[peeb]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

He's almost a foot shorter. Apparently that's what is really important in elections.

Since the tv age, only two candidates who were shorter than their opponents have won.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

a black man

Obama is around 6'5"

You truly have a gift for exaggeration.

He's a beige man around 6' 1.5"

[ApeInTheShell]

I just wanted to point out most of the people trying to oust her are liberal men. They p[retend to be about social equality to deferentiate themselves from us racist/sexist republicans but really they are just a bunch of bullies. I did not support hillary but i would almost like to see her win because i'm tired of listening to Obama's "i didnt support the war and i dont have a clue how to get us out".
One day we're all going to laugh about this. ha ha ha

[peeb]

Originally Posted by ApeInTheShell 

I would almost like to see her win because i'm tired of listening to Obama's "i didnt support the war and i dont have a clue how to get us out".

I would have thought that was better than "i did support the war and i dont have a clue how to get us out"?

[Chongo]

no more Clinton polls
MyFox Dallas | 'Race Is Over': Polling Firm to Quit Asking Clinton Questions
let's hope this is not another
YouTube - Hillary's Downfall
I knew I'd seen this before.
YouTube - HD DVD losing the High-Def War vs Blu Ray

[Atomic Rooster]

Why won't the U.S. quit Iraq? It lost there long ago.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Atomic Rooster 

Why won't the U.S. quit Iraq? It lost there long ago.

Saddam, Uday, and Qusay would think not. The war was won, maintaining the peace is another question. But that is another thread.

[smacintush]

The south lost 150 years ago and they never got over it.

Maybe she can try the "He stole the election from me! WAH WAH WAH!" tactic." Or do they save that one only for the general election?

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

There is no way for anybody to accurately measure the effects of Operation Chaos, these arguments are based on gut feeling. My gut feeling tells me that not all 7% of Republicans that voted in these open primaries are a part of the so-called Limbaugh army, because most people are simply not this politically informed, let alone plugged into Limbaugh.

I agree that there is no way to definitively quantify it, but watch out for your "gut" feeling, because the numbers are conceivably there.

Limbaugh has 2 million daily and 20 million weekly listeners, never dropping less than 13.5 million on even his worst week. Expand that to include a portion of people who are friends of Limbaugh listeners, but who perhaps work during the day and can't tune in, and combine that with an understanding that a very high percentage of Limbaugh listeners vote regularly... yeah, the numbers are definitely there.

1) Historically speaking, a massively unpopular president residing over a recession doesn't do well for his/her party

What recession? Shouldn't you first confirm that a recession exists before spouting that we are in one.

2) The pendulum has swung back at least towards the center. Newt Gingrich wrote about this just recently and pointed to some special elections where a Democrat in Louisiana beat a Republican in a district that has been Republican for the past 33 years.

Did either Gingrich or you take into account Bobby Jindal's crushing romp over Democratic rivals as the young Republican won the Louisiana governorship? If you're going to point to a win of a special election for a congressional seat in Louisiana, why not also consider the recent Governor's election there? I'd think the state-wide race is a better indicator than a district.

3) The Republican party is fragmented now. A quarter of Republican voters in these primaries voted for somebody other than McCain. This suggests that he hasn't fully unified his party even after all this time.

Bush had similar numbers in primaries in both 2000 and 2004 after sealing up the nomination. So this means very little. Fact is, McCain supporters have no real reason to get to the polls, and the McCain campaign has no reason to spend money in there races.

However, McCain is surely not the preferred choice of conservatives, but he's a significantly better choice for conservatives that Hillary or Obama.

4) Obama has broken all fundraising records - more evidence of the pendulum shift.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. The primary process of the Democratic candidates could not be any more different than what went down on the Republican side. If the Republican race was as competitive this late in the game, I'm sure we would have seen much higher fundraising numbers by Republicans.

It is too early to say with any certainty that the race won't at least be close, but if I was Republican I wouldn't be boasting and asserting projections of a Republican victory.

Actually, I hear much more boasting from the Democrat side. Regardless, I agree.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

The Supers overturning the will of the people would be a HUGE disaster. I can't see any way to win if this happens.

Isn't that the point of superdelegates? If they went with the popular vote every time, there'd be no point to having superdelegates.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Isn't that the point of superdelegates? If they went with the popular vote every time, there'd be no point to having superdelegates.

I'm not saying they should go with the popular vote - in fact, the popular vote is virtually irrelevant in the primaries.

There are different theories as to why we have superdelegates, and some say that we shouldn't, but over all I believe that unless something goes horribly wrong where it is necessary that they interject as a form of check/balance, they should follow along with the victor according to pledged delegate totals.

