PDA

View Full Version : Hillary got trounced in the Palmetto State



Okla-homey
1/26/2008, 11:39 PM
In a donk primary where 67% of the votes cast were by women, BHO whipped HRC like a red-headed stepchild.

Veddy interesting outcome for the former heir-apparent to the '08 White House. If she's gonna "keep Hope alive," she's gonna have to come out swinging and take some direct shots at the guy. She can't continue to let WJC do her fighting for her. Fighting by proxy is not "presidential" behavior IMHO.

Problem for HRC though, when she takes the shots herself, she just comes off looking like a shrew and a witch and creeps everybody out.

and yes, I freely cop to the schadenfruede.;)

Tailwind
1/26/2008, 11:44 PM
Yay!

Whet
1/26/2008, 11:51 PM
well, we can expect to see the Clintonista rumor factory working overtime to put out some more wild stories about their opponents!

SicEmBaylor
1/26/2008, 11:54 PM
I'm more and more an Obama fan every day.

For the sake of the country, I sure as hell hope he gets the nomination.

OzarkSooner
1/26/2008, 11:55 PM
She is the Geraldine Ferraro of this election...

except she's running for the HEAD job and not the assistant.

SCOUT
1/27/2008, 03:13 AM
I wonder where she would be if she were...well, a he.

What I mean is, if it were a man with her political experience and viewpoints, would they even be in the running?

SicEmBaylor
1/27/2008, 03:24 AM
I wonder where she would be if she were...well, a he.

What I mean is, if it were a man with her political experience and viewpoints, would they even be in the running?

I think his name would be Bill.

OUbones
1/27/2008, 04:01 AM
Maybe if 50% of the voters in all the states were Africian American the country could get it right. And no I'm not an Obama or Clinton supporter, but trying to read anything into what happens with the democratic ticket by what happens in a state that's probably going to be red is a waste of time.

SanJoaquinSooner
1/27/2008, 08:03 AM
but trying to read anything into what happens with the democratic ticket by what happens in a state that's probably going to be red is a waste of time.

You got that correct. Just ask President Jesse Jackson (a two-time So. Carolina primary winner).

So Carolina means very little for the donks.

With next weeks Mega-Tuesday primaries, there may be some important results.

Out of 20-something primaries/caucases, I just can't see Obama winning more than 4 or 5 states. Illinois, a couple of southern states, maybe one or two more.

Okla-homey
1/27/2008, 08:14 AM
Maybe if 50% of the voters in all the states were Africian American the country could get it right. And no I'm not an Obama or Clinton supporter, but trying to read anything into what happens with the democratic ticket by what happens in a state that's probably going to be red is a waste of time.

A few things are becoming apparent. It's pretty clear, among SC black voters, race trumps gender. BHO did as well among black men as he did among black women. In contrast, gender seems to have had a larger pull on white SC voters. The white female vote seems to have split fairly evenly between BHO and HRC. White men in SC went with their homeboy Edwards.

Jerk
1/27/2008, 10:25 AM
White men in SC went with their homeboy Edwards.
He got the gay vote. NTTAWWT.

I think it funny that the ambulance chaser couldn't do better in his home state.

Octavian
1/27/2008, 01:27 PM
All of her signs should read CLINTON


not HILLARY

StoopTroup
1/27/2008, 01:54 PM
She got schooled.

Okla-homey
1/27/2008, 02:31 PM
He got the gay vote. NTTAWWT.

I think it funny that the ambulance chaser couldn't do better in his home state.

He was born in SC, but I think he spent most his childhood in NC.

BTW, I think his biggest win was a birth injury case involving a horribly retarded and disfigured child. Cases involving little kids usually result in much bigger jury awards than car wrecks in which a grown-up gets all jacked-up.

Chuck Bao
1/27/2008, 04:22 PM
That's good to know, Jerk.

So, the gays are firmly backing Edwards.

But, what about the pron stars? Who are they into? I think I'll vote along the same lines as that O'Toole dude. (Has there ever been a better pron name than O'Toole?)

SicEmBaylor
1/27/2008, 04:25 PM
That's good to know, Jerk.

So, the gays are firmly backing Edwards.

But, what about the pron stars? Who are they into? I think I'll vote along the same lines as that O'Toole dude. (Has there ever been a better pron name than O'Toole?)

From what I've gathered from opensecrets.org, a great majority of the listed porn stars have donated to the NRSC and Rudy.

