Balta1701

QUOTE(iamshack @ Feb 6, 2008 -> 02:19 PM) Yeah, and then sometimes you are OJ Simpson. Then show me the indictments that even suggest that anyone who saw anything believes there was any wrongdoing in that case.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 6, 2008 -> 01:51 PM) ^^^ That may be one of the most heartfelt and honest posts I've read here. Damn Balta for getting in the way. Above Balta's. You know Tex, this post offends me somewhat. Through this thread, you've had people give a littany of reasons why they oppose Hillary Clinton. Some people have given personal reasons. Some people have given policy reasons. Some people have simply gone with their gut. Then, we get a person who turns around and says the same thing about Obama, for the same sort of reasons people are saying they don't like Clinton, and suddenly that post is one of the most heartfelt you've read here? I understand if you don't like Obama, grown adults can have plenty of policy disagreements. I understand if the person writing that post doesn't like him. But I really do not like the fact that for some reason you consider everyone else's posts in this thread less heartfelt than that one. I can't fathom that at all.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 6, 2008 -> 01:36 PM) Does anyone vote for a war and hope it will never end? John McCain.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 6, 2008 -> 01:20 PM) And I believe that is how most of America votes, representing their own personal interests, despite, at times, what is best for America. Yet the candidate should be about America's interests and possess none of their own. Something in there does not make sense to me. And with the world changing so rapidly, shouldn't we desire leaders who can change with it? I agree with you. But I think it's also totally appropriate to expect that a candidate can then be evaluated on which positions he/she chooses to change positions on and which positions he/she chooses to remain steady and focused on. For example, take the President. He's been focused like a laser on invading Iraq the whole time. In some cases, being unwilling to change positions on an issue could be a good thing, but on this one it's produced an utter disaster. For Hillary, she voted for the war and now wants to end the thing. The latter part, the switch, which quite a few Dems made, is the right one and they can get a little credit for that. But conversely, they were also unwilling to put their necks out on the line to stop the biggest foreign policy blunder in decades, or even to have their voice heard against it. So you're right, it's not a bad thing to change positions sometimes. But it's also not a bad thing to take a stand on something and turn out to be right on it.

QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Feb 6, 2008 -> 01:22 PM) You are assuming the US isnt the one cutting the cables.... You're assuming that if the U.S. was the one cutting the cables Bush wouldn't use that as an excuse to invade something anyway.

