HuskyCaucasian

DAAAAMMMNNNN!!!!! The gloves are off. They are going full out at each other.

QUOTE(Shadows @ Jan 21, 2008 -> 05:08 PM) Anyways, its a movie. I never really understood why people waste time complaining about unrealistic events in movies. wait, you mean a giant monster is never going to attack NY? DANG IT!

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 21, 2008 -> 05:15 PM) It would be really helpful if Hillary could slip up tonight. Like just start swearing at the Jews or something like that. LOL! I think Obama will be strong tonight. He's coming out hard against Bill and he is in "friendly" territory, so he'll feel confident. PS: LOVE your Avatar. Looking forwards to the movie!

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Jan 21, 2008 -> 04:14 PM) Anyone plan to watch tonight's debate? I will only catch the 1st half hour. I have to work at church tonight and then go grocery shopping, but I am recording it and plan on watching it either late tonight or sometime tomorrow morning.

PS: Looks like Obama has started running ads in Illinois. Just saw one on MSNBC.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Jan 21, 2008 -> 11:18 AM) I turned it off when she came on. She has become the "nails on chalkboard" candidate for me. haha agreed. I only hard what was aired briefly on MSNBC. It wasn't an in your face comment, but she basically said never for get the strength of the woman..

uhoh... she TOTALLY played the gender card on the sly. She compliments Loretta Scott King. hmmm....

I am curious if Hillary will get booed at this rally in SC.

Can't confirm the legitimacy of this, but it looks like there may have been some Clinton strong arming going on in NV... http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/1.../644/790/439573

Can't confirm the legitimacy of this, but it looks like there may have been some Clinton strong arming going on in NV... http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/1.../644/790/439573

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 19, 2008 -> 10:58 PM) On B, the early articles were ignoring it, but they aren't now - MSNBC mentions it within the first graf of its story. Intersting. I just looked at that. hmm.. the probelm is all the headlines read that Hillary won and most of the time that is all that people read.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Jan 19, 2008 -> 09:40 PM) By the way, Obama really won Nevada. Despite Hillary winning more caucus delegates, because of the geographic location of the delegates that Obama and Hillary won, Obama is awarded 13, Clinton 12. A) want to see Hillary spin this. B ) I'd LOVE to see the major media outlets report this. Dont ignore it.

I am so torn on this. On one side they just need to move on. On the other side, I think they need to push this idea. I dont think they would make this alogation unless they KNEW but couldnt tell you. Kind of like how radio hosts will hint at something but cant come right out and tell you.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 19, 2008 -> 05:34 PM) Where are you getting that? Clinton had a chunk of them up front before Iowa, but since then, I see nothing but superdelegates going to Obama. At least, that's what is being reported. So where do you get this idea about them certainly going to Clinton? I agree. Obama is gaining superdelegate momentum.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 19, 2008 -> 05:34 PM) Clinton's still going to win Florida in that gap. the press will ignore FL like the ignored Michigan. FL is SO huge for the republicans they wont even notice the democratic side.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 19, 2008 -> 05:32 PM) No he didn't. The Clintons got 13, he got 12. His point is he has more delegates after Nevada, because N.H. was a tie, Michigan had none, and he had a lead from Iowa. But of course...that ignores Hillary's substantial and certain to grow lead in the Superdelegates. no no. He flat out said they got more in NV. I dont knwo where he got that from. But those were his exact words.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 19, 2008 -> 05:27 PM) Why? I keep hearing about this lead that Obama supposedly had to have going into Super Tuesday. Well, I don't see that as logical at all. National polls and polls in the major states, where Clinton's lead was in the 20's, are now single digits if they are a lead at all. Plus Obama will likely take SC by more than the 1 delegate that Clinton has made up in NV, which means going into Super Tuesday, Obama has more of the earned delegates than she does. And Superdelegates having been endorsing Obama recently. But the biggest thing to keep in mind is, Obama doesn't have to make it through Super Tuesday with a lead in delegates. He just needs to keep Clinton below 50%. If Clinton goes to Denver with less than 50% of the delegates, then I think its just a contest for Edwards' votes. And despite his lousy showing in NV, remember that was a caucus. He's going to keep plowing forward, get his 15% here and there, and push this thing to a brokered convention. Its definitely not over. I 100% agree. It's not about state by state victories. It's about delegates. Looks like Obama will have move going into Super Tuesday and might still be VERY close coming out of it if not in the lead. Remember, people have short memories. A victory in SC puts that in people's minds on Feb 5th.

Interesting point just brought up by the Obama campaign.... Obama got more delegates in NV. AND, SC has almost twice as many delegates as NV. So, an Obama win there actually puts him farther ahead of Clinton. It's all about the delegates. I think it's far from over. Yes Hillary has some momentum, bu tit is far from over.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 19, 2008 -> 05:23 PM) Holy crap, you're right. Why is the Dem turnout so low? Only 10,000 people?! That can't be right. I THINK it's votes vs delegates.

QUOTE(Reddy @ Jan 19, 2008 -> 04:29 PM) no joke. it's scary. Balta i'm with you on the political dynasty thing - i hate it as well, but at this point i'm worried about now. Forget the past, right NOW a Clinton presidency would be better than a Romney presidency. If Romney, or any GOP wins, i think the future of the Democratic party is at risk. As it stands the GOP has had a stranglehold over this country for much of the last 50 years. The 2 party system's bad enough, but do we really want a 1 party system? I am voting for Iraq, the economy, and a reforming of Washington. I dont buy that Hillary will change washington, but I like her views on the economy and Iraq. Once we are "over" the whole Iraq thing, we can move on to more pressing issues. I think this recession we are in or starting into was largely ignored because so many people are focused on Iraq. OH! And Clinton will reinstate that whole pesky Constitution thing the Bushes have been pissing all over.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 19, 2008 -> 04:27 PM) If I stayed here during the abject disaster that was the Bush years, which may well have totally ruined the future of this country, I'll tough it out for a few more years of Clinton. Look at the bright side. A person throwing darts at a dartboard as a decision making tool could do a better job of running the country than GW. It is, I'm fairly certain, theoretically impossible for her to be worse. Oh i agree. If it came down to Clinton vs any of the republicans, I'd still probably vote for her. I really don't like her personality, but her and Barack and Edwards really are fairly similar in policy as best as I know. Plus, with her in the white house and Barack working the congress, I see POTENTIAL for a lot of change.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 19, 2008 -> 04:13 PM) And the fact that I really hate the idea of political dynasties in this country really, really doesn't help. Just wait until Jeb Bush runs in 2012 or 2016

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 19, 2008 -> 04:18 PM) I said when I saw the "comeback" in NH that the race was done. And this just solidifies it. Hillarity is our next president. And I just became a Canadian.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 19, 2008 -> 04:02 PM) I hope Bloomberg runs. I am so curious about him. I'd love to see what his stance is.

Dont call this over just yet. There is still a LOT to go. SC will go Obama. Then Super Tuesday is going to be fun