Oddly enough....they seem to favor Republicans.

r5TPsooner
1/27/2008, 04:38 PM
She is the Geraldine Ferraro of this election...

except she's running for the HEAD job and not the assistant.


She doesn't give head jobs, just ask Monica.

SanJoaquinSooner
1/27/2008, 04:40 PM
But, what about the pron stars?

Not sure, but the Nevada prostitutes are behind libertarian Ron Paul.

Chuck Bao
1/27/2008, 04:47 PM
Okay, so I've narrowed it down to Rudy in drag or Ru Paul.

It looks like I'm voting Republican this time.

SicEmBaylor
1/27/2008, 05:19 PM
Okay, so I've narrowed it down to Rudy in drag or Ru Paul.

It looks like I'm voting Republican this time.

If our nominee is Rudy and the Democratic nominee is Obama then I'll abstain.
If our nominee is Huckabee and the Democratic nominee is Obama then I'm voting Obama.
If our nominee is McCain and theirs is Obama then I'll either abstain or vote Obama (haven't made up my mind yet).
If Romney is our nominee then I'll vote for him.

Now, if Hillary is the Democratic nominee against anyone but Romney then I'll abstain.

Okla-homey
1/27/2008, 05:25 PM
If our nominee is Rudy and the Democratic nominee is Obama then I'll abstain.
If our nominee is Huckabee and the Democratic nominee is Obama then I'm voting Obama.
If our nominee is McCain and theirs is Obama then I'll either abstain or vote Obama (haven't made up my mind yet).
If Romney is our nominee then I'll vote for him.

Now, if Hillary is the Democratic nominee against anyone but Romney then I'll abstain.

FWIW, the above post is completely devoid of rationality.

I'm just sayin'

SicEmBaylor
1/27/2008, 05:32 PM
FWIW, the above post is completely devoid of rationality.

I'm just sayin'

Why would that be? I consider Huckabee to be the most dangerous to the Republican Party and especially to conservatism. I would absolutely rather see a Republican with his principles fail then have them elevated by a win even if it costs us the general. There's no power on Earth that could compel me to vote for Huckabee.

McCain is almost as bad. CFR, amnesty, and his view of foreign policy is hardly any better than Huckabee. I also positively do not believe he is a states' righter. Having said that, I do agree with him on the issue of concurrent spending/tax cuts. I'm much more likely to simply abstain if he's the nominee.

I shouldn't even have to get started on the 10k problems with Rudy.

I don't really trust Romney either, but many of his so-called flip-flops seem to come from a belief in what is proper for the state of MA may not be proper for the nation as a whole. I'm not a huge pro-lifer (though I am), so his flip-flop on that issue doesn't concern me too much. I'm satisfied that he'll be a business like steward of the national government and not a huge promoter of great change. I like that.

Ideally I would like to see Ron Paul but he doesn't have a snowball's chance obviously. So, I'd rather see a faux-conservative fail miserable then have their **** poor principles elevated with a win.

Okla-homey
1/27/2008, 07:31 PM
Why would that be? I consider Huckabee to be the most dangerous to the Republican Party and especially to conservatism. I would absolutely rather see a Republican with his principles fail then have them elevated by a win even if it costs us the general. There's no power on Earth that could compel me to vote for Huckabee.

McCain is almost as bad. CFR, amnesty, and his view of foreign policy is hardly any better than Huckabee. I also positively do not believe he is a states' righter. Having said that, I do agree with him on the issue of concurrent spending/tax cuts. I'm much more likely to simply abstain if he's the nominee.

I shouldn't even have to get started on the 10k problems with Rudy.

I don't really trust Romney either, but many of his so-called flip-flops seem to come from a belief in what is proper for the state of MA may not be proper for the nation as a whole. I'm not a huge pro-lifer (though I am), so his flip-flop on that issue doesn't concern me too much. I'm satisfied that he'll be a business like steward of the national government and not a huge promoter of great change. I like that.

Ideally I would like to see Ron Paul but he doesn't have a snowball's chance obviously. So, I'd rather see a faux-conservative fail miserable then have their **** poor principles elevated with a win.

Kids....<shakes head>....do you actually beleive an effective presidency is somehow about validating principles? What the heck are your mama and daddy spending money for if that's the mush they're filling your mind with down there at BU?