I have a litany of specific policy issues that drive me on this matter, and for most of them I'm going to harken back to the Clinton years and use them as an example, because I think that regardless of specific policy issues she puts forwards right now, aside from Health care, the behaviour of these same folks during 8 years in office is an ideal guidepost to how they'll behave for the next 4. First and foremost, let me get this out of the way...I would probably be happy to vote for Clinton over any of the Republicans if it were not for one thing...this damn war. If I could get it right, then I should be able to expect a Senator to get it right. On top of that, she won't even admit that her vote was the wrong one. That's why there's a chance I might well just leave my presidential ballot blank in the fall if it comes down to Hillary/McCain. Yes, Hillary would be vastly better than the warmonger, but I'm just not sure right now if I have the stomach to put another check mark down for another person who voted for this war. I voted for Dean in the CA primary in 04 despite the race being over and him having dropped out for exactly the same reason. I think this vote says as much about her foreign policy views as anything, and in that I give anyone who did not vote for the war a gigantic advantage, or anyone who voted for the war and repudiated that vote (Edwards) an advantage as well. On overall policy matters, I think the best way I can sum up my feelings about the way the Clintons governed is that they went along for the ride. The biggest things that they actually got out and led on were small tasks, or things that could have been done better. They got the economy running well thanks to the tech explosion, and decided that they weren't going to shake things up even in cases where things desperately needed to be shaken up, and in that they missed some of the greatest opportunities we've had to improve the future of this country. The things that come to my mind that they actually got out and led on were...NAFTA/associated other "Free trade" deals. The Kosovo/Bosnia issues. The Israel/Palestine issues. Welfare Reform, and Health care reform. All of which were, frankly, small matters compared to the other tasks facing this country. After their Health care debacle, which they tried but did a poor job of organizing, they really failed to get out in front on any domestic policy issue that could have shaped the future. They were handed the last great period of low energy prices in the nation's history, but did they use that time to prep for the future? Cut back on fossil fuel subsidies, pump money in to research for Solar/wind, get out and lead by encouraging the building of new wind farms, or cut a deal to raise the CAFE standards? No. So what happens? For 8 years our nation's average fuel economy drops as Detroit pumps out larger and larger SUV's, energy prices explode, and we're 5 years behind where we should be and getting our asses kicked by Toyota because we never bothered planning ahead. They're leading through a great period of job growth and expansion. So what do they do with this time? Do they take advantage of the pro-business environment to finally start working environmental and labor issues into trade pacts? Do they take steps to make sure that the companies making all this money are doing so ethically? Do they advocate free trade for anything other than manufacturing (i.e. do they dare going against Disney in the copyright wars?) No. And what happens? The bubble bursts, we find out that dozens of companies have been cheating and a lot of people lose their jobs and retirement because of it...and things just stagnate and don't seem to get better. They're leading in the period where science comes out and says that anthropogenic climate change is a major threat. They sign the Kyoto protocol, but then do they do anything hard like try to get it passed? No, leave that problem for Al, he'll deal with that when he's President. They're leading at a time of massively growing potential corruption in campaign contributions. Do they try to reform the system? No, they use whatever means they can to enhance their own fundraising. They're leading at a time of massive American military hegemony. What do they do with this power? During their watch, the alliance against Iraq cracks, hundreds of thousands of people die there because of sanctions, a corrupt oil-for-food program is born and unmonitored because people are getting rich, the inspectors are pulled out and never forced back in, and eventually Bush is able to say "Look there haven't been inspectors for 4 years, let's invade". During their watch the terrorist threat grows dramatically, and despite people screaming that something needs to be done before it's too late, only piecemeal steps are taken to deal with the growing threats. A few missiles are lobbed, but a firm plan is never created to go after the people who attacked us in 1998 at the embassies, the Middle East is allowed to dramatically move towards fanaticism, U.S. troops are kept in Saudi Arabia for seemingly no good reason, Pakistan destabilizes, and the Taliban takes over Afghanistan. While they did some good, i.e. stopping the Millennium threat, the 9/11 commission report has more than enough blame to go around. I guess my whole critique on the first Clinton administration is that they didn't really lead. They went along with the ride in a lot of cases, too timid to really make a dent in the issues that were on the horizon. Without their timidity on issue after issue, the disaster that the Bush years have been might have been lessened or even avoided. Does Hillary have good policy proposals? For example, on Health care, yes. But do I trust her to be a good leader? She's surrounded herself with many of the same pollsters and advisers as her husband did during his campaign. Her time in the Senate has shown those same tendencies for timidity in the face of any pushback (i.e. the Iraq war vote). And admittedly, given the comparison to the disaster that the last 7+ years have been, the Clinton Administration looks a lot better. But the seeds of this administration's failures were found in the failures of the Clinton years, and I don't see the same family that couldn't prevent this mess as being able to fix it.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 6, 2008 -> 10:29 AM) The only ones doing that are in her campaign. Even the national party won't let that happen. Honestly, it's still sort of possible...because of some wierd, complex convention related procedures. The way I've read it it, there are a couple of main committees at the convention, and it's shaping up that the committee that might have the power to do something about those delegates, the Rules committee or whatever the Hell it is called, might be filled with more clinton backers, while the other committees, i.e. the one that writes the platform, etc., might be stronger territory for Obama based on the current set of endorsements. So, in other words, it's actually possible at this point that Hillary's people will be able to maneuver at the convention to have the rules changed so that some portion of or all of those delegates could be seated and that could make the difference if things stay this close.

Meanwhile, jesus, those Tornadoes killed 52 people yesterday.

