Comments for The Rational Psychic

Comment on Hillary Clinton did not win by “double digits” in the PA primary by rationalpsychic

rationalpsychic — Fri, 02 May 2008 05:18:17 +0000

Your last point is a good one I had not taken into account. It shows the value of negative rhetoric: sling enough mud and some is bound to stick.

As far as rambling is concerned, feel free. Fair warning, however. If your thought processes meander more than mine it may indicate a need for medication. But I will love you all the more.

Comment on Hillary Clinton did not win by “double digits” in the PA primary by you don't say...

you don't say... — Fri, 02 May 2008 03:11:25 +0000

another thing, if I may ramble some more
Obama had $11 million to spend because the PEOPLE gave him that $11 million. All this talk about his outspending Clinton as a way to make him seem “elite” or “out of touch” or “shady” is ridiculous. I, too, think the amount of money needed to win an election is crazy. But lets not kid ourselves, Obama has more money to spend because the people are giving him more money.

Comment on Hillary Clinton did not win by “double digits” in the PA primary by you don't say...

you don't say... — Fri, 02 May 2008 03:09:39 +0000

I’ll refute it!
Sen. Clinton went in with a 20 point lead in a state overfull to the brim with a Clinton network! Because of her husbands and her connections in the Democratic party, the state was practically sealed for her.
The fact that Obama cut into her lead at all is impressive.
That race was hers to lose, not hers to win. The former slam-dunk, front-runner has somehow convinced people she’s been the underdog. Sen. Clinton was the front-runner and she lost her lead because people are beginning to say NO to her.

Comment on Hillary Clinton did not win by “double digits” in the PA primary by rationalpsychic

rationalpsychic — Thu, 01 May 2008 07:13:37 +0000

Jen,
What a disingenuous response on your part. You know very well that as part of that cost Obama halved the lead that Clinton had over him in PA.

On the subject of handling tax dollars, I suggest you look into which campaign has a better balance sheet, whether with or without Sen. Clinton’s loan to herself, and which one has the better reputation of paying off small vendors who have provided services to their campaigns. Sen. Clinton left a number of folks–especially caterers for her events–wondering if and when they would receive payment.

CNN.com poll shows Obama and Clinton tied at 45% each with 10% undecided in Indiana. While North Carolina is still being predicted as a win for Obama.

Oh. That big “win” for Clinton in Texas? NYT results published today (http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/states/TX.html) show her with 50.9% of popular vote there compared to 47.4% for Obama. Texas Democrats’ method for awarding delegates then gave Obama 99 delegates to 94 for Clinton. Some of these claims of “winning” by Clinton fall apart when they are examined as if they have the possibility of being decided as being facts or untruths.

Remind me not to post comments by trolls who don’t put a connection to their blog or a photo next to their comment. As it is, this comment gave me the chance to express my disgust at this type of rhetoric. Please refute this crap when you see it, folks.

Comment on Hillary Clinton did not win by “double digits” in the PA primary by Jen

Jen — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 23:16:36 +0000

Obama spent $11 million in PA to lose by 10 pts… that’s $1.1 million per point lost! Yikes! And people want this guy to handle our tax dollars?!

Can’t wait to see how much he loses IN by.

Clinton ‘08!

Comment on Hillary Clinton did not win by “double digits” in the PA primary by you don't say...

you don't say... — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 02:35:13 +0000

double digits sounds nicer to the media and to those who benefit from it : the Clinton campaign.

In politics, it seems truth is defined by whoever screams the loudest and longest.

Comment on What am I doing today? by you don't say...

you don't say... — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 02:33:40 +0000

interesting thoughts on self-pity. it’s human to feel it, but I loathe myself when I do. I’ve come to a place where I allow myself a brief pity party occasionally. we’re not saints!

Comment on What can I tell you? I’m sick to death of Hillary Clinton’s morally bankrupt candidacy by angryafrican

angryafrican — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 23:07:06 +0000

@Edward. That piece of truth must be hurting Obama. “Obama…who clearly loves Bill.” True. So true. And to see your hero do what he does to you must be a double whammy.

Comment on What am I doing today? by queen esther

queen esther — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 12:02:49 +0000

you put your finger on something very important.

i am 2 generations removed from slavery. my father is 92 years old and a southerner — 20 years older than my mother — opinionated, nervy, and with a memory like an elephant. all my life, he’s been like some great and powerful battleship to me and my 6 brothers, and now, after all this time, he’s finally slowing down. so i feel you.

self-pity is dicey, because it doesn’t seem to be self-serving at all on the surface. this is how we grow: we get honest about what we feel and we embrace those feelings instead of masking them with anger or self-pity.

thanks for allowing me to experience your growth vicariously. in turn, i realize that i’m not necessarily where i want to be — we are all a work in progress — but i’ve come a long, long way.

Comment on Hillary Clinton did not win by “double digits” in the PA primary by Edward Carson

Edward Carson — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 16:32:14 +0000

This race should not have been this close. Obamamania is getting old. That is what happens when the election season runs too long. This might hurt him come the general election.