Okay, seriously. Our newspeople must be dumber than they look.
This whole Clinton/Obama thing they’re “making” an issue out of… would one candidate’s backers support the other?

If you support one candidate who’s for health care for ‘all Americans’ — no matter what the plan,
for drawing troops out of Iraq on an advanced timetable, and etc. which both of them did:

Why on GOD’S GREEN EARTH would you then back the candidate from the opposite party?

It’s like saying, oh I loved all YOUR ideas, but even though your competitors are 98.9% the same, I think I’ll change horses right now and go for ALL THE COMPLETELY OPPOSITE ideas. Just for the flipping heck of it.

Umm.. WHY would anyone do that?

Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?


  1. Beacuse Clinton’s a scary bitch and people may not support her methods of getting what she wants. Seriously, she’s ruthless.

    The other way around theough? I don’t know why Clinton’s supprtors wouldn’t switch to Obama. There’s really no reason. That’s why McCain hasn’t a snowball’s chance of beating Obama, but might actually race against Clinton.

  2. I guess that shows the difference between the states and their feelings. around here there’s serious doubt (in the media) whether either one could garner enough votes from the other’s groups — but of course in Obama’s “home” state, I can see why it would be touted as such there. forget personalities…I actually care what these people STAND FOR… but if we want to go there — i figure a president should be ruthless. look where having someone who ignores the recession and pansies around with the military instead of taking command gets us… either way, i’m hoping for a change!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *