Who had a Better night Obama or Clinton?

[Wakie]

Obama, no if, ands, or buts about it.

The fact that Hillary! won CA, MA, and NJ is news???

BWWWAAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAA.

She was supposed to win in those places. She had a massive advantage from the start. The fact is she lost in places she wasn't supposed to. DE, CT, most likely NM.

In the end, it's 14-8 Obama. He may end up with slightly more pledged delegates than she. What more can you want? He won and won convincingly.

The fact of the matter is, had Obama managed to pick off any one of CA, MA or NJ, he would be the nominee right now. The fact that Hillary! did just enough to stop that doesn't negate the big night for Obama.

She can lie, manipulate and spin all she wants, but Obama cleaned her clock.

3 post shills rock.

[Wakie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Typical response. I'm not "Shilling" That belongs to Hillary!.

Are you kidding me?  You didn't exist on this forum until this thread.  Now you appear and are screaming to high heaven about how Obama had a great night because he won places like DE and ND when the big prizes last night (NY, MA, and CA) went Clinton.  You are the pure DEFINITION of a shill.

Go stand in the corner.

[Wakie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I've lurked here quite a while. I find it telling that in typical Hillary! style, you seek to use ad hominem attacks rather than substance.

Ok ... you've been lurking but for some reason today seemed like a great day to post a bunch.  Ok.

And as for substance, you're spinning this as a huge Obama win.  Most people are saying it was a draw.  A WIN would have been if Obama had picked up more delegates than Clinton.  He didn't.

And I will agree with you that I would have expected a Hillary win in NY (where she is Senator), but you'd have thought that Obama would have won MA (both of the MA Senators endorsed Obama).  And you'd also have figured that CA would have been a toss-up but it wasn't.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hillary! was always going to win NY, MA and CA, Obama was only shooting at keeping it close. Obama won all across the country, in places he shouldn't have won. (DE, MO, and CT.)[/quote]

Again, why do you think Hillary was "always" going to win MA and CA?  That doesn't make any sense to me.

Also, I view DE and CT as toss-up states.  I see no reason why either state would have favored either candidate.  And as for MO ... ummm .... St Louis has a very large African-American community and Obama does very well with African-Americans.  I'm not shocked at all that he won MO, why are you?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually in this forum, on Air America, and several other places the Obama supporters have been nonstop bashing Hillary.  They use terribly mature tactics such as name-calling and trying to shout-down anyone interested in engaging about the issues.  Their favorite discussion point is "she voted for the war".

Also, what is this CRAP about attacking Obama's race?  The only shread of evidence that would imply that is that Bill compared Obama's win in SC to Jesse Jackson's win in SC.  [sarcasm] OMG!  How dare he compare Obama to a famous black leader of the past!?!  This is almost as bad as when Bill compared Obama's initial lead after Iowa to Howard Dean's lead!  [/sarcasm]

Now, as I've said in many other places, I like Obama but I dislike his supporters who seem willing to split the party just to get their guy into office.  Obama supporters who say "I won't vote for Hillary in the general election" are just like the Naderites of 2000 who gave us George W Bush.

[Wakie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

When did you start?

Yeah, I came onto this forum 6+ years ago.  Typically newbs don't come in shilling like a madman posting to only 1 thread.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wrong again. http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20080206/cm_thenation/15281018[/quote]

Ahh yes, the Nation.  Because you know "no one owns the Nation" ... except that CNN is showing it 580 for Clinton and 571 for Obama, http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/

I trust CNN more than I trust "The Nation".

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hillary! Had huge leads in both MA and CA. Even the last SUSA poll had Hillary! +13 in CA. She was supposed to win Both. She did what she was supposed to do. That's not a "victory".[/quote]

A win is a win is a win.  The Patriots were supposed to the AFC Championship over the Chargers.  They did.  But because they were supposed to does that make it "not a win"?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hillary! had consistant leads in these States. Consistant. Like it or not, you can't change those facts.[/quote]

And Obama had leads in states you crowed about.  Again, last night was a draw.  Saying otherwise is pure spin.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nonsense. Hillary! supporters have tried to play the gender card over and over again. Her supporters support her because of what is between her legs. They brand anyone who dares speak out against the machine as "anti-woman". [/quote]

Ahhh ... I see, you're a mind-reader.  The only reason someone would support a former First Lady of the last Democratic President over someone who was still in Law School while she was living in the White House is because of gender bias?

Jesus, why not just play the race card?  Oh wait ... you did ....

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The fact is, many Hillary! supporters have attacked Obama's race. They keep trying to paint him as the "Black Candidate" when he is anything but. [/quote]

Give me an example.  Look buddy, race has nothing to do with this election.  Yes, Obama is black.  I also hear he smokes and has 10 fingers and 10 toes.  Whoopie.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah .... I remember 8 years when idiots on the Hard Left said the same thing about Gore.  He was too right-wing.  All he wanted was power.  Voting Nader would push the Dems to the left.  No way would Bush win.  And even if he did how much damage could he do?  And certainly he'd be out in 4 years.

Were you a Nader voter?

[Wakie]

I don't get it. It's typical of Hillary! and her supporters. I am happy and excited over how well Obama did last night, so when I come to a political forum to post about it, I get attacked for being the "new guy."

No, you get laughed at for exaggerating last night's results.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

LOL ... ahh yes, the Nation has more credibility than CNN.  I'm sure.  But since you seem to like MSNBC, lets use their numbers.  Now what is being discussed are the results from last night only (as in who got more electors LAST NIGHT).  Here's the MSNBC link, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21660914

The 838-834 number which you cited is ALL delegates (so it includes NH, SC, IA, etc) allocated thus far.  Go back and add up the states which voted last night for the Dems.  That is AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, GA, ID, IL, KS, MA, MN, MO, NJ, NM, NY, ND, OK, TN, and UT.  Now ... use the MSNBC link and add up the delegates.  Clinton got 786, Obama 775.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As I said, last night was a draw.  Good for both of them.  Can you look past your Barack support and admit that Hillary did well?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually the only time I've heard the gender card used is when someone launches a "Hillary is a d*ke" attack or "no one will respect a woman as our leader".  And yes, I've heard those in campaign.  On the flip side I CONSTANTLY hear that if you question Obama on anything it is because you are racist.  Compare him to a failed Dem candidate for President?  You're a racist.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You also need ideas to run a country.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Riiiight because that is a completely fair assessment.  Here's a better one.  Lets say your wife was the CEO of a Fortune 500 company and you were involved in the management of the company, so closely involved that you managed one of the major initiatives undertaken by her management team (Healthcare).  As married couples do you constantly discussed business.  When she retired you then spent 8 years in a high executive position.  Now you are up for a CEO job and it is safe to assume that she will be right along with you as an advisor throughout.  Yeah, I'd say you'd be bringing some nice credentials to the table.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nope, but I must have missed whatever it is that you are on about.  The relevant thing regarding SC that I can think of is that the Obama people cried because Bill drew a parallel between the Obama campaign and the Jackson campaign (as in SC isn't a bellweather state for the Dems).  He drew the same sort of comparison to the Dean campaign when Obama jumped out to an early lead.  Was that racism too???

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As a matter of fact I was not a Nader voter, And You attempting to pull out this red herring shows desperation. I stated a fact, under no circumstance will I ever vote for Hillary! none.

That's my right.
[/quote]

If you can't see the parallel between your position that you won't vote for Clinton if she gets the nom and the people who said the same thing about Gore in 2000 then you're hopeless.  You're part of the group that is willing to split the party and return the GOP to the White House if "your guy" doesn't get the nom.  And then you charge the Clinton supporters with "splitting the party".  How selfish are you?

Don't you get it that a Republican President will stay in Iraq and more soldiers will needlessly die?

