Super Tuesday
 

How are you voting? (Or did, or would vote, if your state isn't involved.)

Let me get a poll up here....

I voted a couple weeks ago but did not vote for a presidential candidate in the primary. Unless things change drastically, if given the opportunity I will vote for Obama in the general election.

I voted Obama on the poll.....but I can't vote in the primary since I'm a registered Libertarian. I do believe that Democrats should elect their own runner, but I do wish I could vote. For the first time I'm kind of bummed I'm registered for a third party. (if anything I'd go independent.)

Please, Dems, don't let me down! :)

Hahah, i was thinking of making a Poll poll earlier today, but hestitated because it might be thought a tad intrusive.

But it's not, and you were cool to start one, CP. Um, where's the poll though?


I'm voting for Hillary. She's not my favorite politician. But i like her. I want her to be the first woman president, and I'm fine with her faults in light of that important threshhold being crossed.

I'm cool with the first black pres. line being crossed, too. But i just don't like Obama as much. I feel he gives a darn good speech, and has his heart in many of the right places. But I just don't feel as comfortable with him as I do with Hillary. Maybe it's just the years of familiarity I have with her.


I would have much preferred the non-threshhold-breaking John Edwards to either of them. I think his heart is in much more right places than either Clinton or Obama. (And of course, my policy trends jibe even stronger with never-a-chance-in-hell Dennis Kucinich).


Obama's young, and the presidency might still be his someday if his star continues to ascend. It's not exactly that I think it's Hillary's "turn," but I think she's more, i dunno, presidential.


(And of course, I can't resist Former First Lady as President and Former PotUS as First Fella. Forget the first woman or first black ... when we will ever have a shot at this again?!?!)




Oh, the propositions? Voting no on all of them. Especially those nasty, greedy, money-grubbing Indian ones.

I did the absentee thing in my jammies (mentioned in another thread). Voted no on many of the initiatives and gave a yes to Obama. There are things I like about Hillary, Obama and Edwards. Wish I could have had all three from Column B

I decided to vote for the opposite of whatever Cadaverous Pallor and/or Ghoulish Delight voted for.

Go Clinton !

I don't belong to a party so I didn't vote in the primary, though I could have arranged to vote dem if I wanted to. At the moment, I'd be fine with anyone but Huckabee.

Obama. Clinton is pissing me off- now she's getting all teary on the trail again. Do you think that's presidential? I wanna go all Tom Hanks on her: 'There's no crying in politics!'

I have been sitting on my absentee ballot because I can't decide.

Well, there is plenty of crying in politics. The part that bothers me is that both times she's cried it has been in response to people telling her how wonderful she is. I don't mind crying, I'd just prefer it be from better causes.

If you're not registered for a party, aren't you allowed to vote in the Dem primary?

I'm permanent absentee - before my ballot came, I got a form to fill out if I wanted to vote in the democratic primary (oh and American Independent as well). I didn't respond and got the vanilla, no party ballot. I guess I could have chucked that and gone to my polling place, but I really don't see much difference between Hillary and Obama.

Besides I was to confused as to whether I should side with my race or my gender.

Does anyone realize that this is "Super Fat Tuesday?"

And they closed down my local Fatburger. I'm craving one. Mmmmmmmm

I guess that means Hillary will get the most beads

I registered Democrat, just so I could vote against Hilary...





just kidding :)

I think our caucuses are Saturday and the primary on Tuesday. I know I got our ballots a few days ago. I had prepared to vote for Edwards, even though I knew he wouldn't win. Now that I can't do that, I just don't know who I'm going to vote for.

Obama. I'm changing parties and moving on.He's a breath of fresh air. And I do not want another frickin' eight years of Hil-Bill-ary.:rolleyes:

I really think Edwards and Obama might team up, for what it's worth. They have been terribly civil to one another, suspiciously so.

A nice foam cushion would be more comfortable:D

Yeah, but at least Edwards pretended to be his own man with the occasional mild swipe in Obama's direction..........unlike Huckabee, who is gonna need a crowbar to remove his lips from McCain's back side when this whole thing is over:rolleyes:

Didn't people say something similar about Dubya being Bush Sr.'s son? :evil:

At one of the debates they took write-in questions. A woman asked, "I"m 38 years old, and in every single presidential election I've ever voted in, a Bush or a Clinton won. Why should I keep that going?"

Time for a change. :snap: I really hope the Clinton drama train doesn't make another White House stop.

So true!

I liked her comeback: "It takes a Clinton to clean up a Bush."

I voted today. Yay.

:snap: to everyone who votes today.

What do the rest of us get?

My only problem with her answer to that question was that Bush Sr. really wasn't that bad. Sure, he wasn't all that inspiring but other than a (very) short term economic dip that was beyond his control (as they are all pretty much beyond presidential control) but incredibly poorly timed for his political fortunes he didn't do anything really bad.

Hot coffee in your lap?

And perhaps I should re-phrase, those who are able to vote today (if you're having a primary on Super T)

Nonetheless, I am a firm believer in casting your vote in every election you are able to do so.

I voted McCain because no-one else had and I like my individuality.

Sweet-talker

ETA: Snowflake, I got your jist... just having a little fun. I wish I was voting today.

We don't get to vote for many months yet but at this point I'm still going Obama.

For several days, I have been making a prediction that we will see Obama vs. McCain in November with Obama coming out on top. I say this not a personal preference; just my gut feeling about how things will turn out.

