Rex Kickass

Don't write off Huck yet. The conservatives now have one candidate to work with instead of two.

QUOTE(Soxy @ Feb 7, 2008 -> 12:48 PM) With the delicious cheese or without the cheese? Because I really like good cheese. I think that means California champagne will actually be good.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Feb 7, 2008 -> 12:48 PM) So now Romney is going to give his delegates to the guy who he thinks has been a spoiler, ruining his presidential run? that would be kinda funny. You don't think Romney wouldn't shift his 250 delegates or so in the direction of a guaranteed VEEP nod?

Big difference. Romney is suspending. Which means he keeps his delegates. Romney could suddenly prove very valuable to a Mike Huckabee trying to become the nominee. If Huckabee can extend his reach somewhat, we could have a kingmaker.

The primary may be for local/state/senate/congressional candidates only.

As it should be.

QUOTE(Misplaced_Sox @ Feb 6, 2008 -> 11:18 PM) You are missing the point. I don't know why this is so difficult to understand. Of the 100% of resident of both Cabrini and the Robert Taylor homes that signed off on Daly's plan to turn the projects area into mixed income for both a new living standard only 15% are living in those mixed use homes. The majority live no where near Chicago, their jobs lost, relocated against their will when they have SIGNED contracts to right of property. How is that acceptable? Are we going back to Old father Daly's plan to ride around in fire trucks spraying down the homeless to get them to leave now. You and iamshack are speaking as if they dont have an entitlement to their homes because they are section 8 funded, or on welfare. That is a pretty piss poor mentality to have. So I dont care remove me. Because if you obviously cannot stand or understand the plight of the poor and only think of your numbers or the tax write off it is then maybe we are better off silencing every poor person out there. He did make an ignorant assumption. Whether you see it is not the case, because I am offended. Because that was my life, filled of broken promises. I am done with this thread. If you want to talk to some people who Obama did help to make a difference in their lives, talk to the residents of Altgeld Gardens. When he was organizing in the 1980s, they were removing asbestos from the manager's office. Yet none of the apartments would be affected. The city wouldn't even reveal if Asbestos was used in these apartments, and Obama helped the residents of that community get the answers they needed, and get that health hazard removed from their homes. I think it's great that you see something wonderful in Hillary Clinton that deserves support, but be careful. For every skeleton in Obama's closet, there's one in Clinton's. It's very easy to make the argument that Clinton who supposedly spent decades "fighting for poverty" also sat on the board of Wal-Mart, a company whose strategy is very much about prolonging and continuing poverty in the towns where they operate. What I've really grown to hate about politics lately is that it isn't enough to be for someone or something anymore. It seems like you have to be so against the other person that hate has to be a factor. Personally, I won't stand for that this year. There are good qualities to all three major candidates remaining. Although I can not support the GOP candidate based on policy differences, I do have respect for John McCain. Hillary is not my candidate either, especially since her push for equal rights doesn't generally include all people. Obama has become my candidate because the horse I was riding went lame somewhere in New Hampshire. Although he may have several failings, I feel that what he represents is important for the country to have. It's about returning this country to a political system that isn't entirely slash and burn. At this point, he may be the only candidate able to do just that.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 6, 2008 -> 12:58 PM) I think the point he is making deals with choice. Its one thing to choose to help people, its another to be forced. Taking valuemaking decesions away from people and making them government based gets into murky territory. Well, the valuemaking plan everyone points to is health care. And Obama's plan is voluntary. Purely. So what's socialist about that again?

It's that kind of attitude that got us George W. Bush in 2000. People said the same thing about Gore/Bush in 2000. And I think we would have seen a radically different 8 years had we voted the other way around. But the truth is, there isn't a huge difference in policy goals between Obama and Clinton. How they get there might be somewhat different. If you don't care about the issues that your candidate does, fine. If you do, saying you won't vote your party because you don't like Hillary is doing a disservice to yourself. The choice would be between someone who offers you almost nothing and someone who offers you 75% of something. The only thing John McCain will change is whether we'll torture people that we hold in captivity. Although that's a great thing, virtually every legitimate candidate in this race will do the same thing. If your vote is about more than that issue, I guess it would matter to vote for the "piece of s***."

