saying. I said that I hate when people speculate to make a point. The media does it all the time, especially on talk radio. It's how the entire 'Liberal Media' meme got created in the first place; the Limbaughs of the world would speculate about 'what-if' scenarios and use that to build a strawman to bash the evil MSM.

isn't it true that all Hillary supporters are slightly to seriously overweight women?

headlessparrot: I've been a big fan of Obama since the keynote at the 2004 DNC convention.

I'm starting to get really nervous about Texas and Ohio, and not just Texas and Ohio, either. I know that logically I shouldn't be, given that there's virtually no way Clinton can overtake his delegate lead - and maybe I've just been hitting refresh and laughing/crying at Hillaryis44 too much (very likely) - but I'm getting nervous nonetheless, like something is going down. Or maybe that I've spent so much time on Obama-friendly Fark that I've got a distorted sense of how much support Obama has. I'm not sure what it is. But the one thing that has been bothering me is that apparently (according to Wikipedia (new window) Puerto Rico doesn't award its 63 delegates in accordance with the popular vote, but does so in a winner-take-all form that doesn't necessarily reflect the vote. Never mind Michigan and Florida. If it's close, this could be disastrous.

What I'm saying is - please, someone reassure me.

/Canadian
//Far too personally invested in this election than I should be

No, you aren;t too involved. WHile it's certainly wrong for countries to interfere in fair elections in other countries, something the US would never do, of course, the fact is this election has a chance to completely change the interplay of the world. Since as you most certainly know, if Obama wins I might not move to Canada until after college, whereas if anyone else wins I'll be up there as fast as I farking can.

More realistically whoever becomes the next president could drastically increase respect the global community has for America. Obama has some pretty wide appeal abroad and he has a war to fix that affects many countries diplomatically. Of course it would also be one in a long string of overturns of long standing country leaders by more progressive candidates. I don't know much about the new British PM or the younger Castro but Kevin Rudd's a huge step up for Oz, Pakistan just got a new party in power.. that's all I can remember right now.. my point is President Obama is a good sign that Harper's next for the heap.

The mention of Hillary drives viewership and ad sales. Is there really any wonder why the media wants to keep her in the race?

Shaggy_C: Monarchibbs: 4. Nice troll attempt sir.



He was using speculation to make himself look like a victim. Yes, someone else asked him about it, but that doesn't change the crux of what I was saying. I said that I hate when people speculate to make a point. The media does it all the time, especially on talk radio. It's how the entire 'Liberal Media' meme got created in the first place; the Limbaughs of the world would speculate about 'what-if' scenarios and use that to build a strawman to bash the evil MSM.

I don't think he's interested in looking like a victim. More likely is that this is an attempt to push the media into asking the question now, so that the run-up to tx / oh is focused on whether Clinton is finished.

I think it is pretty clear that Obama will win if the current trends continue, Obama will win clearly.

Then again, you could have said the opposite a few months ago.

Than again, this is much closer to the end.

headlessparrot: You're definitely not alone, and I'll provide an example.

I was a precinct captain for Obama here in Washington state, which he won overwhelmingly. At the celebration that night, I had a chance to chat with a couple of college-aged kids wearing "Canadians for Obama" t-shirts.

Turns out that they were, indeed, all Canadians, who took time off to volunteer for the campaign. They've been doing whatever they can since Iowa, going state to state. There was about ten of them in all.

I was stirred - here were ten kids from another country who were dedicating themselves to helping this guy win. That says a lot about the candidate, as well as how much you guys care about what happens here. Thanks to them, and thanks to you.

/Yes we can

GoBama.

The Numbers: I don't think he's interested in looking like a victim.

I agree; I don't think he's going around making a big point about it himself. He got kind of suckered in by the question.

Shaggy_C: The Numbers: I don't think he's interested in looking like a victim.

I agree; I don't think he's going around making a big point about it himself. He got kind of suckered in by the question.

I think the fact that she went with the Giuliani strategy has probably helped her avoid some attention on this issue. She'll be able to avoid answering the question because the race is still close and tx, oh are pretty big delegate-wise, but it would be interesting if someone could get her to give specifics about how well she thinks she needs to do in order to justify carrying on.

mofroe: FTFA: "I'm the insurgent..."

AH HA!!! So, he finally admits it!