I may be wrong, but this is my feeling right now.

I'm just marveling at the fact that us Californians get to vote in the primary when there's still a question as to who the candidate will be.

^Don't let it go to your head, hippie.



I voted Friday. Do I still get the shocker (or is that a SNAP)?

I said it earlier, but this is the first election that I haven't voted in. I am super bummed, and it's my own forgetting and lazy fault. By the time I realized that I don't get to fly over to my polling station, it was too late to get my absentee. I didn't want to bother with a last-minute registration here, especially since Utah seems to be going Obama/Romney on their respective sides, plus I have no idea of the issues that are going on in this area, so I figured it would be a general waste.

I'll be registered in the coming months, in preparation for The Big Day.

I think you can register on rockthevote.com

I wonder how many votes Mickey Mouse will get this year. I once read that he's one of the most popular write-in "candidates".

I sent in my absentee ballot last week -- and since I'm a Green, I didn't choose anyone listed in the poll.






Can't I just vote for Obi-Wan?

Yes, I can, and it's actually pretty simple to do here in Utah. But, I needed to do it 20 days prior to this election, and I was the bonehead that thought of it only a couple of weeks ago. So, I figured I'd just do it when I got my license this summer.

I meant for the future elections :p

I just realized that I forgot to put Ron Paul on there.

It did crack me up, but I agree with Alex, that Bush #1 didn't leave as big a mess.

Yay, Obama's winning in my pointless poll :D

Congratulations....:)

yes I voted. no, theyre not in your poll
paid for by the Capt Jack for president fund
Im Capt Jack and I approved the lunch order

I voted! and I got the sticker to prove it!

I'll vote after work. I want my sticker!

Voted for Romney in perhaps the most meaningless vote of my life. A vote for Romney in McCain's home state? Yeah, right.

McCain is unstable. He scares me in a DeNiro-as-Capone-with-a-baseball-bat kind of way.

Got my sticker too. I planned all day to vote for Obama. Thought I had made up my mind. By the time I got there though, my conscience made me vote for Hillary.

Ultimately, I think it will be Obama, and that won't make me sad. I like the guy. I think his momentum is fascinating and inspiring. Still, when it came down to it, I had to vote for who I thought would be a better President.

ETA: I even voted Obama in this poll. I was certain that he would get my vote. Strange.

Funny, that's exactly why I'm NOT voting for Hillary.

I've gone back and forth on it for two weeks now. It wasn't an easy decision by any means and my reasoning goes beyond my one-sentence response. I suppose there is underlying feeling that you have to know how to play the game. I don't like the game, I hope if Obama gets in, he changes the game. But, in Hillary, I see someone who has been attacked mercilessly for many years now and she is still standing. I don't see a whole lot of new angles to attack her on. With Obama, I see the smear machine potentially eviscerating him, on everything from his name to his former drug use and any other thing they can dig up. They will swiftboat the living hell out of him and I'm not yet convinced that he can combat it successfully. He's never had it happen to him.

Did I make the best choice? I have no idea.

What if Obama is Osama who shaved his beard? Then what do we do??

Obama takes Georgia. Early exit polling has it 64% Obama, 30% Hillary, 4% Edwards.

(MBC...is it just me or did you from one post to the next change your criteria from "who'd be the better President?" to "who'd be the better candidate/most electable?" Don't take this as attacking your decision, I just thought I'd point it out because you're obviously conflicted and think it might help you to notice that you might be comparing apples to oranges)

Yeah, I tried to edit it so it was clearer. As I was writing my second post, I simply realized that there was more to my decision than my earlier response. The combination of both responses is more on the money. And, to be honest, I am still trying to sort out my decision so, hell, ask me tomorrow and I might tell you something different. :)

Really, I'm not usually this wishy-washy in the election process.

Well, MBC, we may be in the same boat soon enough, but for now there's only one specific set of circumstances that would make me vote for Hillary.

She'd have to be the Democratic nominee.;)

As for Obama's ability to stand up to the B.S., I look to how he's handled crap like the insane media freakout over his early campaign statements on Iran, or the blatant race-baiting by the media and/or Hillary's campaign staff (I won't pin it on Hillary herself). Sure, it's not the highly target personal attacks of the swiftboat nature, but so far nothing has shaken him in the slightest, he's dealt with it all without missing a beat.

What's round on the end? Ba in the middle?

And then, well, ma on the other end?

Obama.

Frankly, it's a coinflip, as to qualifications, but if Hillary runs against McCain, it will be swift boats and Jane Fonda all over again.

Plus, Obama has the nicest, most normal family of the four lead candidates. A clear advantage over the divorced McCain and his younger wife and Romney's perversely perfect family with the five quarterback sons.

Obama vs. Romney would be interesting because I don't think they like each other. At the staged group hug at the last seriatim debate I watched, I thought the vibe between them was pretty frosty.

Hillary is a total control freak. If someone in her campaign did it without her knowledge, they'd be at the bottom of some ocean somewhere wearing the proverbial concrete shoes.

I have no doubt Obama would be a better President than Hillary, but that's like saying a Mexican hairless cat is better looking than a Chinese hairless dog. Yeah, one has to be better looking, but I'm not picking up either.

I voted. Obama and didn't think twice.

MBC, I read your post before I left the office. I admire your inner-thoughts and for going with your opinion of who will be best. In the end that is all we can do.

