[ritehook]

Or if she wins Wisky in place of Pennsy. WinsOhio, Texas and at least one of the other two biggies. I think she leads in all right now.

Remember, a century from now some fly-specked professor will write a thick book on this election, and will comb the files of the (then obsolete) Internet forums, for a sense of what the people of this time were thinking.

So if you wish to comment, make it a good one. Your great grandchildren may one day read it.

[ritehook]

I'll take a shot at history and say, yeah, if she wins Texas, Ohio (damn, I almost wrote Ohio State) and either (or both) Wisky and/of Penna, she gets the nomination.

I will alter my prior view that she'd pick a white conservative from the South or West as running mate. Now I think she'd vertually beg Obama to run as her VP.

Otherwise, Al Sharpton and others will be claiming a vast consipracy stole the election from Barack.

[Deuce]

Will Hill is a WR on the Florida Gaytors.

[HedgeHog]

No way. She can win all three and still lose easily.

[durito]

She won't win Wisconsin.

Even if she wins Ohio, Texas, and Penn, it won't be by huge margins -- Obama will come out with more earned delegates. It will come down to the superdelegates and perhaps the Clintons fight to get Florida/Michigan included. If they do fight for that after they've clearly lost, and get the nomination, i'm done.

[ritehook]

Originally Posted by HedgeHog

No way. She can win all three and still lose easily.

How's that? All three states have huge delegate votes. Even if they're proportional, she'll still have a bagful and that all important "MO" going into the convention.

And she'll desperately need Obama as VP.

Or, burntcork Bill's face and call him the first (truely) black president, and make hubby her VP. And then Monica as independent negotiator to head into Pakistani hills alone to make deal with Bin Laden,

Can't wait.

[ritehook]

Originally Posted by durito

She won't win Wisconsin.

Even if she wins Ohio, Texas, and Penn, it won't be by huge margins -- Obama will come out with more earned delegates. It will come down to the superdelegates and perhaps the Clintons fight to get Florida/Michigan included. If they do fight for that after they've clearly lost, and get the nomination, i'm done.

The lady is leading there.

[dizzyd]

I saw Obama winning in the polls in Wisconsin

[d ray]

Originally Posted by durito

She won't win Wisconsin.

i agree

[ritehook]

Originally Posted by Deuce

Will Hill is a WR on the Florida Gaytors.

Also a well-established book in Great Britain. (Closed to Americans)

[d ray]

Originally Posted by ritehook

The lady is leading there.

should be a rather easy victory for obama in wisconsin IMO. it helps when clinton doesn't even campaign here. like she doesn't care, only about ohio and texas i guess. polls show Obama ahead, and everything on the news here is about how obama is way ahead of her.




Obama, McCain lead in Wisconsin poll
Email|Link|Comments (5) Posted by Foon Rhee, deputy national political editor February 12, 2008 12:46 PM
If Barack Obama sweeps today's primaries, it's looking even more likely that he'll have a 10-race winning streak going into the mega-primary on March 4 that Hillary Clinton is banking on.

A new poll out today in Wisconsin shows that Obama has a 50 percent to 39 percent lead over Clinton, boosted by a 21-percentage-point edge among voters most concerned by the Iraq war.

[ritehook]

Ok, I saw something on a news site two or three days ago that she had a small lead in Wisc.

She does have a lead in the big three.

[BigBollocks]

Originally Posted by d ray

A new poll out today in Wisconsin shows that Obama has a 50 percent to 39 percent lead over Clinton, boosted by a 21-percentage-point edge among voters most concerned by the Iraq war.

If you want out of the cluster**** that is Iraq ASAP, then Senator Obama is certainly by far the best choice. I read a couple of days ago that 94% of Iraqis have a negative view on Al Qaida, but that over 80% want us out of there as well (with Kurds being the notable exception). Everyday I hear of more soldiers getting killed by guerrila warfare IEDs I ****ing cringe and mourn for their families. Nothing is getting accomplished expect lost lives and money, and dumb**** won't even listen to his previous yes-men, admit he's wrong, and reverse course.

[ritehook]

Originally Posted by BigBollocks

If you want out of the cluster**** that is Iraq ASAP, then Senator Obama is certainly by far the best choice. I read a couple of days ago that 94% of Iraqis have a negative view on Al Qaida, but that over 80% want us out of there as well (with Kurds being the notable exception). Everyday I hear of more soldiers getting killed by guerrila warfare IEDs I ****ing cringe and mourn for their families. Nothing is getting accomplished expect lost lives and money, and dumb**** won't even listen to his previous yes-men, admit he's wrong, and reverse course.

Agree. Hilly had a miraculous conversion from Iraq war cheerleader the very day she decided to run for president. Glory, hallelujah!

Obama is the best of what's left. But the Military Industrial Complex (that Eisenhower warned aggaisnt in his Farewell) is so incredibly strong now I wonder if a prez who truly counters them isn't in grave danger. Perpetual War for Perpetual Profits.

[HedgeHog]

The kiss of death for Clinton was when someone started the Obama Ass Kicking thread. It was like declaring her a "Lock". It's been downhill ever since. Full disclosure: I have a dime on Obama +150 to win the Dem nomination, so I do have a bias.

