--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Tom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, satvadude108 <no_reply@> > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <shempmcgurk@> > > wrote: > > <snip> > > > > Of course, the real danger to his candidacy doesn't come > > > > from John McCain and the Republicans but from his own party. > > > > The Denver convention is gearing up to be a confrontation > > > > that will make Chicago in '68 look like a Ghandi rally... > > > > Hillary wants a roll call, her supporters want a roll call, > > > > and there's a movement afoot to get pledged Obama delegates > > > > to switch their votes...and it's really growing... > > > > > > I have been wondering when this would achieve the > > > critical mass necessary to get attention in the press. > > > > Been getting it for a while, actually. > > Oh really? And how is "a while " defined?
Well, if you're talking about organized opposition to Obama's nomination and the DNC, since shortly after Hillary endorsed him, actually. Fox News, for example, had PUMA members on Neil Cavuto's show on June 9. WaPo had a story on the anti-Obama movement on June 27. There've been many stories about the protests being planned in Denver. The Denver Group itself was founded on June 18 and started accepting contributions on June 24. > > > The ActBlue site indicates donations of $380.92. > > > > ActBlue isn't the only contribution channel. The Denver > > Group collected enough to run a good-sized ad in the > > Chicago Tribune on July 11. > > Oh, Ok. "a while" must be defined as 3 days ago. For The Denver Group specifically, yes. > > http://thedenvergroup.blogspot.com/ > > > > > Do you think Hillary will openly support this movement? > > > > Not a chance. > > > > (Well, there's a chance, I suppose, but Obama > > would have to be making an even bigger fool of > > himself and his supporters than he has so far.) > > Which is it? "Not a chance. Well, there's a chance " Another way of putting it: She won't support it *unless* Obama makes an even bigger fool of himself and his supporters than he has so far. > If I didn't know better, I'd think you hadn't made > up your mind. We both know that what you are doing > is trying to engage one of your twisting nasty never > ending exchanges. We do?? Hey, you're the one who responded. You may consider them intellectual > tennis but I see them as the product of your very > unpleasant personality. One can't both have an unpleasant personality and engage in intellectual tennis? <snip> > > Those who have actually been following things > > know that many if not most of those involved in > > this movement are not so much Hillary True > > Believers as Obama Nonbelievers. > > I suppose that as seen thru your Obama hating > bitter spectacles it does look that way. Let's see if I understand how this works. We're actually Hillary True Believers, but because we see things through our Obama-hating spectacles, we think we're, uh, really Obama-haters. Have I got that right? > > Shemp's right about one thing, though. The number > > of ONBs is growing rapidly, and it's showing up > > in the polls, in his and McCain's approval ratings, > > and most noticeably in Obama's fundraising, which > > has slumped badly. > > As if those are not part of the natural cycle of electioneering > in Primary and General election cycles. Given the overall anti-Republican political climate this election year, Obama should be pulling away from McCain at light speed at this point, but instead he's falling back. And it was his own campaign that predicted $100 million in donations in June. It's turned out to be only $30 million or so. Take a seat or join the > fray as Hillary True Believers make complete asses of themselves. >