Obama here also...just don't want to have Bill return via Hillary.

Simple explanation

Your hand changed its mind.

(Saw this on another blog and thought of you. Hope you like Dr. John!)

Voted Clinton, for various reasons. Having said that, I will wholeheartedly embrace the eventual Democratic nominee whether it be Clinton or Obama.

I want this war to end (sorry, JM) and am creeped out by Mitt...

This sure is an interesting year in politics... and it's only February.

I think the Republican smear machinery will go after Hillary far worse than they will Obama. They have more ammunition, IMO.

I voted for Obama.

Hi Ho, Hi Ho
It's off to vote I go

For Mitt Romney (I have the same wishy-washiness as MBC) and no, no, no, yes, yes, yes, and yes.

Do you feel like you are watching Quick Time Harch now?

I was thinking my hand would suddenly change my vote to Obama, but it didn't. But i'm as conflicted as MBC, and the pros and cons to both Dem candidates don't wash out in one or the other's favor, to my mind at any rate.


Frankly, I think Obama can beat McCain, and Clinton would have a harder time of it. But I don't vote on electability or strategy. I vote on who I'd like more to be MY president. (But yeah, i do vote on having Bill Clinton be the first First Fella, so sue me.)

Obama's looking strong. Clinton's got a slight edge in terms of the states that the news outlets are calling one way or the other, but of the 7 states that are reporting but not yet called, Obama's leading in 6. If this continues, they are indeed going to end up virtually even when all is said and done, which Obama's gotta view as a victory.

Damn. I'm forced to watch the results on Fox News because they have the best results graphics including being the only one (between them, CNN, and MSNBC) prominently displaying the delegate counts which, in the end, are the important thing.

What the press will likely report as victory is not victory at all. No major media reported anything but that Clinton won Nevada, and the Obama camp was pretty pissed about that ... seeing as it was he who won Nevada.

The contest is for DELEGATES, not votes. Who wins the popular vote doesn't matter at all. In the Democratic race especially, with proportional wins of delegates, knowing the person who won the popular vote in each state is competely meaningless.

MSNBC.com's graphics are good. You can even browse to it on your Wii if you want to see it on you TeeVee.

And I should have said, I'm looking at delegate counts. Obama started the day with the lead, Clinton's up by about 30, but will likely see that lead dwindle as those next 7 states report.

Then there's California...

ETA: Hmm, seems there was a temporary glitch in MSNBC's graphics. There are 5 states on the Democratic side that are reporting but still uncalled. Obama's got a lead in 4 of those.

I'm watching Chris and Keith on MSNBC, and have the MSNBC Super Dashboard running on my computer for delegate counts.

I don't have the web browser installed on my Wii and I'm not watching results on my computer. For just casual glances every 15 minutes or so the Fox graphics are best. MSNBC when I was watching it was fine though somewhat harder to parse.

As of 8:15, Clinton has 160 delegates to Obama's 128.
McCain has 367 delegates to Romney's 127 and Huckabee's 91.

Super Dash is calling Hillary for CA.

Used incorrect terminology.

Ack, this is totally stressing me out!!! :p

I finally feel like I can support a major candidate again, after so many years of feeling it wasn't worth my time...and it's very possible he may not make it. :( If Hilary wins I will have to crawl back in my cave with my fingers in my ears for another 8 years.

Maybe I'll move to Canada

2 percent are reporting. Super Dashboard isn't "calling it" until you see a green checkmark.

Sorry.

There's just not enough information in yet. Until all of today's delegate numbers are in, I don't think we'll know - and there are still states to vote (at least for dems)

Green check is there :(

Wake me when it's over and there are final results.
:)

Lisa's right. As Alex pointed out elsewhere, and was evidenced in Nevada, winning the popular vote does not necessarily translate into getting the most delegates. It's still looking pretty tight over all and if it remains so through tomorrow morning, it's good news for Obama.

BTW, interesting observation in this thread. On the Democratic side the two most popular responses seem to be either "I voted for Obama" or "I was really conflicted, but I ended up voting for Hillary."

California just called for Hillary and McCain. And now I'll be questioning my decision for the foreseeable future. I wish I could say "I'm positive I did the right thing" but it isn't that easy.

I'm really surprised at how Huckabee is doing, and to some extent, how Romney is doing. Crazy day.

The good thing about picking Hillary over Obama, if you're confused about which was the right choice .... if it turns out Obama is as good as we suspect, he'll have another shot or two or three at the presidency.

So we could have both. Just not right now. And Hillary could be the first woman president, while Obama could also still be the first black president.




I'd have one of Lisa's cats as president over George W. Bush, so let's not fret too much if it's Hillary or Barack.

Calliope for President!!!!

The First Female Feline President!

Just because a dead rodent would be better than our current President doesn't mean I have to be happy that someone I don't particularly respect as a politician might be my only choice.

Our house is 100% behind Obama - and 100% willing to support Clinton should she come out ahead in the end. I'm just grateful to have to pick between two candidates I respect (instead of looking for the lesser of evils.)

Ideologically I find Hillary and Obama about the same. I think Hillary does have the claim of experience in that she knows she has to make deals to get things done - but e3xpect a lot of political theater because no Republican is going to want to be seen as making deals with her.

Obama on the other hand may spend the first part of his presidency pursuing his ideals and geting nowhere (like Clinton and Health Care) then he'll get down to bargaining and be seen as a sell out by the democrats, but easier for the republicans to deal with.