Wake TFU! It's about consensus building and getting things done when appropriate. It's sometimes about building a consensus against some politically popular scheme that would be bad for the country. In our system, the guy in the WH can't do anything (except fight wars) without a willing Congress. That's mostly why W failed miserably when he tried to overhaul Social Securty. He got flanked by guys in his own party and flat out stood down by donks and the AARP.

With the donks in charge on the Hill, that means we need a guy who understands their machinations and knows where all the bodies are buried. Not some guy with movie star looks who just fell off the turnip truck, some former preacher from Mule Hollow AR, or a former federal prosecutor who was, by a quirk of fate, NYC mayor on 9-11. But for that defining event, they had about run Rudy out of town.

Oh yeah, another thing. It really doesn't matter how much business savvy a prez has. Under our Constitution, the Congress writes the spending bills. The prez either signs 'em into law or sends them back for a re-do. No president has had the power to peel off the pork since that brief interval before the line-tem veto was declared unconstitutional.

And please knock-off the "states rights" blather. That's just "code" for racism and has been since 1845 and you know it.

SicEmBaylor
1/27/2008, 07:47 PM
Kids....<shakes head>....do you actually beleive an effective presidency is somehow about validating principles? What the heck are your mama and daddy spending money for if that's the mush they're filling your mind with down there at BU?

Look, I've probably said this before but it bears repeating. I have never and will never take my marching orders from the Baylor Political Science Department. Not one single opinion or view that I have is due to something that my professors said. If that were the case, I'd be as liberal as they all are.

Principle is much much more important to me than positions on individual issues. I'm not an issues guy. For me it is completely about principles and philosophy of government. That's just what's important to me as a voter. Most specific positions any candidate takes never lasts the first 100 days of their administration. Positions change depending on the circumstances, and what they said during the campaign is fairly irrelevant. Their principles and philosophy of government is much more important to use as a guide map for what side of an issue they'll come down on. If I know how principled a candidate is and what those principles are then I need not know his/her positions. I can apply those principles to any situation and KNOW where the candidate will fall on the issue.


Wake TFU! It's about consensus building and getting things done when appropriate.
The problem is, it's almost never appropriate. Furthermore, I don't want concensus building...I want gridlock.

It's sometimes about building a consensus against some politically
popular scheme that would be bad for the country. In our system, the guy in the WH can't do anything (except fight wars) without a willing Congress. That's mostly why W failed miserably when he tried to overhaul Social Securty. He got flanked by guys in his own party and flat out stood down by donks and the AARP.

You're completely right about social security -- that's one of my biggest complaints with the war. The war made it impossible to accomplish what few domestic reforms that I would actually like to see happen. Big government abroad=big government at home.


With the donks in charge on the Hill, that means we need a guy who understands their machinations and knows where all the bodies are buried. Not some guy with movie star looks who just fell off the turnip truck, some former preacher from Mule Hollow AR, or a former federal prosecutor who was, by a quirk of fate, NYC mayor on 9-11. But for that defining event, they had about run Rudy out of town.

This is your best argument to convince me to vote Republican no matter what. With a Democratic Congress, I'd rather see a Republican President in order to split the government. Split government=better than a united government under a signle party whether it be Republican/Democrat.


Oh yeah, another thing. It really doesn't matter how much business savvy a prez has. Under our Constitution, the Congress writes the spending bills. The prez either signs 'em into law or sends them back for a re-do. No president has had the power to peel off the pork since that brief interval before the line-tem veto was declared unconstitutional.

Right, but missing the tremendous influence the President has over spending bills. It's true that of the Executive budget proposal and legislative budget proposal, the legislative proposal ALWAYS wins out as the basis for building an upcoming budget but the Executive still wields a considerable amount of influence on pork pushing.

Also, regardless of the supreme court's opinion, I'm a big fan of the line-item
veto for budget/appropriations bills. Also, it's the GOP's fault the line-item veto was ruled unconstitutional. The Republicans pushed for it assuming they would win the Presidency in 1996. Clinton was re-elected and started using the line item veto to cut Republican spending projects so they sued to have it ruled unconstitutional. Now they all bitch about needing it again! God, the national GOP absolutely makes me sick at times.

Chuck Bao
1/27/2008, 07:50 PM
Kids....<shakes head>....do you actually beleive an effective presidency is somehow about validating principles? What the heck are your mama and daddy spending money for if that's the mush they're filling your mind with up there at TU?