Don't you get it that John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg probably won't survive to 2012 and that a Republican President only needs to put 1 more hardcore conservative Justice on the Supreme Court to give them the majority?

Don't you get it that a Republican President won't care about creating a reasonable healthcare system or the environment?

[Wakie]

How many Delegates were at stake last night? Did you really think it was 1561? (Which is where you math from the MSNBC numbers takes you.)

I will honestly tell you that I do not know the exact # of delegates which were at stake on Super Tuesday.  I will say that you pointed at MSNBC as being a source that we could agree was reliable and that the #'s on their website show that Clinton picked up 11 more delegates on Super Tuesday.

Now you have pointed to 2 stories (1 from "The Nation" and the other from Politico.com) which both say "The Obama Campaign Says They Won More Delegates".  When/IF the news source (MSNBC) which we agreed was reliable updates their #'s on their website to reflect what the Obama camp claims, then I will agree with you.  But since that hasn't happened you are just being intellectually dishonest.  You're going by the spin of the campaign.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How does that Kool-Aid taste?  Obama may have exceeded his goals (I don't know what his goals were).  Hillary won the big prizes on Tuesday.  The Obama camp may claim they won MO, but if you notice the MSNBC site shows that each candidate got the same # of delegates from MO.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I've never heard anyone make such attacks on Hillary!. I have seen anti-male comments made by rabid Hillary! supporters however. [/quote]

You say you've been hanging around this forum?  Do you want some links to those attacks on Hillary?  And frankly I think your claim of "anti-male" comments is just laughable.  Yeah, the campaign is going to alienate 50% of the electorate.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I like how instead of offering up Obama's plans/ideas in a positive and constructive light you bash the Clinton healthcare program by dishonestly representing her position.

The wages garnishing was something suggested by JOHN EDWARDS.  Clinton said she wouldn't take anything off the table but she never said she would garnish wages.  In the real world the best way for government to enforce programs is via tax incentives.  Since your employer most likely pays your healthcare costs using money which could otherwise be given to you as wages (yes, I am an employer and I give my employees the choice) said unpaid money should be tax deductable.  If you choose NOT to take the healtchare then you should ask your employer to pay you the money they are saving by not covering your healthcare!  You would, of course, have to pay taxes on this money ..... something some would call "garnishing your wages".  Understand?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You're like the John Cleese character from the "Dept of Arguments" sketch.
Ok, take my example and strike the word EXECUTIVE from it (since you clearly don't know the difference between office executives and executive in terms of branch of government).  Hillary was a key advisor to Bill when he was in office.  The proof of that is that BILL SAYS SHE WAS.  And oddly enough I think he knows better than you about his administration.  8 years as a key advisor to the President followed by 8 years in the Senate is a lot more experience than 8 years in the IL state legislature.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh really?  And what are the issues that are important to you which make your preference in candidate go Obama/McCain/Clinton?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Considering that she has repeatedly said she will withdraw them I find that highly doubtful.  But this is a popular Obama attack.  So if Obama is so anti-war why did Obama vote against the Kerry bill to withdraw soldiers?  Why has he said he wants to reduce the # of soldiers, not withdraw them?

Obama saying "I never voted for war" is the same as me saying that.  Neither of us were in Congress at the time.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A Scalia?  No.  An Alito?  Yes.  Watch the campaign.  I guarantee you that he comes out and tells you he will use abortion as a litmus test for Supreme Court Justices.

[Wakie]

Ok, ghostmonkey, lets take this item by item.

# of Delegates on Super Tuesday.  Here's the MSNBC website http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21660914
One would imagine that these are the official "most up-to-date" NBC #'s.  It is telling that the article you cited was published at 11 AM on Feb 6th.  I think 24 hrs later they have better info.

Below I list the states contested on Super Tuesday and the delegate count as listed by MSNBC.  Please let me know if I have missed any states or if I have misreported any of the MSNBC #'s or if I mistotal them.