As much as either would like to get out of Iraq, they'll discover quickly that that is no easy proposition as the republicans will start criticizing the costs of the war.

Of course on the other side, neither republican will be able to advance their agenda either, though both will be able to make deals with the democrats and be seen as sell outs to their party faithful.

They will continue to support the war, but take a lot of heat for fuzzy definitions of what "winning" is as the public gets bored and annoyed with our increaingly senseless mission.

If it helps, it's unlikely Obama lost by one vote.

Maybe I'm naive, but I'm already impressed that:

-The two major dems have not run mud-slinging ads
-The two major dems are both minorities (so to speak)
-One of them, ideals notwithstanding, has not taken money from lobbyists
-Both of them have made it past Super Tuesday with votes and dignity intact

If the early campaigning can change this much for the better, then I'm just going to keep believing that other things can change for the better, too.

Most outlets are projecting that once things shake out on the democratic side, it will be a "virtual tie". Obama won the larger share of delegates in more states, while Clinton won the larger share in the larger states, so it's balancing out. Far from over and I for one am hoping potential Obama voters in upcoming primaries see that bigger picture and don't just focus on Clinton's high profile California/NY wins.

Well, I already knew that but, yes, it does help a little. :)

I don't know. I'm still a little shocked because, although I voted for her, I didn't really expect her to win. But as that shock wears off a little, I'm being a little less hard on myself. I did what I thought was best and I participated in the process. I'm ok with that.

I voted for McCain

At 3am, I'm feeling that I made the right choice.

1) I really can't imagine what is left to throw at Hillary that hasn't already been flung. I can't help but feel that the Right has long since used up its most potent ammunition and it hasn't stopped her yet.

2) Part of my decision is based on who can be a more effective leader. Sure, the hatred of Hillary will be a hindrance but I have no way of knowing whether Obama can handle the divisiveness any better, he hasn't been put to the test yet.

3) I love his idealism but there is a certain amount of reality needed as well.

4) Will Hillary really have a tougher time beating McCain than Obama? The right is no fan of McCain. Hell, even Limbaugh and Hannity can't stand the guy. Plus, he is as old as the hills and, IMHO, will get clobbered in a debate between either of them. His position on the war is against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of the population. In fact, military personnel have given more contributions to Obama and Paul than any other candidate. Then again, I don't think McCain is as hawkish as he appears - he has been in war, he knows the horrors and I don't think he will be eager to start more wars. He is trying to win the conservative vote, he has no choice but to be pro-war right now, and I suspect that some conservatives at least realize that. All in all, I really don't think he has a chance against either Clinton or Obama. And stick a fork in Romney (Thanks, Huckabee).

4) And for my conservative friends, Ann Coulter supports Hillary over McCain. If she can do it, so can you. ;)

You may not be so far off for me. And if Ann hears about it and wants to show me some "appreciation", all the better.

I honestly cannot see myself voting for McCain. With his win in CA, which Romney really had to have to stay viable IMO, it looks truly inevitable that he will be the Republican nominee. For the first time ever (with the exception of two candidates in local AZ elections), I may be voting democrat. Or I may just choose not to vote. Or I may hope for a third party candidate I can support. I've always been one to see a third party vote as a throw away vote, but for the first time I can truly understand those that have taken a stand prior to this with such a candidate.

The only thing that could possibly make me vote for McCain would be that I think he "gets" the war on terror. That said, though, I think the man is unstable and has a temper that could really get us into trouble. You think we're in trouble with Iraq, wait until some foreign leader pisses off McCain. Like I posted earlier, McCain scares me in a DeNiro-as-Capone-with-a-baseball-bat kind of way, and I can think of no better way to describe it. I have always thought the Clintons were the most ruthless people politically, but if Mccain is President he will surpass them by light years, and crossing him will be the kiss of death - politically certainly, and maybe even literally.

However, we needed a Ford and a Carter to get a Reagan, and maybe this is what it will take to get another.

I've never been so completely unmotivated or discouraged politically. Please hold off on your cheering until I can at least dry my eyes.:(

Edited to add: There is one other factor that could cause me to vote for McCain. The Supreme court is getting older and older, with 4 or 5 justices over 70. I have no doubt his nominees wouldn't be stellar (my definition of stellar, of course), but they would be far, far better than the choices of Obama or Clinton.

Well said! Visible LSPE mojo! I'm totally in your glass half full camp here.

I would agree when it comes to Obama, but not Hillary. The Clinton machine has surrogates do it for them.

Also, what exactly is mud slinging? One thing that bugs me about McCain is that when you question his votes on bills he accuses the person asking said question of attacking and mud slinging.

And Dubya didn't scare you at all? The way he always berates everyone at news conferences...yeech. It's like he's going to throw a punch if you disagree, or, even better, sick his goons on you afterwards.

MBC - that's a lot of soul searching. At least you think about your vote, and care about the consequences. I may not agree but I respect that. :) Same goes for scaeagles.

Obama's camp had said that their goal was to get within one hundred delegates and they did....so forward we go. :)

You know, I worry that the reason Hillary is getting the edge right now is not so much "experience" as that people, consciously or not, are concerned that Obama won't rightly spend his administration "sticking it to Bush." It's just a gut feeling of mine, but it just may be that those people on the fence who might have considered voting Obama hesitate because he just won't be reactionary enough, that after putting up with Bush for 8 years, they want someone in there that "the other side" will equally have to "put up with."

