Comments:John Edwards endorses Barack Obama

Stick a fork in Hil, she's done. --TUFKAAP (talk) 01:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Are any sources speculating/commenting about Edwards as a possible running-mate? Cirt (talk) 01:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Not really, I believe Edwards doesn't want to be VP, you need a hatchet men for a VP, Edwards isn't that type of guy, on top of that... me, my father and Chris Matthews believe Edwards would make a good Secretary of Labor and seeing how Edwards has been an advocate for the working-class, it could be possible. --TUFKAAP (talk) 02:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That is quite an interesting idea, will be neat to follow it and see how it plays out. What do you think Hillary's plans will be if she doesn't get the Democratic nomination?  Cirt (talk) 02:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably go on a rampage and destroy Tokyo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.153.112.11 (talk) 13:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Senate Majority Leader is always an option, and a job she would be superbly qualified for. --+Deprifry+ 13:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

this isn't going to be pretty
Some evil "news commentator" predicted that Barrack will not the primary win based on the popular vote and that he will be "anointed" (like the evil George Bush). He also predicted that Hillary may run on a third party ticket if she doesn't win, because she believes she is "entitled" to it. (Same said commentator said that this was supposed to be a "coronation" for Hillary, and mocks the superdelegates, stating that they show that Democrats can't even trust their own voters.)

Despite some the things I like about Obama (like his somewhat firm position on earmarks and very firm position on lobbyist), he fell for the 100 years comment. Last I checked Hillary hasn't. Barrack fell for the Gas Tax Holiday proposal. Hillary didn't, and in fact used it to take advantage of the public's misplaced loathing towards energy companies. QUINTIX (talk) 14:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hillary is the one that wants a gas tax holiday. --SVTCobra 14:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry bud, but it's Hillary that supports the Gas tax holiday. Also, last I checked, Hillary is losing. :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.166.175.146 (talk) 18:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems as if nobody understood my original comment. Let me try to break it down for you
 * Barack Opposes Tax Break, calling it a Political Ploy
 * He says roads will not be funded
 * Again, my question to Barack is where is the money for roads going to come from when we no longer use gasoline?
 * In terms of taxes, GAS IS THE NEW TOBACCO, e.g., we can never get rid of it so long as we are dependent on it for tax revenue.
 * Hillary Supports it, saying that the evil energy companies should pay for it; e.g "...take advantage of the public's misplaced loathing..."
 * NOTE: THE GOVERNMENT MAKES A WHOLE LOT MORE PROFIT OFF OF GAS THAN THE "EVIL" ENERGY COMPANIES SO BY DEFINITION THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE
 * McCain, the Originator, SPECIFICALLY MENTIONS TRUCKERS, who pay hundreds and hundreds per fill up.
 * Again, many of theses truckers have yet to pass their drastically increased cost to their customers.


 * As for my new comment:
 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but even Barack plans on leaving a small number of brigades in place after the "complete withdrawal"
 * McCain's 100 years comment was a trick, like the gas comment, both of which only Barack fell for.
 * McCain specifically explained that we still have a troop presence in Germany, South Korea, Japan, etc etc...
 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't we also have an air force base in Saudi Arabia?
 * McCain's point is that having a small troop presence in such a troubled region is even more important than even our troop presence in, say, South Korea.


 * As for Mr. Ip Address (24.166.175.146), Barrack has won very few primaries since February 22nd.

Please let me know if their is still any misunderstanding.

QUINTIX (talk) 01:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Quintix, um how did Barack fall for anything? I'm still confused by that claim. Um, as to the Feb 22nd observation you are aware that seems to be an odd claim to make since a) most primaries were before then and b) looking at the post Feb 22 primaries using Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008 counting Texas for Clinton (so ignoring that Obama won the caucus) I count 6 wins for Cliton and 5 for Obama. (Now you could even throw out Guam since they tied the total number of delegates there) in which case post Feb 22 we have 6 to 4. It is thus hard to see the statement that "Barrack has won very few primaries since February 22nd" as a useful description of events. Also, could you kindly stop using all caps and boldface? It is rude and makes it hard to read the page. Thanks. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * My apologizes, My research tends to be rather quick since these mini "op-ed" sections tend to die off in a rather quickly (hence the yelling, which being a wiki anyone is free to edit. For that reason I will leave my yelling alone.). Let me further simplify things. You mentioned Guam of all places. Maybe I should of said "few primaries of significance". I wish I had time to throw in more research and citations than anecdotes, but let us ignore the "superdelegates", the thrown out primaries, and pretend that the Democrat Party had their primary in the same format as Republicans. Who would be winning right now? Hence the earlier prediction.


 * Also, let us note that in mid Feburary, from Louisiana to Wisconsin Obama won all the primaries. Something significant has happened since then. I mean, look at the West Virginia Primary. QUINTIX (talk) 02:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)