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? Actually, yes there was. I think the striking thing about Obama is that he's wonkish when he has to be, but that doesn't mean he will be on the stump.

I personally disagree with Clinton on health care policy. Any government funded insurance program can be managed well, but must be voluntary to have a shot at being created, let alone succeeding. I disagree with Clinton regarding her vote on Iraq in 2002, but for anyone wanting her to admit that it was a mistake and withholding a vote for that reason is disingenuous. There was plenty of evidence available to her to indicate that the threat was real. A lot of people want to think that public officials should be distrustful of one another. That's bothersome to me, and evident of the kind of partisanship that's made me take a bit of a backseat when it comes to politics lately. Just because George Bush doesn't support the same things that I do doesn't mean that he's necessarily acting in bad faith. So when he asked for this legislation in summer of 2002 and said that his intent was not to use this as a blank check for invasion, it is in the best interest of this country to take a President at his word, unless he proves them otherwise. In this case, given the track record that Bush had in 2002, there was no track record to prove otherwise. There was also plenty of evidence to indicate that the President may have actually been right too. Although I disagree with her vote, and my initial intuition was along the lines borne out, I feel that this was not necessarily a mistake on behalf of Clinton to act in this manner. I, however, disagree with her initial stance on Iran. I feel that she will not adequately provide equal rights for all Americans and would sell out the gay community in a heartbeat if it improved her chances. Unfortunately, so would every other candidate running. Hillary Clinton was not my candidate last night. If she wins the nomination, she will be my candidate in November. The truth is, in the general election, we are voting for a party to guide our country over the next four years. When it comes to civil rights, the Democrats have my back more. When it comes to reproductive rights issues, the Democrats agree with me. When it comes to the idea of protecting the weakest among us, the Democrats agree with me. When it comes to the issue of International Relations, the Democrats are more in line with my views. Hillary Clinton is a Democrat, warts and all. And I will support her in November, if she becomes the nominee. People say that she will change her opinion on a dime if it means getting elected. Although some positions have changed, maybe we should look at John McCain and the soul he'll have to sell for a shot at getting the evangelical base out to vote in November.

Based on Primary results, Obama would score a mid 30's.

Nah, Clinton's good for at least 20% in Utah.

Weren't you the one telling me to stay on my side of the street, Tex? :-P

Another Wow moment. Clinton's California vote total is approximately the same as the total turnout for the GOP in California. Obama's California vote total is almost the same as McCain and Romney's combined vote total.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 6, 2008 -> 09:53 AM) So when is the last time we have had four major candidates left in the game at this stage of an election cycle? Good question. But the truth is we only have three major candidates left. However, on the bright side, UT loves Romney. Romney - 90% McCain - 5% Wow.

Edwards staying in would have handed Clinton the nomination, just like having a three person race gave the nod to McCain for the GOP.

The next six contests are said to favor Obama. CNN let the cat out of the bag and said Clinton is wanting to debate weekly because money is becoming in short supply for them.

Fox News projects Clinton and McCain winners in Cali.

AZ for Clinton according to CNN. By the way, here's the underreported story of the night. McCain didn't lock up the nomination tonight either, and Huckabee suddenly picks up about 1/3 of the contests of the night making him a force.

If Obama keeps Cali reasonably close, its a great night for him.

I'm guessing that's exactly what it is. And I think the early voting is enough.

QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Feb 5, 2008 -> 11:46 PM) The American public doesn't vote on issues. They vote on fear, and the candidate they'd rather have over to dinner. I hear Edwards chews with his mouth open. My friends who worked on Kerry/Edwards have great John Edwards stories.

QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Feb 5, 2008 -> 11:46 PM) Add UT. he is pulling away there. That's one of the eleven.

Rex Kickass projects Clinton wins California by 6 points.