Ahh, no, they aren't all necssarily one long take..but they are all part of the same campaign video..which was obviously edited for different audiences, but it wasn't all the same take..and as far as credibility goes, i don't think your testimony about me is particularly credible, seeing as it has been laden with ridicule from the outset

>> ^Drax:
>> ^shinyblurry:
These are all cut from one campaign video..they aren't different takes..whether it works on you or not its an example of politicians blantantly using mind control

Oh, you know this for fact? I've seen the raw footage from what this is from, she's addressing differen't people in different areas with each take. They are NOT part of one piece / interview / whatever you want to call it. The little cut to animated text scenes in this video is masking that this isn't one long take.
So.. you'll claim to know something for sure without all the facts, so long as it matches what YOU want it to be, huh?
Now how's anyone supposed to take anything you claim with any credibitlity?

>> ^shinyblurry:

These are all cut from one campaign video..they aren't different takes..whether it works on you or not its an example of politicians blantantly using mind control


Oh, you know this for fact? I've seen the raw footage from what this is from, she's addressing differen't people in different areas with each take. They are NOT part of one piece / interview / whatever you want to call it. The little cut to animated text scenes in this video is masking that this isn't one long take.

So.. you'll claim to know something for sure without all the facts, so long as it matches what YOU want it to be, huh?

Now how's anyone supposed to take anything you claim with any credibitlity?

*lies>> ^shinyblurry:

These are all cut from one campaign video..they aren't different takes..whether it works on you or not its an example of politicians blantantly using mind control

These are all cut from one campaign video..they aren't different takes..whether it works on you or not its an example of politicians blantantly using mind control

^ Short answer: no.

Long answer is that Hillary's trying to make the case that since no one will be able to reach an absolute majority of delegates with the kind you get by people voting, that the superdelegates will decide the nominee. Since superdelegates can vote for whoever they want, based on any criteria they want, all she needs to do is put together a convincing argument for them.

The arguments she's made are long and ridiculous now. Most of it hinges on Michigan and Florida, who'd been stripped of all their delegates for moving their primaries up before Feb 5th. Those states held their primaries, but no one campaigned in either state, and Obama & Edwards weren't on the ballot in Michigan. Hillary won both states by a wide margin, and insists those results stand, and be counted in their full strength. That won't happen, since it'd erase the penalty for those states, but we'll know more about those after the rules meeting on May 31st. Even if you added the delegates (or popular vote) that way, Obama still has the lead in pledged delegates, though it shrinks considerably.

She also makes electibility arguments about big states and swing states, and most recently about Obama's "problems with working class whites", with a lot of subtle and not so subtle tones of "white people won't vote for him".

She's earned a lot of ire for all of the above, though lately she seems to be coming to grips with the facts that she won't win, no matter what she says or does. Her only hope is that something totally destructive happens to Obama before the convention.

If "Presumptive Nominee" didn't have a strict definition of "the candidate who's mathematically locked up the nomination through absolute majority of delegates", we'd all be calling Obama the Presumptive Nominee, because he's 99% likely to be the nominee now.

The media is now pretty clear in saying: it's over.