Wake TFU! It's about having a president that makes sense when speaking the English language and doesn't come across as a tool for Dick Cheney and the right wing apparatus...blah...blah...blaH

Fixed

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
1/27/2008, 08:42 PM
All of her signs should read CLINTON


not HILLARYNot necessary. People know why she's a candidate.

Jerk
1/27/2008, 09:35 PM
Furthermore, I don't want concensus building...I want gridlock.

Spot on, Sic. We keep more freedoms and more rights when the bast*rds can't get anything done.

SicEmBaylor
1/27/2008, 09:37 PM
Spot on, Sic. We keep more freedoms and more rights when the bast*rds can't get anything done.

Exactly.

Why on Earth any conservative would ever run on a campaign of lubing the engine of government is well beyond my ability to comprehend. It's unprincipled pandering to the masses is what it is.

Jerk
1/27/2008, 09:40 PM
Exactly.

Why on Earth any conservative would ever run on a campaign of lubing the engine of government is well beyond my ability to comprehend. It's unprincipled pandering to the masses is what it is.
"Oh!! But we all need healthcare! It's our right!"

Poor saps have faith in bureaucrats who got to their position via the Peter Principle.

SicEmBaylor
1/27/2008, 09:45 PM
"Oh!! But we all need healthcare! It's our right!"

Poor saps have faith in bureaucrats who got to their position via the Peter Principle.

Actually, I say it's beyond my ability to comprehend but I know exactly what the issue is.

For Europe, you can often separate distinctly conservative political elements from strictly right-wing elements. In the United States, we consider them to be interchangeable and to be fair they often are.

But there seem to be an increasing number of people who refer to themselves as conservatives who are, in fact, not strictly conservative but simply right-wing nationalists. I think we need to start drawing a line between what constitutes "conservative" and what constitutes right-wing nationalists.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
1/27/2008, 09:55 PM
Actually, I say it's beyond my ability to comprehend but I know exactly what the issue is.

For Europe, you can often separate distinctly conservative political elements from strictly right-wing elements. In the United States, we consider them to be interchangeable and to be fair they often are.

But there seem to be an increasing number of people who refer to themselves as conservatives who are, in fact, not strictly conservative but simply right-wing nationalists. I think we need to start drawing a line between what constitutes "conservative" and what constitutes right-wing nationalists.You should define what you mean by "right wing". To me, it pertains to the respect and dedication to the free market, barring only truly monopolistic practices and situations that concern our national security.
Also, what is your version of nationalism?

SoonerGirl06
1/28/2008, 12:14 AM
I'd rather see Obama in the WH than Hillary.


The Republicans worry me. I'm not really pleased with any of them. Right now, I'm leaning toward Romney. But I honestly have no idea.

tommieharris91
1/28/2008, 12:26 AM
Exactly.

Why on Earth any conservative would ever run on a campaign of lubing the engine of government is well beyond my ability to comprehend. It's unprincipled pandering to the masses is what it is.

You just answered your own question.

SicEmBaylor
1/28/2008, 01:59 AM
You should define what you mean by "right wing". To me, it pertains to the respect and dedication to the free market, barring only truly monopolistic practices and situations that concern our national security.
Also, what is your version of nationalism?

Well, economics has a lot to do with it. That's not quite everything, but you're definitely right that right-wing politics (typically here though not always in general) favors the free market. Certainly it favors the right of individual wealth.

But that's not really the point that I'm trying to make. When I refer to right-wing nationalists I'm talking about people who, generally speaking, champion the supremacy of the national government to solve a given problem. They believe that the national government is the best means for solving a problem, and they are less concerned with how something is accomplished then simply ensuring that it is. I think Bush is probably a great example of a right-wing nationalist. He absolutely believes and uses the power of the Federal government for the greater good both here and abroad. Now, his policies are generally right-wing and often align with conservative principles but a conservative he is not. John McCain seems to very much be another right-wing nationalist.

A conservative ought to be highly distrustful of national power and those who believe it can be used for positive purposes. The very essence of a conservative should be unwilling to yield to change and have an unshakable belief in de-centralization. A conservative should champion the right of smaller political entities to make decisions that impact their local community as opposed to a giant Federal government. Neither Bush nor McCain believe in any of those and would gladly use the powers of the Federal government, appropriate or not, to further their ends.

The issue to me isn't the "what" is being done, but the "how" it's being done.