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

There are different theories as to why we have superdelegates.

No, there aren't.
They were made in response to and to prevent another Jimmy Carter.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

No, there aren't.
They were made in response to and to prevent another Jimmy Carter.

Superdelegate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Superdelegate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

First off, what idiot takes wikipedia as accurate?
Nevermind, I answered my own question. I also don't see any of those alternate "theories" you spoke about.

Democratic leaders realized that the voters are morons after they picked Carter and that they needed to prevent the electorate from pushing another inexperienced but well-meaning dunce to the top of the ticket so they created super delegates. It is why the role was made for the 84 election cycle and not right after 72 with McGovern.

Its a sad fact that even Ted Kennedy would have made a better president than Carter.

[besson3c]

Obvious: interesting debate style you have - say something so uninviting of productive discourse that you shut down conversation...

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I believe that unless something goes horribly wrong where it is necessary that they interject as a form of check/balance…

And when the hell should that be?

"TOO…MUCH…DEMOCRACY…POPULAR VOTE…TOO…POWERFUL…

QUICK! CALL THE SUPERDELEGATES!" </John Stewart>

Do you guys really see a need for checks and balances on democracy?

[besson3c]

smacintush: do you not understand why the popular vote is virtually irrelevant in the primaries (Republican and Democrat)?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Superdelegate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Chongo]

gotta love/hate that Steve benson
YouTube - Hillary Clinton boasts of support from "white Americans"
Clinton Touts White Support - The Caucus - Politics - New York Times Blog

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

smacintush: do you not understand why the popular vote is virtually irrelevant in the primaries (Republican and Democrat)?

Sorry, gotta go to work…

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

smacintush: do you not understand why the popular vote is virtually irrelevant in the primaries (Republican and Democrat)?

even counting MI and FL, Billary is behind
ABC News: Politics Index

.
with MI&FL
(w/o MI&FL)
Clinton-1694 -16,452,341 (15,253,046)
Obama-1863 -16,556,313 (15,980,099)
.
Needed to win: 2,025

[besson3c]

Chongo: it doesn't even matter, those popular vote tallies are completely bogus and useless.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Chongo: it doesn't even matter, those popular vote tallies are completely bogus and useless.

Yes, they are useless(just as they will be in the general), but Hillary keeps pushing that as her plea to the supers.

[besson3c]

I think she is also trying to manipulate uninformed people who don't understand the delegate process.

I hope she knows when to quit, for her own good and for the good of the party...

[ink]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I hope she knows when to quit, for her own good and for the good of the party...

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Saddam, Uday, and Qusay would think not. The war was won, maintaining the peace is another question. But that is another thread.

For the record, the war has not been 'won'. Killing a few high profile targets is not the same as winning a war. I suppose you want to argue that the Vietnam war was 'won' as well?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by peeb 

For the record, the war has not been 'won'. Killing a few high profile targets is not the same as winning a war. I suppose you want to argue that the Vietnam war was 'won' as well?

The US was not allowed to win.

Did the US have troops in Hanoi? Was Uncle Ho taken prisoner and hanged?

[peeb]

Have the Iraqis stopped fighting the US?

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I hope she knows when to quit, for her own good and for the good of the party...

Obama is going pay Hillary $10+ million to stand down, but it will occur with conditions...

Hillary has to stay in the race through Kentucky, because Obama is going to lose there and it would be a complete embarrassment for him to lose to a candidate who dropped out. So she has to stay active. But once that's done, he'll buy her off under the guise of helping to retire her campaign debt and easing party friction.

All that "record-breaking" fundraising... If I were an Obama supporter, I'd be pissed. That money should be going to his general election campaign. Instead, it will maneuver its way into Clinton bank accounts.

I would not be the least bit surprised if Hillary's camp is overstating their debt. Then when she gets the buy-off, the Clintons will realize a nice little profit.

[BRussell]

Obama can't just give Hillary $10 million in campaign contributions. The max he can give her is $2000, just like everyone else.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Obama can't just give Hillary $10 million in campaign contributions. The max he can give her is $2000, just like everyone else.

Officially, yes... he can't just cut a check. But he can route money to her. He can appeal to his bundlers to help out. He can make donations to the Clinton Foundation, the Clinton Presidential Library, etc... and he can ask his uber-rich buddies to help out as well.

