And if she wasn’t a woman, she’d have never been the VP.

urban elitist on September 20, 2012 at 9:48 PM

Your slip is showing again, madam. She never was VP, but in your mind.

A failure at virtually everything Oblamer has played nothing but privilege cards all his life. The race card, hidden grades card, obviously fake birth certificate card… The Affirmative-action card, the envy card, the eat-my-waffle card, the blame Bush card, the Let Sleazy Eric Holder Investigate Himself card, the go on suck-up pervert Letterman to avoid the Libya 9/11 consulate killings card etc.

Cling, my friend. And when Obama puts Romney out of the game with a legal but brutal downfield hit, console yourself with the idea that your lightweight candidate might have won if only the world weren’t so mean.

urban elitist on September 20, 2012 at 10:01 PM

Barry is out of steam, urban prole. He’s running on media hype and skewed polls in the desperate hope that the Big $$$ will swing back to him.

IT WON’T.

The whole strategy of Team Barry is to present the illusion he has the “Big Mo” and get people back on board fired up, contributing, and volunteering.

THEY’RE NOT.

In the end, starting in the final weeks, Romney is going to unleash a barrage of advertising that will drown out both Barry and the MSM’s message and *remind* voters just how bad we have it right now. It will be complete and total demoralization — the same demoralization I felt when Newt was utterly hammered in Iowa.

There will be nothing Barry can do to counter it and they know it. They don’t have the $$$, the people, or the support this time around.

This isn’t 2008 and Barry has a pretty dismal record he’s trying to run away from.

It’s over, urban prole. Your side lost and it’s time for you to start thinking about Clinton or Warner 2016 — oh, and the much, much more moderate DLC.

Erhhh… wut? Jack Ryan says hello? Obama would not have won, if it weren’t for sleazy Dem politics.

And 2006? He ran in 2004. Who the bleep checked this article? It’s not like this occurred in 1982.

strictnein on September 20, 2012 at 9:27 PM

It’s funny that Obama referred to Paul Ryan as “Jack Ryan” the other day.

Media coverage matters. He got nearly none, but worked Iowa hard and got to where he was on his own.

That argument would make more sense if Santorum had actually beat Romney…but apparently this oh so electable candidate could not beat the guy you are complaining about.

Terrye on September 20, 2012 at 10:01 PM

Romney also had a few advantages going for him, including:

1.) He’d previously ran
2.) He had much greater financial resources
3.) Establishment & conservative media support

Despite all of that, don’t forget that Santorum also gave Romney a 3-state drubbing in one night (MO, MN, and CO) after he was already supposed to be dead as a candidate since he hadn’t won a contest since IA (which in an d of itself he was originally declared to have lost).

Santorum also would not have said that he takes being called the grandfather of Obamacare as a compliment.

So sure, there’s plenty of reason to think that Santorum would be doing better as a candidate, particularly when you take a look at the second link I supplied of the “core four.” Of those 4, Romney currently only leads in 1, but the other 3 are essential to the 3-2-1 strategy. Right now, Romney’s at best tied in Florida, and is marginally-to-solidly losing both Virginia and Ohio.

That is not a narrative, it is a fact.

Terrye on September 20, 2012 at 9:56 PM

Cling, my friend. And when Obama puts Romney out of the game with a legal but brutal downfield hit, console yourself with the idea that your lightweight candidate might have won if only the world weren’t so mean.

Oh, and list the indictments for the bribes, etc, when you get a chance. Are they like Romeny taking $50K from contributors and promising to cut their taxes in return?