NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 6, 2008 -> 06:09 PM) Hillary may be the most enigmatic politician of our time. She has the fiercest supporters and the most rabid detractors. YAS and Kap get so wound up they just scream UGHHHH and run away, others defend her every move. I'm trying to think of anyone else that has drawn that sort of reactions. Great idea for a thread, but in the end, there may not be an answer to either question, why you love or hate her. Perhaps it is because we truly do not know who she is. The media and word of mouth have created an image that is both real and fake. Real in the sense it is what you and I believe her to be, and false because it is based on what we see and hear from media. I'd say this thread did pretty well. I think that, among the snark, there were a number of very well thought-out points made (positive and negative) about her candidacy.

QUOTE(iamshack @ Feb 6, 2008 -> 05:13 PM) You're half-right and half-wrong. While many laws are designed to protect the minority, the idea to protect them must still always be agreed upon by some majority... "some majority"? Sure. It was some majority of the framers. So I guess that qualifies. But laws protecting the rights of individuals or groups of individuals, by their nature, do not always get written or changed because of a majority supporting it. Sometimes, government actors (President, Congress, SCOTUS) step in to do the right thing when it needs to be done against the majority.

QUOTE(Misplaced_Sox @ Feb 6, 2008 -> 05:10 PM) Tried that, done that. Kenneth Star and company went through every paper, every note, every person they knew, family and neighbors and found no wrong doing. Trust me they wanted to find it, thats why Ken Star was hired, it was his life mission, when they could not peg jack they went for the sex story. Shows how desperate they were. We have not even given the slightest interrogation into Bush and his leaked CIA informant, or his suprise firing of 7 DA's over voter fraud, or his mass deletion of emails, over his improper use of torture, or his destruction of the bill of rights in terms of search and seizure and rights of habeas corpus. But yes lets keep talking about Whitewater in which they were exonerated from. Do you see the mentality that the media has you thinking. Dont look over there, look over here. Well, look in the mirror - this is a thread about Clinton's positives and negatives, and you are trying to deflect blame for Whitewater by pointing at GWB.

QUOTE(Misplaced_Sox @ Feb 6, 2008 -> 05:05 PM) It doesnt matter what you think, they dont make laws based on what you and your friends thinks, only the majority of the populace. Go back and google the opinion polls on Iraq after 9/11 into the the Iraq war. You will be surprised. I was also against it, but how is 20% a mandate against war when Vietnam had more detractors. Your premise about laws only based on the majority is incorrect. Look at the Constitution. In fact, most protections of individuals as noted in the Constitution and the law, if that is their purpose, are specifically designed to protect the minority. This is for the simple fact that the majority doesn't require protecting in those scenarios. And a case to go to war should only involve the will of the popular opinion to a limited extent anyway.

QUOTE(Misplaced_Sox @ Feb 6, 2008 -> 04:43 PM) But look around. You may just see the man behind the curtain. Thanks for the well thought-out post. Most of it was about Obama, though. The Clinton stuff was very interesting. You are, by the way, the ONLY person I have ever heard say that Obama is the "establishment" candidate in this race, over Clinton. Literally everyone else I've talked with, including Hillary supporters, seem to think the opposite. And by the way, I do agree with you about one important positive from Clinton - she has indeed been fighting a long time for better health care for Americans. I don't really agree with her plans on how to get there, but, the effort is worth fighting for - and she has indeed been doing that.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Feb 6, 2008 -> 04:23 PM) I guess this is a perfect example of why she is considered polarizing. She brings out a lot of mean spirit from people including me. I'll stay out of this thread going forward. I normally would have left your second post in, but, not in here. I want to try to actually have a substantive thread on this. I guess that makes me a communist, but oh well.

QUOTE(Reddy @ Feb 6, 2008 -> 03:57 PM) are you kidding she at least MENTIONED issues unlike Obama. good lord man, was there a single piece of substance in that 25 minute speech of his? Yes, there was. But, as I said earlier, none of those speeches (victory dances) should be seen as being policy statements.

By the way, I deleted a post from here, trying to keep it civil, as requested. But I accidentally also deleted the one before it - sorry Big Sqwert. Here is BS's post that I DIDN'T intend to delete... I'd rather stay home then pick between two pieces of crap. And neither will get a penny from me in donations.

QUOTE(shipps @ Feb 6, 2008 -> 03:29 PM) By the way,GERD and Acid reflux can feel like a heart attack. Yes. Yes they can.

QUOTE(Reddy @ Feb 6, 2008 -> 03:51 PM) Hillary's had substance last night. I actually heard three speeches last night, on the cab ride from the airport... Clinton, Obama, McCain. The most substantive was McCain, the least so was Clinton, in my view.