QUOTE(AssHatSoxFan @ Feb 6, 2008 -> 09:23 AM) it isn't over until the end of 2010 so by then the team will be in shambles like Miami is right now It's 2010? Hmmm, that's certainly interesting. That's the opt-out year for Wade, Lebron and Melo. When does Nash's contract end?

Well, I'm actually surprised to see the Suns taking on salary for once. What do people think the Suns will try to do with that $20 million expiring contract at the end of 2009?

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 6, 2008 -> 08:56 AM) On that note, for you Texans on the board... how do you think Obama and Clinton will play there? My wild guess is that Obama would do well in north and central texas, and the major cities, while Clinton will do better in the border areas south and west, and in eastern Texas. Does that sound about right? Obama will need to find some way to close the gap amongst the hispanic voters.

Missouri makes it 13/22 for Obama tonight if that holds up.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Feb 5, 2008 -> 08:51 PM) And there is that whole democratic thing of redistributing wealth by taxing the living crap out of people who they deem rich and redistributing that to the lower class. Thats a bit socialist don't you think. The problem is that there's no real definition out there for what exactly is "Socialist". One of the Ron Paul supporters might call you socialist for, I dunno, believing that we should have a publically funded military or something like that. Even the Wikipedia entry can't seem to agree on a specific definition. The reality is, you could pretty much put yourself anywhere on the spectrum between communism and fascism and you could call the person who supports a little bit more government intervention than you a socialist if you wanted to, and usually you do because that word is evil and anyone who supports it is equally evil.

I wonder if the big early lead in CA for Hillary might be an expression of the early voting.

QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Feb 5, 2008 -> 09:02 PM) Obama just jumped ahead in MO!!! Holy flurking schnit! Hopefully there's no secret little Hillary Bastion holding out for that last little push.

Reuters, other majors start to call Missouri for Clinton. By my count, there's probably about 70,000 votes still to add in, and Obama's down about 9000.

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Feb 5, 2008 -> 08:37 PM) Obama within 9,000 votes in Mizzou with 91%. Wow. I can see why they didn't project. Nyah nyah, beat you to it!

Missouri: Clinton 49 Obama 48 91 % reporting.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Feb 5, 2008 -> 08:32 PM) The talking heads on the station I was watching was saying that Clinton winning Mass was all we needed to know, with Mass gov, Kennedy AND Kerry endorsing and Hillarity still winning... so that's about all I have followed more or less. Let me guess, Chris Matthews? Hillary started off with about a 35-40 point lead in polling there a couple weeks ago. Those endorsements cut it in half. She had a huge built in lead in any media market hit by NYC.

QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Feb 5, 2008 -> 08:32 PM) Was anyone here predicting landslide victories for Obama? I think what we (I can say we, right?) were hoping for was for Obama to take 9 states, crush Hill in IL, and keep the delegate count a wash... I don't know what it will look like at the end of the night, but there appears to be a chance for Obama to be ahead (in delegates) at the end of the day. That's hardly what you've been posting in every thread. For weeks. In general, most people think that the map gets far easier for Obama after tonight. More southern states, more African American population, more caucuses. And right now it looks like he's got a big lead in $ available after his big January.

CNN's CA exit poll: How often do you win amongst both White and Black voters but still not win a state?

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Feb 5, 2008 -> 08:27 PM) Now I haven't read the last 8 pages of the thread, but for me, as I have just caught up, it's pretty much shaping up much like I thought. Hillarity is pulling down a lot more then what people thought, I think... or am I wrong? I'd say you're wrong. If anything it's what people expected. If Hillary wins CA, she'll have a narrow lead in delegates, but maybe even more narrow than expected.

The people crunching the numbers are suggesting that if Clinton Wins CA by a decent margin, the delegate total will be a wash.

AZ called for Clinton, although the gap has narrowed to 11 points or so.

QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Feb 5, 2008 -> 07:59 PM) This is the breakdown so far... Obama: UT (called by MSNBC), KS, ND, CO, ID, AL, DE, MN, CT, IL, GA Clinton: NJ, MA, NY, TN, AR, MO, OK, AZ (trending HRC) Up for grabs (no results so far): NM, CA, AK If you count AK for Obama that gives 12.