AL - 25 Obama, 23 Clinton
AK - 9 Obama, 4 Clinton
AZ - 25 Obama, 31 Clinton
AR - 7 Obama, 24 Clinton
CA - 163 Obama, 202 Clinton
CO - 13 Obama, 6 Clinton
CT - 26 Obama, 22 Clinton
DE - 9 Obama, 6 Clinton
GA - 40 Obama, 23 Clinton
ID - 15 Obama, 3 Clinton
IL - 87 Obama, 44 Clinton
KS - 23 Obama, 9 Clinton
MA - 38 Obama, 55 Clinton
MN - 48 Obama, 24 Clinton
MO - 35 Obama, 35 Clinton
NJ - 42 Obama, 56 Clinton
NM - 12 Obama, 13 Clinton
NY - 93 Obama, 135 Clinton
ND - 8 Obama, 5 Clinton
OK - 14 Obama, 24 Clinton
TN - 29 Obama, 33 Clinton
UT - 14 Obama, 9 Clinton

TOTALS = 775 Obama, 786 Clinton

Now you have said that there were 1681 delegates in play on Tuesday.  Ok.  One would imagine that MSNBC would update there website as soon as they figure out where those remaining 120 delegates fall.  Until then these are the #'s we have.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The core Hillary! contigent could care less about alienating half the electorate. They blindly think that they can get all the women to vote for Hillary! to negate that effect. They don't realize how their negative anti-male attacks turn off not only Men, but also Conservative/Moderate Women.[/quote]

Can you provide us with a link to one of these "anti-male" attacks?  If not it really just sounds like you are pulling the "say something long enough and people will believe it" tactic.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

When asked about the plan she said she wouldn't take any options off the table.  The question was repeated about whether she, like Senator Edwards, would be willing to garnish wages.  She said she wouldn't take anything off the table.  That is how you get to "MIGHT be willing".

We can debate health insurance if you want, but you do realize that someone without health insurance ultimately has it paid for by the tax payers, don't you?  You also realize that you are currently paying for your own health insurance whether you like it or not (if you want to opt out then you need to talk to your employer and explain how you are saving them money by opting out and how you want that money to be added to your paycheck).

People with health insurance are more likely to seek preventative care which is vastly less expensive than critical care.  If everyone has health insurance then everyone is more likely to seek preventative care and the cost to the system and to the population as a whole goes down.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Do you honestly believe that serving in the Senate does not require management and leadership?  You're forgetting about Senate committees, the management of their staff, the coalition building which is required to be a Senator, and the general familiarity with the issues.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I repeat that Bill Clinton has said she was a key advisor.  I think Bill Clinton is more familiar with his administration than you.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Strong Leadership, Willingness to bring Change to the Government, I like Obama's health care plan much better than Hillary!'s. [/quote]

2 red herrings and healthcare.

All the remaining candidates are strong leaders.  They wouldn't have gotten this far if they were not.

Change for the sake of change is just change.  Not all change is good.  When Lenin seized power in Russia that was change.

What do you like about Obama's healthcare plan?  Go ahead and sing its praises.


THE WAR AND VOTING - Again, if Obama is opposed to the war then why did he vote against the Kerry bill?  Now if you want to talk about why Hillary voted for the war ... well, she did it for the same reason several other Dem Senators did.  She voted for it because the White House told her and others that Hussein had acquired said weapons and that we had definitive proof of it.  Yes, she was duped by the lie.  Most people in this country were duped by the lie.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ah abortion! That must be your key issue. Perhaps that's why you support Hillary! so much?

Can I ask you, are you female? [/quote]

I have a Y chromosome.  But if I didn't my opinion would be equally valid.  [sarcasm]Are you a red-headed, blue-eyed Orthodox Jew who smokes?[/sarcasm]

Abortion is one of many important issues which I believe a Super-Conservative Supreme Court would threaten.  They would also go after the minimum wage, environmental protections, free speech, etc.