Thanks. :)

Well, I can only speak for myself but, a revenge candidate is the furthest thing from my mind and certainly NOT what I want in a candidate. And I don't think that is what the average Democrat wants, at least I truly hope not. I want an effective leader that can get things done, and not waste a moment their time trying to stick it to anyone. There are too many incredibly important issues that need to full attention of the next administration and by that, I don't necessarily mean health care, although I would like to see progress made in that area.

But more important to me is someone who can regain some international respect, which I think Hillary or Obama can, and try to find solutions to the messes abroad and at home. We are coming upon a recession and our military is breaking. Those are two of my biggest concerns, and if health care has to take a backburner to those issues, I will accept that for the time being. And honestly, I think either candidate is going to show up at the Oval Office with so much on their plate that neither are going to be able to give social programs the attention they are professing right now. I just don't see it happening. There is so much to fix right now and prioritization is going to be the key. At least, that's how I see it. And if any democrat were to allow themself to get sidelined with some petty tit-for-tat bullshyt, they are going to raise my ire considerably.

I'm thinking along similar lines as MBC. I voted for Clinton yesterday because I honestly feel that she has the ability to jump in and get things done. When I listen to Obama's speeches, I feel like Mulder in the X-Files -- I WANT TO BELIEVE. I just haven't been convinced. However, if it comes down to it, I think that Hillary and Barack basically stand for the same things, and I support those ideals. So if Barack is the nominee, he's my guy.

I don't want revenge, per se ... but I DO want someone who will spend significant energy trying to UNDO almost everything Bush did. Warrentless wiretapping and all the other unconstitutional violations of privacy rights (far too numerous to mention), the disrespect and loathing in the world forum mentioned above, tax cuts and other distributions of wealth to the top 1% of the wealthy, torture in Cuba and other black sites around the globe, Iraq of course, defunding of vital social services, etc., the fvcking list goes on and on and on and on.


Yes, an anti-Bush is what I want. Ha! My candidate Clinton is hardly that! I'm for either her or Obama, half dozen of one. I think she will attempt less lofty things, but get more of them accomplished. And I believe he will attempt and speak of lotsa the lofty, but get very little of it actually done.

Nor do I. It's just starting to feel to me that, with everything else being so tight, that's the small edge she's getting. Perhaps I'm being too cynical, I don't know.

I'll vote for Hillary in a general election, but I won't be happy about it.

I agree. That's why I can't support Hillary. We need a president who can work with both parties to get America back on track. I just can't see Hillary being that person. The right hate her too much.

Well, it's out of our hands now and onto the rest of the states. McCain won't win an election so whomever ends up getting the Dem-Nom will get my support (and will likely be the next President).

Which is what I find puzzling about the hatred of Clinton. In many ways, she is a centrist. Much more so than Obama, I would think. It would seem that, if the right were to get a handle on their visceral hatred of this woman for a moment, they would realize that A) a democrat IS going to win. and B) there is likely a better chance of her working with them, for better or worse. I think that Obama, with a democrat controlled congress is going to potentially make them wish she got the nod.

Then again, perhaps that is why Coulter is supporting her. Either that, or it is reverse psychology, in the sense that by supporting her, they hope others will and they feel that they might actually be able to beat her. Honestly, I don't think they can though.

I found the numbers of votes in each state interesting yesterday. In every state that I saw, democratic voters far outnumbered Republicans. Maybe I'm missing something, but I didn't expect to see that.

I completely disagree. I perceive Hillary to be someone who is more interested in making her opponents look bad in order to gain political advantage than she is in doing the right thing.

Interesting. I don't see it that way, obviously. And it seems to me that if she simply does the right thing, as you say, that will completely serve the purpose of making them look bad in order to gain political advantage - without even trying. Sort of a killing two birds with one stone scenario. And hell, after the last eight years, is it even possible to make them look worse?

GD - I'm not sure exactly how you arrived at your POV, but I hope you're wrong. I definitely see her more as an old-school politician, so I do feel that the "change" bandwagon she's jumped on is a little disingenuous, but I still think she's more about getting things done. God I hope I'm right.

The hatred of Bill was also a puzzler to me. I loathed him as a president ... he governed as a freaking Republican. And all I can imagine is that they hated him because he stole their playbook.


In any event, this was the first primary election in a long time where I had to hem and haw about my vote, really liking both candidates. It's strange not to vote for the lesser of two evils. I can't remember when that was the case.

What's more surprising is that I will like BOTH candidates in the general election for president. I have always liked and respected John McCain. (scaeagles' recent rants about him have done nothing, one might imagine, to change my opinion of him as a great man.)


I have a pledge here on LoT to vote for McCain against Hillary (if she's the nominee) because she is so divisive a figure. I don't know if I'll be able to stand by that ... but it will be the first time EVER that I've actually liked the Republican nominee for president and would consider voting for them.


Wow, what an odd election this is turning out to be!

And that's where I part ways. To me, a vote for Hillary is a vote to continue the divisive "Everything on MY side of the aisle is right, everything on THE OTHER side of the aisle is wrong" politics. I fear her administration is going to be entirely reactionary. "They had their way for 8 years, now we'll have ours!" I just don't see Hillary doing anything but continuing politics as usual, something I despise, no matter how closely my views on the issues align with those in charge.