King Crimson
1/28/2008, 09:22 AM
Well, economics has a lot to do with it. That's not quite everything, but you're definitely right that right-wing politics (typically here though not always in general) favors the free market.

historically, it's the reverse. the tradition of "conservatism" a la someone like Edmond Burke is a direct response to the "liberalizing tendencies" of free markets to destabilize existing power and authority structures and institutions--like, the church or aristocratic power. when cultural values are determined by the free market, traditional forms of social authority (say, the family or schools or religion) are displaced or diminished. historical conservatisms of the ilk of Burke, are a response to this 17th and 18th Century dynamic (the rise of the bourgeoisie middle/merchant class), preferring to "conserve" the institutions and traditions of the past up against the "creative destruction" of market forces on the plane of morals, values, customs, etc.

you see this aspect of american conservatism emerge in discussion/attempted legislation about violence on TV or pornography or prayer in schools.

and to add, one of the ironies or even contradictions of american conservatism is it's dependence on national identity (as you point out). however, any true free marketeer would be open to acknowledge that in a global marketplace strict adherence to nation would merely be an impingement to true open market activity....unless state (the concept, not one of 50) direction or protection was required--as in warfare.

SoonerBBall
1/28/2008, 10:43 AM
And please knock-off the "states rights" blather. That's just "code" for racism and has been since 1845 and you know it.

I agreed with pretty much everything you said until the last sentence, which was the biggest load of bullsh*t I've read on the Internet in a while...and that is saying something.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
1/28/2008, 11:14 AM
I believe the modern American Left(Biggest Govt., Massive Socialism, disdaining the Military) views the term "right wing"as any govt that is willing to severely punish criminals, and believes there are forces of evil that want to destroy it, consequently maintaining a strong military.

Okla-homey
1/28/2008, 12:01 PM
I agreed with pretty much everything you said until the last sentence, which was the biggest load of bullsh*t I've read on the Internet in a while...and that is saying something.

You ever lived in the Deep South? I have.

OklahomaTuba
1/28/2008, 12:32 PM
I'd rather see Obama in the WH than Hillary.

Why is that??

Seems the only reason anyone can give to vote for Hussein is because he looks and talks real nice, and isn't an evil white man.

Except for that, WTF does he have to offer except raising our taxes, socializing our health care, and retreat??

The dude is nothing but an empty suit, and if the donks are dumb enough to nominate the guy, it won't be pretty for them.

Personally, seeing Hussein on stage vs McCain in a debate might be fairly entertaining.

JohnnyMack
1/28/2008, 12:42 PM
Why is that??

Seems the only reason anyone can give to vote for Hussein is because he looks and talks real nice, and isn't an evil white man.

Except for that, WTF does he have to offer except raising our taxes, socializing our health care, and retreat??

The dude is nothing but an empty suit, and if the donks are dumb enough to nominate the guy, it won't be pretty for them.

Personally, seeing Hussein on stage vs McCain in a debate might be fairly entertaining.

Your repeated use of "Hussein" is witty. Shows tremendous open-mindedness on your part.

Sooner_Bob
1/28/2008, 01:03 PM
Saying you'll abstain from voting in a thread started by a retired Vet is much like kicking him in the nuts and stealing his drink.

Not cool.

KABOOKIE
1/28/2008, 01:11 PM
So wait a minute. State's rights is racist now?

JohnnyMack
1/28/2008, 01:17 PM
So wait a minute. State's rights is racist now?

Try and keep up retard.

KABOOKIE
1/28/2008, 01:21 PM
Try and keep up retard.


I'm trying f*** stick. That's why I asked the question.

OklahomaTuba
1/28/2008, 01:53 PM
Your repeated use of "Hussein" is witty. Shows tremendous open-mindedness on your part.

I call Bush "Dubya". Not really sure what the difference is.

Vaevictis
1/28/2008, 02:52 PM
Seems the only reason anyone can give to vote for Hussein is because he looks and talks real nice, and isn't an evil white man.

Sometimes that's enough. It's certainly a leg up on W, who has done incredible amounts of damage to our country through his utter inability to manage a message.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
1/28/2008, 02:57 PM
Sometimes that's enough. It's certainly a leg up on W, who has done incredible amounts of damage to our country through his utter inability to manage a message.Da*n, is that old "W" still running for office, again? Shame on him. Vote NO for "W" in '08!