Guaranteed this will be on FOX News tomorrow, and if CNN picks it up he's screwed in TX. Are he and his wife purposely trying to set off the geniuses who are easily swayed by FOX News? First *spin* I hate America *spin* now *spin* Muslim who is loved by terrorists identifies with the insurgents *spin.

Last time I checked, there are 50 states.

Its bad enough the staggered primary process shuts down the opportunties of those in the last primaries to be allowed to play a decisive role, but with the race this close, and no clear winner yet decided, it only helps instill faith in the process if it is allowed to play itself out.

As seen in previous elections, 49% in 11 small states can't measure up to 52% in a large state. These aren't winner take all contests, so therefore coming in a close second still means its a horserace.

I am hoping Obama takes it all, but I want him to sweep the board, not watch Hillary smash the board and throw it across the room the way I would when as a child my brother would be kicking my azz at Monopoly.
/cheater.
//do I have enough game analogies?

Shaggy_C: I agree; I don't think he's going around making a big point about it himself. He got kind of suckered in by the question.

What'd you want him to say? "I'm not going to answer that"? That would just make him look like an ass. If he said no, he'd just be wrong.

Echoic: If he said no, he'd just be wrong.

Please, I'd like you to objectively prove that.

mofroe: FTFA: "I'm the insurgent..."

AH HA!!! So, he finally admits it!

Oh, good. Finally something for Limbaugh and Hannity to add to their soundboard, then push the button like a cracked-out epileptic with OCD.

exparrot: Last time I checked, there are 50 states.

Its bad enough the staggered primary process shuts down the opportunties of those in the last primaries to be allowed to play a decisive role, but with the race this close, and no clear winner yet decided, it only helps instill faith in the process if it is allowed to play itself out.

As seen in previous elections, 49% in 11 small states can't measure up to 52% in a large state. These aren't winner take all contests, so therefore coming in a close second still means its a horserace.

I am hoping Obama takes it all, but I want him to sweep the board, not watch Hillary smash the board and throw it across the room the way I would when as a child my brother would be kicking my azz at Monopoly.
/cheater.
//do I have enough game analogies?

I think the idea that the race run it's course is fine in theory, but the problem is that from this point on, time and money spent on this race is not going on the general election. If the race were being conducted in a positive manner it wouldn't matter so much, since Obama would benefit from the attention to his policies - but as Hillary now seems to be all about attacking him, he probably wants to get this race over with sooner to avoid any damage, and to focus on the general in the same way McCain can.

headlessparrot

Checked out that awesome Hillary Is 44 site you mentioned. I love how the bar on the right, titled "Hillary Poll Leads" hasn't been updated since about the 15th of this month, despite having submitted new videos and blogging almost daily.

I also like the contribution statement:
Add .44 cents to the dollar amount of your Hillary For President Campaign contribution in order to let Hillary know of her grassroots support.

Should she be expecting a flood of $0.44 contributions soon?

madden101: headlessparrot

Checked out that awesome Hillary Is 44 site you mentioned. I love how the bar on the right, titled "Hillary Poll Leads" hasn't been updated since about the 15th of this month, despite having submitted new videos and blogging almost daily.

I also like the contribution statement:
Add .44 cents to the dollar amount of your Hillary For President Campaign contribution in order to let Hillary know of her grassroots support.

Should she be expecting a flood of $0.44 contributions soon?

I particularly enjoyed reading the comments about the Wisconsin vote. It was fun to see how her supporters went from thinking they were going to win to saying that a single-digit loss was a good result. Plus the random comments about what clothes she is wearing, and the 'channel positive energy' crap provide moments of humour in the otherwise disturbing world of the Hillary supporter.

thrgd456: isn't it true that all Hillary supporters are slightly to seriously overweight women?

And their tiny, snack-sized husbands.

Shaggy_C: Please, I'd like you to objectively prove that.

Obviously nobody's going to be able to prove that. There's plenty of things that are common sense that aren't able to be proven.

Any rational observer, including most of the pundits (several have written agreeing with this, like that one guy with the Washington Post on MSNBC), would agree that if Obama lost 11 contests straight, the media would claim Hillary the nominee. Saying otherwise is just fighting common sense.

Beachcomber: thrgd456: isn't it true that all Hillary supporters are slightly to seriously overweight women?

And their tiny, snack-sized husbands.

I imagine that they look a lot like those ladies who wear mom pants. You know, those happy looking ladies jumping around in mom pants that some farker posts now and again ....

i don't have that pic at the ready though

/shrug