And of course the Bushies get to claim that their just responding to the evil that was the 8 Clinton years who were lashing back at 12 years of Reaganism.

I don't know if Obama will change anything. I'm just pretty sure that Clinton won't try.

I might agree with you GD, if I didn't honestly feel that everything on their side of the aisle is wrong, bordering on evil.


There is simply not much compromise I can stomach with conservatives and Repulicans who are heartless, warmongering, hypocritically holier-than-thou, prince-toadying thugs. That covers most of them, imo.

My only hope is that the Democratic president gets a fillibuster-proof Democratic Congress. Believe me, the Democrates are corporate tools who are absolutely centrist and beholden to the economic interests which I don't expect any state on earth to ever be free of.

So it's hardly some liberal or progressive paradise that I hope for in sidelining the Republicans. Just a temporary respite from Evil Imperialism.


If Hillary will tell them to go fvck themselves, I couldn't be happier. But that's not what I expect from her ... and I frankly don't know where you get that idea. However, I can understand if she reflectsively creeps you out.

The reason Coulter wants Clinton is that the last time Hillary was active in the WhiteHouse she gave us a GOP congress;)

Naw, the reason is that, although y'all won't admit it, Obama scares the hell out of you guys. ;)

What GD said.

Yeah... It wil be hard to demonize him, like they did with the Clintons, without looking like asses.

I have started considering a new reason for supporting Hillary. We have a lot of so-called "friends" in the Middle East that we pander to, give weapons to, and generally kiss ass to - while they act in ways one's friends generally don't.

I'd honestly like to stir the pot with a female commander-in-chief.

Perhaps....but that isn't logical. Coulter was saying "vote for Clinton over McCain", not Clinton over Obama.

People pay attention to that twisted self-serving bitch?

I think she's saying that to try and hurt Hillary more than they are McCain. The ones who are dumb enough to think her opinions matter for something are going... jeez if this warped woman wants me to vote for HILLARY, then hells no, there must be something wrong with Hillary.

Huh?

He thinks she's pulling some reverse psychology. "If I say I support Hillary, then perhaps the Dems will not nominate Hillary because they hate me so much."

I think it was more a shot at McCain than an endorsement of Hillary.

I'm pretty certain it's a shot at McCain. She's pretty hard-core conservative, and perhaps to her, she'd rather have a Dem in office than someone who will be only half-a$$ed about her conservative agenda.

McCain should just be happy that Romney and Huckabee are splitting the content conservative vote. If either of them had stepped out a couple weeks ago it is hard to imagine the same result for McCain last night.

It is amazing to me that we're so solidly in the rut of producing such evenly split election results. Even when the election is limited to one half of the spectrum it splits down the middle. In pledged delegates Obaman and Clinton are essentially tied. In total votes cast yesterday they were with 200,000 of each other (slight lead to Clinton).

I see.

Yes, it is definately a shot at McCain and certainly not an endorsement of Mrs. Clinton.

I'm sure he is. Just as Dubya must have been glad Ralph Nader was in the race in 2000. That's just the way it goes when more than one candidate appeals to the same constituency, but the benefit to the remaining candidate is hardly unfair or undeserved simply because other candidates split up certain votes.

In no way to I mean to imply it is unfair. Any more than it is unfair that Hillary's anointment to the White House ran into the unexpected speed bump (or crash wall, depending) of Barrak Obama.

I just really don't see how McCain can win the general (he won't motivate the core to get out and vote like Bush did and while Democrats may like him they're not going to forego Clinton/Obama to vote for him) and if it weren't for this he'd be in bad shape.

The vagaries of historical Brownian motion. Countless small things that seemingless conspire to produce an otherwise unexpected result.

Au Contraire, tons of Independents vote for McCain. If Hillary is the opposing candidate, he stands a decent chance. If it's Obama, who also gets those same Independents, McCain would be toast.


I'm not saying McCain would win against Clinton, but he would have a far better chance against her than against Obama.

That is sad. You have wholesale dismissed every single Republican/Conservative. Nice to know you have the capacity for compromise.

And I would say the same thing if you were speaking of Democrats/Liberals.

Of course we're all just armchair quarterbacking but I disagree with this. To me, the benefit he gains from holding the moderate-right and independent votes (though I think either Clinton or Obama will likely do much better with true independents than McCain would, especially once the primaries are over and the Democrats stop talking about how moderate he is and begin treating him like a strong conservative) is more than offset by the depressing effect he'll have on turnout by the core of the Republican party.

When faced with the choice of a liberal under the label "Democrat" or a perceived liberal under the label "Republican" I think a lot of ideological Republicans are going to sit it out because at least with the Democrat the structures of your own party won't be hampering resistance to the policies.

But who knows, I was shocked by how strongly Clinton kept California since I have not seen a single visual sign of support for her but Obama is everywhere (though I am in one of the few counties that went for Obama instead of her).

Um, please clarify. Would you say the same of Democrats/Liberals? And if so, how is my saying it about Republicans/conservatives sad?

BTW, read my post again. I was talking about Republicans in government, NOT Republican citizens.

And now, to Alex:

Well, Republicans are likely no stranger to voting against one candidate rather than for another.

Perhaps John McCain can't bring out the Republican base ... but Hillary Clinton can and will.