[Panic]

Billary will win Texas, but Texas is Republican and will vote for McCain overall. Republicans will carry the nominee, McCain will be President. Billary and Osama are useless. Sorry liberals but you have no chance.

[Suma Darts On]

It's fifty fifty right now. Who knows? It will be either Clinton or Obama. That's my prediction.

[Cannon]

Fat ass Hillary will fix it so she gets it. McCain will out spend them and buy the oval office. McCain in a blowout.

[Panic]

McCain for President!

[purecarnagge]

Hilary will win tx/oh/pa possibly. But she won't win oh/pa with huge margins. TX has the potential to be a blow out due to racial voters, and latino vote heavily favoring hillary.

But I think Obama comes out ahead when its all said and done and wins it by a small margin.

[isetcap]

Originally Posted by durito

She won't win Wisconsin.

Even if she wins Ohio, Texas, and Penn, it won't be by huge margins -- Obama will come out with more earned delegates. It will come down to the superdelegates and perhaps the Clintons fight to get Florida/Michigan included. If they do fight for that after they've clearly lost, and get the nomination, i'm done.

This is the correct statement.

At this point, it is likely to come down to a superdelegate decision, but that decision will be anti-climactic as these individual voters will ultimately align themselves with the candidate who has the most popular support.

Anyone who thinks the current Michigan and Florida "results" will be used is delusional. If the delegates of these 2 states are pivotal to the outcome then there will be a second primary held in both states where both candidates will have an opportunity to campaign in those areas. In a real primary, Obama will win Michigan and Clinton will win Florida.

As I have emphatically stated before, the supers will not override the decision of the people. The only way my opinion on this changes is if the margin of separation is less than 70 delegates. Then there will be a war and it will be funny.

[isetcap]

Originally Posted by BigBollocks

If you want out of the cluster**** that is Iraq ASAP, then Senator Obama is certainly by far the best choice...

If you want to make sure there will always be a cluster**** that is Iraq, then Senator Obama is certainly by far the best choice.

[BigBollocks]

Originally Posted by isetcap

If you want to make sure there will always be a cluster**** that is Iraq, then Senator Obama is certainly by far the best choice.

How so? I imagine the moment we leave we'll just see the Sunnis topple the Shi'a and that'll be that (similar to 'Nam). It'd be that way if we left now, left a year ago, or leave ten years from now. I know we're prolonging to "save face," but the time for that is long gone in terms of lost lives, military stretching thin, and money. Ask most guys who've really had to go in the sandbox, and the majority have had it. I'd be curious what your take is, however.

[isetcap]

Originally Posted by BigBollocks

How so? I imagine the moment we leave we'll just see the Sunnis topple the Shi'a and that'll be that (similar to 'Nam). It'd be that way if we left now, left a year ago, or leave ten years from now. I know we're prolonging to "save face," but the time for that is long gone in terms of lost lives, military stretching thin, and money. Ask most guys who've really had to go in the sandbox, and the majority have had it. I'd be curious what your take is, however.

Well asking most guys who are in the sandbox is like asking most people in America what is best for the economy. They may stridently think they know what is best but there is a sound reason why we have leadership that feels differently. By leadership I am not referring to our President (who would probably be a poor person to run the economy also), but instead I defer to the people actually running the project. The current situation in Iraq is undeniably better than it was 6 months ago which is better than it was 1 year ago. Factual and verifiable gains are being made as a result of current policy. So now that we have made a change and the situation has improved I don't think it is advisable to go in a completely different direction and most certainly destabilize a region of vital economic and security interests.

The only way any gains on the stiff investment of life and money we have made in Iraq can be realized is to continue our commitment there. Nobody can rationalize that having a stable military presence in Iraq protecting a thriving democratic population is not extremely appealing to our longterm outlook in that region. The only way we can see positive returns is if we remain. While that may seem unpopular to people who have a different opinion concerning the overall dynamics of the situation, I don't see unpopularity itself as a valid reason to withdraw. If everybody who was against the effort in Iraq happened to be an expert on US policy, then I might be convinced of the wisdom.

Do I think Barack Obama is an expert on US policy in Iraq? No. How could he be? Irregardless of how many times he likes to tout that he was "right" from the beginning, he had no military training to back up his statement. He had limited access to international intelligence. He had no contact with the conflict when it began in the 90s. He was and still is a neophyte when it comes to foreign affairs, and no matter how rosy and inspirational a picture he paints, I'm afraid that is the way I will continue to see it.

I sincerely hope we do not rush to abandon the work of the last 5 years, and even though Obama "promises" to withdraw troops almost immediately upon his arrival to office, I think it is more likely that he will receive enough sound advice to avoid making such a mistake. Fortunately for him and our country, come October it is likely this will not even be close to the lead issue in his campaign for the Presidency.