In response to Tex, about ruthlessness... There is a very important difference between being tough and being ruthless. Clinton is ruthless, meaning she is not only aggresive and hard to her enemies, she is that way towards ANYONE who gets in the way of what she wants. That is NOT something I applaud in any candidate, male or female. I want tough, but diplomatic and open-minded. Someone who has the country's best interests in mind - not their own. I think Clinton falls down in that regard.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Feb 6, 2008 -> 03:33 PM) I didn't necessarily dislike her before this election cycle but the more I see and hear from Hillary and her campaign the more I cannot tolerate the thought of her being in the White House. These are the words and thoughts that pop into my mind when I think of the Clinton campaign: Ruthless Phony Calculating Polarizing Carpetbagger Win at all cost Oligarchy Status Quo Lobbyists Misrepresent Smear Rove-like If she becomes the nominee I will not vote for her in the general and I will not donate or volunteer for the Dems the rest of the year. Some of those are specific concerns, others are just adjectives. Could you be more specific? I'll give a few of my specific concerns... --Echoing what others have said on this, I don't think that she executes her principles in policy. Now obviously, all politicians need to compromise, or they are ineffective. But there is a subtle, yet important difference between compromising on policy and compromising on principles. Similar to Edwards or Romney, Clinton seems to vote where the wind blows her. We're not just talking one issue where she has changed her mind either - its a repetitive issue with her. --Also brought up earlier, the war - she voted for it. The NIE and other intel out there at the time was available to her, though there were other pieces of data that Congress was kept from. In any case, I believe she made a very poor judgement call. And I say poor, not because she was wrong, but for WHY she was wrong. She allowed the moment to sweep her up into things (her and others), and she made the most critical decision a lawmaker can make (going to war) without the appropriate due diligence and without taking a principled position. I cannot abide voting for someone who did that. --While I realize she is not Bill Clinton, she has decided to use Bill to campaign for her, and has essentially made this a Clinton family event. And that just bothers me - a lot. Its an end run on the Constitution, and I know it sounds petty, but it really does bring an oligarchical feel to the whole process. Its not American. --Her whole attitude is so very divisive. I'm not sure if its her trying to be tough or what, but, its clear to me she is incapable of working across the aisle. And right now we need that more than ever - we need to get back to the center, where most of the country sits. You can look at Obama, Richardson, Biden, Dodd, McCain, Romney, Edwards, and a bunch of other candidates in both parties, and see some of that theme in what they tried to bring to the table. Hillary Clinton's history is fraught with just the opposite - her work during her husband's Presidency caused head-butting, and its gotten worse since. --Having read all the various mud about finances, I see a whole lot of very shifty stuff going on for the Clintons, Hillary in particular. Far more than I do other candidates. And that bothers me too. I want to add something else here, about positivism versus negativism. I personally believe that the positivist message from Obama, and for that matter from Huckabee on the other side of the aisle, is important today. I think that having a President who can lead dynamically has value, and that includes their public appearances. Those appearances do far in the public. And I prefer positive to negative, after having 8 years of fearmongering in the White House. Obama, Huckabee, and to an extent McCain, and even Edwards, provide that. Clinton, Romney, and previously Thompson and Giuliani had much more negative attitudes in their speeches and appearances and at the debates. I think that matters.

New Mexico is still up in the air. In classic New Mexican style, it seems they are having trouble counting some of the ballots due to a variety of poorly managed precincts... --In Rio Arriba county, the results for three sites are missing - and they cannot find the county election chair --In Bernalillo, one precinct's ballots were having to be deciphered because they can't tell what congressional district the ballots are for (which begs the question, why is it one precinct?) --And then there are over 16,000 provisional ballots that need to be verified for eligibility, then hand-counted. So, NM is still in the air. Although in this case, the delegates will basically just be split anyway.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Feb 6, 2008 -> 02:37 PM) I watch the man talk and listen to what he says. So far, I haven't heard much of substance. In his victory speeches, of course he doesn't - neither does anyone else. Those giant rallies are not for policy-making. Now, if you watch the debates, or smaller level interviews and town hall meetings, the candidates bring up specifics. All of them do. And if you look at the policy statements from the candidates, which are available on all their websites, you can see where they stand. I really don't see any of the candidates talking material stuff any more or less than the others. They all just do it under specific circumstances.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 6, 2008 -> 02:42 PM) If they really pull the rug out from Obama at the convention, they are going to open themselves up to a world of hurt. After all of the nasty accusations after the 2000 and 2004 elections, they would look like HUGE hypocrates if they pulled a stunt like that. Yeah, I agree - they won't do it for those reasons. The way I see it going down... If someone has a pretty big lead, like having enough pledged delegates to be very close to the total needed for nomination, then the other candidate will concede, THEN they will seat those states, and the convention will happen and everyone is happy-happy. If they go to Denver neck-and-neck, then the Supers will end up deciding the nomination... but the FL and MI delegates will suddenly appear at that point, being "secretly" invited to begin with, to seat with whomever the Supers choose. Either way, the Dems will not allow MI and FL to back-door the election, but they will also try to save face with them a little bit.

QUOTE(Hatchetman @ Feb 6, 2008 -> 01:54 PM) I seriously would not trust the Sox to pick a replacement for Hawk. Remember Gary Thorne doing our games? I actually liked Gary Thorne.