As for the recent California vote .... I'm not sure what you mean by "visual" support. But Hillary Clinton doesn't need any. Her support here runs deep and far back. There was no need for rallies, appearances, much TV or press coverage. She's world-famous, and well-liked among many Democrats ... of which there are a few, and with their own minds and memories, here in California. ;)

Okay, you have wholesale dismissed every action taken by a Republican in the House and Senate. Presumably, this counts for all past and future Republicans as well.

My comment still stands. It is sad that you make a wholesale comment about EVERY action taken by one group.

No, I do not make blanket comments about Liberals/Democrats or their actions. I support many liberal views. And I disagree with many conservative views. I say that with absolute certainty and conviction.

By visual support I don't mean news, rallies, etc. I mean signs of normal people preferring a candidate. I don't think I've yet seen a Hillary Clinton sign either in the neighborhood of my home or my office. Meanwhile signs of Obama support are everywhere.

Heck, other than on this board, I don't know a person in my circle of California acquaintances that voted for Clinton rather than Obama. It is a cocoon, I'm just admitting I was surprised by how misleading it was (though again Obama did have his strongest outcome in the Bay Area).

I agree that a lot of Republicans will vote for McCain despite their dislike of him simply to keep Hillary out. However, I think those are predominantly in states where Hillary isn't going to win anyway. In swing states I just don't see him being able to get out the independent vote in numbers strong enough to counteract the general malaise he'll inspire in the base. Yes, they'll say in polls that they'll swallow their bile and vote for him but when the day rolls around they just aren't going to find the energy to get out.

Really, I think Romney is the only person who had much of a chance in the general election and Huckabee ****ed it for him by giving the evangelicals a way to avoid voting for an LDS candidate without it being so obvious that's what they really wanted to do.

Of the 150 that ran for president he is the only one who has ever delivered the left's wet dream of universal health care at any scale. If he could have survived the primaries I don't think he'd have had any trouble moving back to the center. I don't think he had a strong chance but in my view it was better than McCain's or Huckabees.

And finally, how's this for screwed up?

I'll also admit that my visceral dislike of McCain is probably clouding my judgment on how others react to him.

I just can't stand the though of 4 or 8 years of looking at his ugly face, wondering what the hell it is he stores in those massive cheeks of his (particularly his left one) and fearing that any moment he will amuse himself and break out in that evil looking smile of his that somehow locks up his whole body into a rigid contortion.

Eh I voted for Edwards. Crap.

That's what I get for voting early while I had time to kill at John Wayne. First time I ever voted for a Dem, but given that I am not registered with a party, I didn't have much choice.

I liked Guilliani for the most part. So much for him. Nice strategy campaign advisors. I feel now like I have felt in nearly every election; don't like any of 'em.

I despise Hillary. Huckabee scares me almost as much as Clinton. I'm indifferent towards Romney, but I do like his business background. I agree with McCain on a majority of the issues, more than with anyone save Guilliani. But something just isn't right about him. Can't quite place it. And he is a bit liberal on gun control which is generally my primary voting issue.

As someone who votes on the issues, I guess I will have to go with McCain. Though I do like Obama. I really do. I think he is smart, well-spoken and inspirational. Almost like JFK in that regard. However, as with Hillary, I disagree with him on nearly 75% of the issues. I generally find myself liking what he has to say and how he says it, until he starts getting into the specifics on his positions: health care, timetables for a withdrawal from Iraq, etc...

Another disappointing election year.

The article missed the (admittedly little known) fact that if Michigan and/or Florida simply have some kind of thrown-together bullsh!t caucus anytime between now and the convention, they will be back in compliance with the Democratic Party rules and the delegates won at the prior rule-breaking elections would suddenly count ... and all be within the rules.

I couldn't disagree more. He is anything but conservative fiscally. Perhaps socially I could agree.

Romney is cashing in his chips
 

MBC was right, stick a fork in Romney, he's done.

Thank goodness. Of all the two-faced politicians, he was the most dual-faced I've ever seen.

I once told him, in this thread I believe, that he could suck my fat one. And he could do it with either mouth.

I'm so glad he was sent packing. What a hypocritical, cowardly excuse for a man.

I hear the Republican side of his mouth is quite capable of manipulating a flaccid penis to orgasm.



/word on the street in Utah

Why? What's his point? That he won one of the Virginias?? I honesty don't get it ... and I don't see why McCain should grant him the time of day, much less a debate. His candicacy is laughable at this point.

Romney's out. Good. He's a dinglecheese.

Couldn't agree more. I have grown to despise Romney with almost every inch of my being.

I suspect that you really don't care about Romney, that you were just looking for an excuse to use "dinglecheese."

Only a dinglecheese would do that.
:D


He was my governor in Massachusetts for a whole year. Let's just say I didn't agree with him on many, many things.

I wonder who Huckabee would choose as VP.

Not sure. But I predict his campaign making "I Heart Huckabee" bumperstickers.... if they haven't already.

Harold Ford Jr....no wait, I think Hillary may want him for her VP.

Hrmm, I thought I heard him supporting McCain... caught a bit of it in TV while eating lunch.

And yes, Sac, that is the word on the rough and tumble streets of Utah.

I've been meaning to ask (and now derail), is The Cheeseman a dinglecheese? The Big Dinglecheese?

Who's the Cheeseman? If I don't know him, I can't judge him.
:D

So I listen to McCain in front of CPAC today. I don't get it. He had opposed making the Bush tax cuts permanent, but now he says he supports them. He had reluctantly (a few months ago) changed his tune regarding securing the border, and now he makes it sound as if he had always supported it.