[BigBollocks]

Originally Posted by isetcap

Well asking most guys who are in the sandbox is like asking most people in America what is best for the economy. They may stridently think they know what is best but there is a sound reason why we have leadership that feels differently. By leadership I am not referring to our President (who would probably be a poor person to run the economy also), but instead I defer to the people actually running the project. The current situation in Iraq is undeniably better than it was 6 months ago which is better than it was 1 year ago. Factual and verifiable gains are being made as a result of current policy. So now that we have made a change and the situation has improved I don't think it is advisable to go in a completely different direction and most certainly destabilize a region of vital economic and security interests.

The only way any gains on the stiff investment of life and money we have made in Iraq can be realized is to continue our commitment there. Nobody can rationalize that having a stable military presence in Iraq protecting a thriving democratic population is not extremely appealing to our longterm outlook in that region. The only way we can see positive returns is if we remain. While that may seem unpopular to people who have a different opinion concerning the overall dynamics of the situation, I don't see unpopularity itself as a valid reason to withdraw. If everybody who was against the effort in Iraq happened to be an expert on US policy, then I might be convinced of the wisdom.

Do I think Barack Obama is an expert on US policy in Iraq? No. How could he be? Irregardless of how many times he likes to tout that he was "right" from the beginning, he had no military training to back up his statement. He had limited access to international intelligence. He had no contact with the conflict when it began in the 90s. He was and still is a neophyte when it comes to foreign affairs, and no matter how rosy and inspirational a picture he paints, I'm afraid that is the way I will continue to see it.

I sincerely hope we do not rush to abandon the work of the last 5 years, and even though Obama "promises" to withdraw troops almost immediately upon his arrival to office, I think it is more likely that he will receive enough sound advice to avoid making such a mistake. Fortunately for him and our country, come October it is likely this will not even be close to the lead issue in his campaign for the Presidency.

Thanks iset for expanding on your thoughts. Despite differing opinions in some areas, it's a pleasure to hear where you're coming from as always sir...

The one question I might ask back at you is if what you say about Obama's lack of Iraqi policy also counted towards Bush Jr. and then some? In addition, not only was Bush a draft dodger (I had a family member in his Alabama Air National Guard Unit who saw him for a grand total of that first week), but he insisted on this course of action despite countless General's warnings. At least with Obama you think he'll listen to sound advice given. Bush, however, almost independently forced this course of action, with little regard for military strategy and lives (and he's so disconnected from the average military peon's existence why should he know or care about their life?).

The entire situation is very disturbing to me as I'm sure you can tell. What's worse, I get the feeling that we're going to hear more and more things come out over the course of the next decade that will really upset us about this administration

[isetcap]

Originally Posted by BigBollocks

The one question I might ask back at you is if what you say about Obama's lack of Iraqi policy also counted towards Bush Jr. and then some? In addition, not only was Bush a draft dodger (I had a family member in his Alabama Air National Guard Unit who saw him for a grand total of that first week), but he insisted on this course of action despite countless General's warnings. At least with Obama you think he'll listen to sound advice given. Bush, however, almost independently forced this course of action, with little regard for military strategy and lives (and he's so disconnected from the average military peon's existence why should he know or care about their life?).

Please don't misconstrue my approval of our current course in Iraq as overall or even general approval of Bush's methods. In line with my concerns about Obama, I was always concerned with this Bush's grasp of foreign affairs. I will differ with you in that there was vastly more support for action in Iraq than dissension. Do not forget that the advisory panel Bush had in place while making these decisions definitely saw this as the correct course of action (with a few notable exceptions). Of those exceptions I think I would most fall in line with General Powell who recognized the strategy was flawed without international support. The strategy was flawed because we had spent the previous decade downsizing our military and then we suddenly wanted to independently undertake a massive offensive, while we already had troops in Afghanistan. While the moral imperative can be debated, I'm not sure anyone would argue that we executed properly. It should have always been recognized that this would be an occupation whether people liked it or not.

[mofome]

she's already given up on wisc, but if she wins these 3 she'll be tough to beat imo.

[Sportsgirl]

I wonder if it really matter who gets the Dems' nomination? With things between Hilary and Barack so evenly divided - will the Clinton supporters vote for Obama if he gets the nod? Will the Obama supporters voter for Clinton if she gets the nod?

[HedgeHog]

Originally Posted by Sportsgirl

I wonder if it really matter who gets the Dems' nomination? With things between Hilary and Barack so evenly divided - will the Clinton supporters vote for Obama if he gets the nod? Will the Obama supporters voter for Clinton if she gets the nod?

They will if the winner is smart enough to choose the loser as his/her VP.

[ritehook]

Originally Posted by HedgeHog

They will if the winner is smart enough to choose the loser as his/her VP.

Hillary, if the winner, would be desperate to have Obama as running mate, so as to keep the African-Amrican vote, now overwhelming for Obama, staying home in anger, thinking their guy was jobbed. I don't know if he'd take the job, tho.

But if Barack should win, I don't think he'd go near Hilly as a VP possiblility. What states or kind of voters would be swayed by her on the ticket?

He'll win Calif and the Northeast anyway without here. But may lose the South with her, as she has very high negs among many white voters.

Obama would likely go for a vp mate who is while, male and moderate.

[Dark Horse]

Gimme ANY Tim Donaghy officiated game over the US elections.

[THE HITMAN]

I think something still will happen with/from this Florida thing.