[Wakie]

Again,

"NBC News, which is projecting delegates based on the Democratic Party’s complex formula, figures Obama will wind up with 840 to 849 delegates, versus 829 to 838 for Clinton."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8358.html

You can't post numbers that have 120 Delegates unaccounted for, and declare those the end result. NBC NEWS AGREES WITH THE OBAMA NUMBERS.

Ghostmonkey, your politico.com article is now 30 hours old.  The numbers on MSNBC's website remain consistent.  We can quibble back and forth over the +/- 10 delegates, but it is still basically a numerical tie.

BTW, you may want to work on reading and comprehension.  I did not call my total "the end result".  In fact, read my post .... I say that is what we have thus far.  You're relying on 1 article with a projection.  Projections change.  Clearly MSNBC hasn't managed to finalize things yet and the 120 delegates in question are still "in question".

You must be logged in to read this quote.

One comment by a random poster on a random blog?  That's your evidence?  I thought you said that Senior members of her campaign were doing this?  Why you backed off of that one quick.  BTW, did you notice the attacks on Hillary by other random posters?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nope, that isn't what I said but way to spin.  The garnishing wages idea was introduced by John Edwards.  This led reporters to ask Mrs Clinton whether she would be in favor of garnishing wages.  She said she wouldn't take anything off the table.  You, and other Obamites, have spun this to claiming that her position is garnishing wages.  A total misrepresentation.

It is a shame your tactic isn't to present a plan of your own and talk about its virtues.  It is much easier to just attack someone else's plan that to present one of your own.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

To a high degree, NO. Which is one of the reasons that Senator's have not traditionally done well when facing former Governors. [/quote]

That and Senators have a voting record they have to defend and frequently issues in Congress are not as black and white as the pundits make them out to be.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'd be happy to have Bill back in the White House.  I think it is funny that you think you know more about the goings on of said administration than the man who ran it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The biggest point is that it doesn't use Mandates. [/quote]

Actually it seems that the point is that you don't know much about it ... just that it "doesn't use mandates".  You know what else doesn't use mandates?  Doing nothing.  The problem is that doing nothing rarely solves problems.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I love how you continue to avoid the question about why Obama voted against the Kerry Bill to end the war.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Are you being anti-semitic now? I sure hope not. Sarcasm or not, that's not a very nice statement to make. Please retract it.[/quote]

Yes, I'm clearly an anti-semite for pointing out how ridiculous your question about my gender was with a sarcastic retort.  Well, let's be fair, I'm only hateful towards red-headed, blue-eyed Orthodox Jews who smoke.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You're not very good at remembering topics, are you?

The Supreme Court Justice issue debate went like this .... you said you would never vote for Hillary if she wins the nom.  I said that this election is too big to be selfish and that returning the GOP to the White House would mean 1-2 more conservative Justices.  You pulled the "you must be a woman" thing out of your pocket and accused me of only caring about abortion.  I pointed to many issues a Conservative Supreme Court would hurt America on.  You come back with "Obama won't appoint Conservatice Justices".  So somewhere in that you lost the fact that we were talking about McCain appointing them .... which he most assuredly would do if he wants a 2nd term (he won't win without the conservative base twice).

[Wakie]

I agree that this is a totally pointless discussion.  You have drank so much of the Kool-Aid it is beyond comprehension.


To summarize your perception of the world:

*1 aging article is enough even if contradicted by a more recent item from the same source.
*All candidates should be held accountable for all statements made by random internet bloggers that appear to support said candidate.
*Saying you won't rule out any options means you will support ALL options
*It is ok for you to say "Are you a woman?" But if someone asks "Are you a <insert random characteristic>?"  They are clearly biased against the random characteristic group.
*The Supreme Court is a powerless entity.

Additionally it is fascinating that:
*You cannot debate the virtues of your candidate's proposals
*When confronted with a tough question you decline to answer it.


Welcome aboard troll.