I get that about politicians.

So here's what I wonder. Has he had a genuine change of heart on these and other issues, or is he simply preaching to the choir at CPAC? He needs to prove to me that he means these things and isn't simply now trying to appeal for the support of the conservative base.

Scaeagles, please tell me you're not hoping for direct honesty from a politician.

You'd have a much better chance of the Easter Bunny delivering you a nice egg basket this year. ;)

There's something you don't see too often!

Perhaps Jesus.

Well, you should work on your accuracy!

OT: Can we just start calling it Stupid Tuesday? Because I was sooooo sick of the breaking coverage. In this day and age, if I want to see up-to-the-nanosecond results, I can go to CNN or MSNBC, Fox News or even the internet for crying-out-loud. Leave me and my television shows alone. In this case, it was Biggest Loser, which had me feeling like the Biggest Crybaby when they broke away for coverage.

At least we have choices now........

I remember the 1970's. 5 Channels including PBS and a dorkus named Jimmy who alsways seemed to know when I wanted to watch something on TV:mad:

Probably why I became a Republican;)

But... but!!! They took away the one choice that I deemed worth watching. I was so despondent I flipped channels, stopping at nothing until I decided my thumb hurt. Even the 450+ DVDs to my left couldn't stop me.

I know how you feel.....it's like someone decided for you what you needed to see.

gn2dlnd

visible MOJO MBC

I miss the old McCain. I might have even considered voting for him.

Romney's "reason" for quitting the race was to "get out of the way of McCain" so the party can unify behind him. Sounds like he's not giving his votes to Huckabee.

I have to admit I'm happy to see the religious right so pissed off. No offence, scaeagles and others (if you so classify yourself - I'm not sure if you do) but it was mostly that side of the party that pushed me out.

*sniff*

Just as I'm sure someone else will decide my President for me... *sniff*

Actually, in the short-term, I care more about what I'm watching. But that's just me.

Stupid Tuesday.

;)

I am religious and I am on the right, but I would not classify myself as such. The RR comes down to intense social conservatism, and while I am, I lean more to the libertarian side of keep the government out of my way and everyone else's. Sadly, no such candidate exists that believes "That government is best that governs least".

^Ron Paul

I have looked at the man and listened to what he's had to say.....the problem is that I can't imagine voting for someone who truly believes that 9/11 was our fault. It's not a conspiracy theory thing with him, but he seems to believe that terrorist attacks are justified by our Middle East policies, specifically the 10 years prior to 9/11.

Sorry. Can't do it. I find that view reprehensible. It isn't my goal now to debate policies in the Middle East....just expressing this disagreement with him which I could never get past. This view would have to be indicative of what his foreign policy would entail should he be elected.

It's not "Super Tuesday" but the Bitter East Coast primaries are this coming Tuesday. So far Obama is winning the commercial war over Clinton 9-to-0. I hope the voting goes that way also.

I don't have the list on hand, but Hillary made a statement last week that made it clear that there were only handful of states she was interested in actively campaigning in for the remainder of the primaries.

Guess you don't want the govt. out of yur dingleberries after all.

What do you base that on?

Justified? No. Result of? In part, for damn sure.

All actions have have effects. We could speculate all day on what the reuslt would have been should President A have done action 1 or President B had done action 2, but I have no doubt horrible things would be the result, because there will always be madmen who wish to do harm and have it justified, excused, or explained as a reaction to a policy.

So then a Democrat's actions (or lack thereof) as President would be a significant contributor. 8 out of 10 years prior to 9/11/2001 (and probably the most significant chunk of time in regards to the 9/11 terrorist attacks), a Democrat was in the White House.

Frankly, I don't see how our refusal to help would engender hatred on anything like the scale of our consistent insistance on harm.

I didn't suggest otherwise, though I'd say it's been way more than 10 years of questionable foreign policy.

Fair enough - though I know you and I disagree on this area.

I'm liberal, this you know. But it doesn't mean I support things blindly or don't have problems with the system at large. Surely, all kinds of people with all kinds of philosophies are responsible for the many years of questionable foreign policy. And while I find the particular actions of this administration more suspect than, say, the Clinton administration, everyone in positions of leadership have been responsible for this massive-scale failure over the last many years.

Yeah, and what about those Barbarians who invaded Mongol China?


Um, only a suggestion, but how's about we keep the morals and judgments of today limited to history of, say the last 50 years? Otherwise, we really have no clue how to look upon the actions of people who lived in vastly different times.


Not forgiving either the colonial imperialists or the Mongol Hoards ... but c'mon.

To be fair, I've heard of many of these Arab sects holding grudges that go on for millennium... 50 years is probably nothing to them. ;)

Much of today's issues in the region are firmly rooted in the same issues that lead to WWI and never got resolved.

Here's the problem: we're fighting a guerrilla war with people who are still upset about the crusades.

And the other side (so far as the combatants are concerned) still wanted their homeland back after 2000 years or so.

But the point remains solid I think. While you can probably always find someone earlier with which to share the blame, the primarily relevant thing is who it is currently within our power to hold responsible. Not that anybody should be wrongly held responsible, just that having shared responsibility doesn't absolve you of any.

And recognizing that you played a role in creating the situation that allowed a horrible act is also not the same as saying you are to blame for it happening and that others are absolved.