I just read this... Obama Wont Rule Out Easing Clinton Campaign Debt - The Caucus - Politics - New York Times Blog

Read the updated part... apparently some Obama supporters got a little upset at the mere mention of this, and rightfully so in my opinion. But don't be so naive. If Obama wants monies routed to Hillary, there are plenty of ways to do it.

[BRussell]

No one who gave money to Obama can have their money sent to Hillary. He can only help her by asking people to give her money.

[besson3c]

spacefreak: what Obama can do is ask his donors to donate to the Clinton campaign, but he himself can only donate $2000, period.

[red rocket]

It seems to me that Hillary is causing nothing but damage to her own party. If this happened in Britain, there’d probably be a party conference where they’d kick her out for bringing the party into disrepute. Selfish career bitch.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Have the Iraqis stopped fighting the US?

They are fighting Iranians, and that is what going into Iraq was really about.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

They are fighting Iranians, and that is what going into Iraq was really about.

Wait. What? Fighting Iran was the reason for fighting Iraq?

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

They are fighting Iranians, and that is what going into Iraq was really about.

Wow; just wow!

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Wait. What? Fighting Iran was the reason for fighting Iraq?

a staging area for the invasion of Iran. You don't read Neocon news?

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

Why is that?
The pledged delegates won't win it for either one of them alone. The fact that super delegates can switch any time they feel like it makes it possible for her pull ahead between now and the convention. People who talk about the "math" are idiots Obama could implode for all we know. One big **** up and his lead could disappear with those super delegates abandoning him.

Given that she's been working towards this goal for most of her life it would be stupid for her to just throw up her hands and walk away. Furthermore, when Obama loses in the fall it all becomes about 2012 and she doesn't want to leave the impression that she is a quitter.

You see that's it exactly. She's been working for this goal most of her life. This is a personal quest for power and nothing else...whereas Obama has attracted support and been swept into this position because people believe in his democratic and anti-corruption message.

[Chongo]

how quickly turn on you
YouTube - Hillary Clinton skewered by SNL as a Sore Loser

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

spacefreak: what Obama can do is ask his donors to donate to the Clinton campaign, but he himself can only donate $2000, period.

On the books, sure. I already stated as much. But there are plenty of ways for him to get payoffs to her.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

a staging area for the invasion of Iran. You don't read Neocon news?

I guess not. Silly non-neocon me woulda thunk that overthrowing Saddam Hussein would give Iran the most power they've had in modern history. Shows what I know.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

a staging area for the invasion of Iran. You don't read Neocon news?

I love it when people give up on discussion and just start posting random non sequiturs. It really adds to the quality of the discussion.

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

You see that's it exactly. She's been working for this goal most of her life. This is a personal quest for power and nothing else...whereas Obama has attracted support and been swept into this position because people believe in his democratic and anti-corruption message.

That's f'ing hilarious. You think anyone gets to this point in politics by accident? This has been Obama's personal quest for quite some time. He and Jack Ryan were running competing and parallel storylines for years on the southside with the same end goal. Its not as if Obama didn't cajole and position himself so that he could climb up the political ladder over the years.

Since you aren't from here I assume you have a different and incomplete story of how Obama rose up the ranks but he did it stepping on the backs of others and trading favors just like any other politician. In the end what you believe now is the result of him being a more talented orator than most of his peers. What you see is just as crafted and planned out as any other high ranking legislator.

That notion that Michelle and Barack have an arrogant sense of entitlement to the nomination isn't something that was crafted by their rivals. There is a very real ego component playing out with them that has driven them to this place. What you posted was quite naive.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by peeb 

I love it when people give up on discussion and just start posting random non sequiturs. It really adds to the quality of the discussion.

no need for discussion, it's all part of the grand necon cabal to enslave the world under Haliburton

[besson3c]

How many times have the goal posts pertaining to our reason for invading Iraq changed?

[peeb]

I thought it was for the sake of the children, no?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by peeb 

I thought it was for the sake of the children, no?

that's Hillary's mantra (fill in the blank) reform is for the children, and it's always a "crisis"

[besson3c]

If I have everything straight, we invaded Iraq for the following reasons, in sequence:

- Because Iraq's WMDs posed a threat to America
- To rid Iraq of Saddam Hussein, a dangerous dictator
- To spread democracy
- Iraq was/is a central part of the war on terrorism
- Some might say that we invaded Iraq for oil, although I don't know where that would fit in sequence
- To send a message to the rest of the world
- Staging ground for Iran

Why is it so difficult for Republicans to face the fact that even if you still think that the invasion was a good idea for whatever reason, that the war planning was complete and utter shit?

[peeb]

I thought it was because America was attacked on 9/11?