Posted on 09/08/2008 4:41:43 PM PDT by ConservativeMan55
Thanks!
Came up with it myself. :)
It remains to be seen what the actual story is.
It would not surprise me if they really did not meet their fundraising goals.
Obama has been spending money like it’s water.. with no regard to donations coming in or the political landscape.
He did not anticipate being down in so many polls.. and now his money dried up.
I made that video.
Youtube didn’t disable the comments.
They’re undergoing site maintenance right now so no comments on any videos are enabled.
Mark the video.. and come back and make your comment tomorrow!
Thank you!
Here you go..
You wanted to see the actual story
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2077849/posts
I read a quote the other day but can’t put my finger on it now. It said, in effect, “Those who choose to live on hope are destined to starve to death.” The context was pragmatic and about life in general but I think it has particular application to Obama.
You can hope in one hand crap in the other..
Which one will fill up first?
He said many new polls favor Obama? Uh.. I think not.
Actually now that I have seen the video O'Reilly says that MCCAIN has seen a "significant bump in the polls." Not Obama but McCain. So I respectfully have to say you are wrong.
Thanks for that appetizing image. LOL
if we sit here smug thinking we're going to pull this off, we could be the ones needing straight jackets come November...
money is key....with money more tv ads can be run.....more radio ads....
donate folks....I'm going to keep repeating it....donate....
for some damn reason our local Republican office does not have ANY McCain/Palin campaign stuff...I know a lot of it was already given out, but honestly, shouldn't there be LOTS and LOTS of signs and buttons and stickers around ...
This makes sense. I think there’s going to be a lot of newsies and the like to hitched their wagon to the sinking star whose styrofoam ego is crumbling.
The last time the Dims nominated a former losing candidate for president was Hubert Humphrey in 1968. So, the odds are stacked against Clinton running and winning the nomination in 2012.
Big money contributors don’t generally back losers. They want the power that comes from being owed big time.
So, I still say it’s unlikely she would turn down the chance to be on the ticket in 2008, if it were offered to her.
But we’ll just have to disagree about it.
LOL
That's gold.
Once I built a railroad, made it run.
Made it race against time.
Once I built a railroad, now it’s done.
Brother can you spare a dime.
I would hope there would be plenty of supplies but we shall see. I’m not one to wear my convictions my on chest, butt or bumper but I may do so this time. It is an important election. Side Note: I visited a friend in a rehabilitation hospital/nursing home last week and in a commons room there was a sign on the wall to the effect that “This election is crucial. If you are not registered to vote, check with the front desk for assistance.” My friend was there for therapy after emergency shoulder replacement surgery. The residents are typical nursing home denizens and they will probably all vote, though, if certain people have their way.
“If he can’t meet his fund-raising goal, it means only one thing: his wealthy backers don’t want to throw away good money after a bad candidate... especially if he can’t win!”
Amen, If he can’t meet his fund-raising goal, it “ain’t the little street rat donors pausing or dropping out.
It is the big elite trust funders and hedge funders like George $oreA$$ holding back.
One can only imagine what their focus groups and private polls are showing after Palin was announced and the failure or their MSM mediot maggots to cause Sarah problems.
The dems have a history of ignoring law and their own bi-laws when they see a condidate is in trouble. They have a special affinity for doing it to their black candidates. Spot quiz: Name two black dem candidates who were dissed by DNC in favor of white candidates? And name the white candidates who benefitted? In New Jersey, after “Torch” Torricelli’s ethics problems became insurmountable they illegally substituted Lautenberg to run in his place. Dem- stacked NJ Supreme Court gave the Dems a pass for breaking the law. I am already on record as saying it is possible we will see Hillery substituted for Onada at some point. Withholding money is the way the Sorros crowd will do it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.