You can't decline Checkmate

[camac.livejournal.com]

Comments

[head-splitter.livejournal.com]

Yeah, so this topic of Clinton being too stubborn is a bit of a dead horse now.

[darth-spacey.livejournal.com]

And yet, she persists in it. Someone should tell her, or something...

[head-splitter.livejournal.com]

That was a bit of a non sequitur response.

[darth-spacey.livejournal.com]

Of course it hatstand.

I mean it's not like she's *actually* clinging to the primary like grim death, is it?

[head-splitter.livejournal.com]

What? You've got to repeat that, I have no clue what you just said.

Either way, my point is that duh, of course she's persisting in it--that's why we have these cartoons at all. But after seeing so many cartoons dedicated to how stubborn Clinton is being, I think we got the point.

This topic is becoming as tired as the deal about how the MSM focuses too much on celebrities as opposed to truly important news.

Not the time for "ladies first"

[lordremo.livejournal.com]

I think she's still in it because HALF the party still wants her. It would be like two horses a nose apart in the Derby, coming around the home stretch. The officials telling the other horse to stop or halting the race before the finish. Obama can't win the primaries because niether can reach the vote tally. It's what a convention was designed for. If ALL the people yelling for her to quit are Obama supporters... why SHOULD she listen? It's just like what I said about Gore in 2000:
" If he is so great, so destined to be President... why can he get only half the votes?"

Re: Not the time for "ladies first"

[xforge.livejournal.com]

The thing is, the Clinton horse only has three legs and is only anywhere near the Obama horse because she thinks she can get... metaphor breaks down... all of the delegates from the two states where she agreed with everyone else not to campaign and where she's on record as saying they didn't matter anyway. Except now somehow they do matter I guess. She wants all the delegates from Florida and Michigan even though she only won just over half the votes cast in either state. And Obama wasn't on the ballot at all in Michigan. How is that fair?

Re: Not the time for "ladies first"

[lordremo.livejournal.com]

Why is it fair that the DNC decided they don't matter? That they can't have any delegates at all? The GOP restricted them to half, still giving them valued representation in the process. Howard Dean is an idiot to alienate two states that practically decide each presidential election. Obama pulled his name from the ballot in Michigan so that's his mistake. No votes means no delegates from him there.

You can't decide a race by who's closer to the finish line if niether one crosses it. Until the Superdelegates cast their votes in the convention there is no winner. Stating who they support isn't binding; it's just a form of intimidation. Hillary has just as many legs... in fact she's the one most likely to win the national election of the two. The Democrats are setting themselves up for defeat with Obama.

Re: Not the time for "ladies first"

[camac.livejournal.com]

Rules are rules, even Clinton agreed that those states wouldn't matter, she's just changed her mind now because its her only hope. Not that it would do much good, Obama would still be in the lead even if Clinton got all the delegates from Michigan.

Obama won, face it. No matter how you spin the math he is the clear winner. Get over it.

Also LOL at the idea of McCain defeating Obama. What bizarro-land polls are you looking at?

Re: Not the time for "ladies first"

[xforge.livejournal.com]

Why is it fair that the DNC decided they don't matter?

The point is moot since *all* the candidates agreed not to campaign there; Hillary Clinton is *on record* having said she supported the DNC's decision. And then she's on record having campaigned in Michigan anyway, and now of course she's on record saying how UTTERLY IMPORTANT it is that those voters get their votes counted.

Additionally, every time she claims she's got "the popular vote?" She means she's won most of the primaries that didn't involve a caucus. So basically she's saying all the states that hold caucuses instead of elections... don't matter. That's... so... consistent of her, isn't it?

You've forgotten the golden rule

[lordremo.livejournal.com]

It is a woman's perogative to CHANGE her MIND.

Of course she agreed to it back then; it was a different game. Nobody could have realized how close, how long this would go. It still is the fault of the DNC in how it was handled. First by leaving NO representation to 2 very important states in their decision, second by setting up no penalty if a candidate didn't follow the voluntary guidelines for campaigning. And considering she did win them, it's smart to point out their importance. Obama cetainly doesn't want to DISAGREE with that, does he? The race is still on.

What you mean to say is she won most of the primaries, he won most of the caucuses. They are different indeed. In a caucus you don't actually cast a vote but give a preference in a room of people (no anonimity) and can continue to change it until a majority is decided. What she points out is only in primaries do you get a true value of how many voted, and how a person really votes: peer pressure is removed when you cast a vote in secret. And a popular vote holds wieght since niether candidate can win the total required before the convention. It means Hillary won the population centers that decide a President in november. Obama won smaller numbered states, generally ones Democrats always get, or never get. The only battlefield state he won was of course... his home state.

Re: You've forgotten the golden rule

[xforge.livejournal.com]

It is a woman's perogative to CHANGE her MIND.

Yup, and it is a woman's prerogative to not be taken seriously when she can't make a decision and stick by it, especially as regards her agreeing to something that makes her look rather dishonorable when she decides that agreeing was wrong. Her choice to take this path is hurting and will continue to hurt the Democrats in November, to the point that we may very well have four more years of McSame. I don't disagree that the Florida and Michigan legislatures are diabolically fucking stupid, and particularly in Florida the Democrats are wimps for letting the Republicans move the primary and screw everyone over like that, and the DNC is equally fucking stupid for pushing this initiative, but Hillary is screwing everything up in a particularly flamboyant manner and making a lot of us question her honesty, her *sincerity* and her fitness to be a decent President. I mean seriously, she acts like she's one 'a the reg'lar folks - do all those "blue-collar, working class, white" folks that voted for her, realize that she's never had an actual *job??*

Oh, so you'd respect a president who quits?

[lordremo.livejournal.com]

The situation changed. How weak does it look to belong to a church for 20 years, defend it numerous times during a campaign THEN quit after what is commonly preached there gets public scrutiny? The only thing hurtig the democratic party is half of it telling the other half to give up!

I never said Fl. and Mi.'s legislatures did anything wrong; it was brilliant because they recieved so much focus and the nominee will have to work with them more. This blame rests soley on the DNC chair and the committee, as does the stupid remedy offered. Using exit poll results??? Giving votes/delegates to someone NOT on the ballot? By their own choice? Obama will now lose MORE votes from his own party over that gaff.

And portraying all her voters as being dupes doesn't help you either.

Re: Oh, so you'd respect a president who quits?

[xforge.livejournal.com]

Obama will now lose MORE votes from his own party over that gaff.

Then Democrats are idiots and they don't deserve to win.

[glenniebun.livejournal.com]

And when she drags it off the field we can stop beating it.

[thebigbadbutch.livejournal.com]

lol

A Pedant Writes....

[sbp.livejournal.com]

I love the way the obama_rama player has three rooks....
Oh and both his bishops on the same colour square? That can't happen either.

Re: A Pedant Writes....

[madali.livejournal.com]

Its possible to have a bishop on the same color and three rooks, if you think of the possibility that the pawns were converted to them when they reached the end of the board.

Although, one pawn is at the end, and not changed, which is weird.

And the whole set up is illogical. Clinton's King cant be in that position and have the game continue.

*spoils joke*

[bookoholics.livejournal.com]

haha, I'm going to bring this picture into chess club next Thursday.