At 10:55 PM Tuesday 11/4/2008, Charlie Bell wrote:
>On 05/11/2008, at 3:12 PM, Rceeberger wrote:
>
> >
> > On 11/4/2008 8:41:25 PM, Nick Arnett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> >> With Pennsylvania and Ohio going for Obama, it seems impossible for
> >> him
> >> to
> >> lose.
> >>
> >> Whew. I think t
At 09:26 PM Tuesday 11/4/2008, Rceeberger wrote:
>On 11/4/2008 8:41:25 PM, Nick Arnett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > With Pennsylvania and Ohio going for Obama, it seems impossible for him
> > to
> > lose.
> >
> > Whew. I think the very worst thing that could have happened would have
> > been
>
On 05/11/2008, at 3:12 PM, Rceeberger wrote:
>
> On 11/4/2008 8:41:25 PM, Nick Arnett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>> With Pennsylvania and Ohio going for Obama, it seems impossible for
>> him
>> to
>> lose.
>>
>> Whew. I think the very worst thing that could have happened would
>> have
>> bee
On 11/4/2008 8:41:25 PM, Nick Arnett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> With Pennsylvania and Ohio going for Obama, it seems impossible for him
> to
> lose.
>
> Whew. I think the very worst thing that could have happened would have
> been
> an extremely close election, allegations of fraud and so forth
On 11/4/2008 8:41:25 PM, Nick Arnett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> With Pennsylvania and Ohio going for Obama, it seems impossible for him
> to
> lose.
>
> Whew. I think the very worst thing that could have happened would have
> been
> an extremely close election, allegations of fraud and so fort
With Pennsylvania and Ohio going for Obama, it seems impossible for him to
lose.
Whew. I think the very worst thing that could have happened would have been
an extremely close election, allegations of fraud and so forth, which would
have been a bigger crisis than the last time it happened.
Nick