QUOTE(103 mph screwball @ Feb 6, 2008 -> 01:51 PM) When I refer to Obama as JFK like, I don't really mean by youth or good looks. It is the way he has energized the young people I work with who have never even mentioned politics. JFK's "Ask not what your country can do..." has a similar feeling as Obama's "We are the change that we seek". These twenty somethings are excited to the point of emotional. He makes them care, have hope, want to volunteer to do something, anything to fix this country. It really is remarkable. They are desperate because their future looks grim without change. I have children and I agree that Obama is the best shot at getting Republican's and Democrats working together to fix our problems. More of the same does not appeal to me. Actually, I'd suggest he's a lot more like Bobby Kennedy than Jack. If you haven't seen it, watch the movie Bobby, which came out a couple years ago (before Obama had his currently high profile). Some of the parallels, other than having a Presidential big brother, are astounding. There are parts of the movie that could easily be about Obama. Some of the speeches are eerily similar.

I don't like Hillary Clinton. I think she's a poor choice for President, and personally, she gives me the creeps. There are a lot of folks in here who dig into her, a lot - myself included. From both parties, mind you. Here is what I'd like to do in this thread... let's hear the specific, material reasons why people favor or don't favor her run for President. AND HERE IS THE KEY PART: Let's try to do this like you were trying to win over a room full of intelligent, reasoned people who have no tolerance for snark, B.S., crass or lude jokes, sexism or other assorted crap (and who inexplicably, know nothing of Hillary Clinton). Try to make your argument as substantive as possible, and win over your currently non-affiliated audience. And by the way, you can list both positives AND negatives, if you want to be more complete. I will do that, in a little while. Let's see if we can actually do this, without the thread resorting to profanity-laced invectives...

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 6, 2008 -> 01:33 PM) 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. I'm sure they might try. But everyone keeps forgetting, the national party and all those high end superdelegates WANT TO WIN IN NOVEMBER. All else is secondary. If this thing goes to convention without a clear leader, and they suddenly validate those states in some way, there will be a s***storm within the party that will be like nothing that has happened in our lifetimes. They will end up looking like asses, they will lose a lot of voters, they will see Obama and his supporters walk away from the nominee, and basically they'd be blowing the November election for themselves. There is a near-zero chance of them committing political suicide that way. All these conspiracy theories... just remember, these are realists running the party - they will do what is in their own best interests. And starting up that kind of mess, potentially blowing the November election, all for a candidate less likely to win in November even under the best circumstances? No way. They can't be that dumb.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Feb 6, 2008 -> 01:28 PM) Are they counting Michigan and Florida as "in" for Hillarity? The only ones doing that are in her campaign. Even the national party won't let that happen.

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Feb 6, 2008 -> 12:36 PM) Obama camp, NBC news claiming Obama ended up with more delegates last night: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8358.html I would love to see that spreadsheet. anyone have it?

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Feb 6, 2008 -> 12:36 PM) Obama camp, NBC news claiming Obama ended up with more delegates last night: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8358.html Weird. There is some spinning going on there of course, but, the delegates are the delegates - within a couple days we'll know for sure. And if this is right, that Obama actually won SDOGPEIT, that would be huge for him. The article is also right, though, that they are basically in a virtual tie.

Eh, its a primary, and no one knows who comes in and will vote for whom, so I fail to see how bias enters into it. Sounds more like laziness and stupidity to me. By the way the Illinois ballots were just as irritating as can be. Draw a line to connect two arrows with an ink pen? WTF?

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Feb 6, 2008 -> 12:00 PM) East Texas will probably go Obama. Austin will go Hillarity, although close. Obama will do well in Houston and Dallas/Fort Worth. Border areas and West Texas overwhelmingly Hillarity. In all actuality, I would love to try to get in on one of these dealies when they come here. Maybe I will have an epiphany of epic proportions and decide that Hillarity isn't so bad after all... In a nutshell, I think Hillarity wins 52-48 (assuming 100% calc), or to say by 4 pts. If Obama wins the major metros as you say, and east texas, I think that means he'll take the state. I'll disgree with one part of your assessment - Austin. The polls in all these primaries have shown two trends that haven't changed - the more education a voter has, and the younger they are, the more likely they are to vote for Obama. That to me says Austin goes to Obama. I think you are right though about border areas, west texas, and also north texas going to Clinton. And Obama taking the big central cities, and now that you mention it, east texas as well.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Feb 6, 2008 -> 11:58 AM) They are too. Anyone who wants to basically take the profits (and my earnings) and redsitribute it for "social" reasons are by definition "socialist" (not "capitalist"). We have to be "socialist" on roads, education... ... ... and then according to Hillarity and Obama, illegal immigrants welfare social security (gov't owes me retirement) health care taking oil profits and subsidizing gov't activities Saying that because the Democrats have a few areas with policies CLOSER to socialism than the GOP... is like saying that the Bush administration are like Nazis because of their desires for warrantless surveillance and other socially-controlling legislation. They both miss the mark absurdly.