Big Ol' Smitty

1. Obama has proposed tax cuts. It's right there in plain English on the Obama website. Will they actually pass? Who knows? But the proposal is there. 2. Oh cut the whining. Czech, argue against Obama all you want. Just come up with a substantive reason for doing so. "Young people like him" and "he's too inspirational" aren't working for you. 3. To the guy talking about superdelegates...they can still change their endorsement, they're not pledged. And most of them haven't endorsed yet, so there's that. I read a story the other day about a superdelegate who didn't even know they were a superdelegate. And, keep in mind, these superdelegates are politicians, so if one candidate starts looking like they're pulling ahead superdelegates will be all over them like flies on a turd. 4. Snuffbox--Obama has hardly said he'll end the war on drugs. He talked about decriminalizing marijuana (not legalizing, decriminalizing). And do you think he'll actually expend any political capital actually doing it? I doubt it.

Joe Klein is a douchebag. This is silly concern trolling. "Dangerously self-referential" Oh noes! Klein undermines his entire argument right here: So the people who actually pay attention to and care about politics (and are probably far more informed on policy positions) and give enough of a shit to spend an hour or so at a caucus tend to support Obama overwhelmingly. This kind of belies the claim that Obama is all style and no substance. Czech, this is classic concern trolling. I especially like the fact that you highlighted the sentence that says that Clinton "simply knows more." She didn't know enough to vote against the debacle in Iraq or not push a bullshit flag burning amendment or crusade against violence in video games, or vote to keep using cluster bombs. A couple weeks ago Clinton was the "gnarled claw of the Democratic establishment" and now she's the Dems' best choice. Isn't the better candidate the one who has a better chance of winning? Perhaps there's some other criterion for "better candidate for political office" that I'm unaware of.

Considering the popularity of Obamalamadingdong (Who seems to be on pace to lock up the nom) and McCain's weird yet powerful appeal to moderates and independents, I doubt it. Sure, Conservatives say they won't vote for him... but they will. They know the score. In all honesty, I don't think the third parties are going to get any extra turnout. Heck, maybe even less, as I think the majority of people are going to be somewhat happy with their candidates, unlike the last two times. I'm hearing rumors about a possible "Redo" with Michigan and Florida. Anyone else here this? Shh..I accidentally stumbled upon Air America for like..5 minutes last night and the host was saying that he thinks Michigan and Florida will redo with caucusses despite the high cost. The poor caller from florida was pissed that his vote didnt count or something. Oh, and heres a scenario that will piss everyone off. Obama wins the most delegates going into the Convention but not the required number to win (or even worse he has the number to win..). So the "Super Delegates" decide that the American people know jack shit about politics and go, hey we dont really like this Obama guy, we want Hillary Clinton as President. Hell, Bill Clinton himself is a Democratic Super Delegate...dum dum dum duh..I think that would sufficiently piss enough democrat voters off not to vote along with the Conservatives not voting for McCain..WORST CASE SCENARIO? Its probably more likely than you think. And no, this didnt come from Glenn Beck..it came from the CBS News tonight describing how Super Delegates work. They gave the explanation for having Super Delegates as to keep people from voting in someone who wooed the American voters but didn't have the political resume to back it up. Sounds like Obama to me.. Me & Boon already discussed this earlier in the thread, cochise.

Dick Cheney, yesterday at CPAC

Man, biscuits and gravy was my shit growing up. Moms made the best. True story: My granny made hot dog gravy.

Voter turnout will probably be very high, judging by the insane turnout in the primaries so far.

And you're voting for...

I don't know how Barack Obama became the "youth candidate" over Mittens. Just look at Romney's rapport with these young African-Americans!

This is insane. Obama just broke Ron Paul's (of all people) one day fundraising record (partially in response to today's revelation that the Clintons loaned Hillary's campaign $5 million). http://my.barackobama.com/page/contribute_...5_email/graphic (link to picture)

But McCain attacked the 1st Amendment right of large corporations and the very rich to give shitloads of money to politicians.

We've finally found the solution to America's health care crisis. Everyone get really fat and have heart attacks (just be sure to die)!

How many Filet O Fishes did you eat?

That is counting superdelegates.

No, the official numbers from the networks aren't out yet.

Obama "won" Super Tuesday, with a slight edge in pledged delegates. He slightly built his lead over Clinton in pledged delegates.

The troops still hate the troops. http://www.opensecrets.org/pressreleases/2...dential.2.4.asp

who cares

Things are looking really good for Obama. It looks like he will probably come out of Super Tuesday maintaining his lead in pledged delegates. Plus he has Washington, Nebraska, & Maine caucuses coming up Saturday. Look at the way he dominated in caucus states last night. His core of activists should give him big wins in all three. Then next Tuesday he's got DC, Virginina, & Maryland coming up, all of which look good for him. Not to mention that he's swimming in cash a la Scrooge McDuck right now. Clinton has to be sweating right now.

Obama isn't really cleaning up. He's doing okay, but it looks like this thing is gonna be pretty much a draw on the D side, barring a big win in CA for one or the other.

I'm a skinny fuck and I get the footlongs and eat them in one sitting.

I stand by what I wrote.

Why's that, guy? (thanks for thinking I'm smart to begin with, though)

Marvin, you still are totally misrepresenting what Clinton said. He is arguing that addressing global warming would be a boon to the economy. Your "interpretation" of his quote was way off the mark, and that's why jsyk, zgangsta, and Edwin (a fucking master of the English language) poked fun at you. You didn't get it AT ALL. Read this again: And then your interpretation: I don't even want to get into the substance of the global warming (or SO CALLED global warming, amirite?) issue with you, because, frankly, it would be pointless. I just wanted to point out your inability to interpret a simple passage of text.