Who Won Super tuesday? (Hint: It Wasn't Hillary)

Cyrano · 02-06-2008, 10:55 AM

There are two ways you can look at who wins a primary.

The first way is the more important: by the number of delegates a candidates picks up. By that standard, Obama won the day.

The second is by how many states a candidate wins. Obama again, 13 to 8.

So how on earth can the political pundits be braying that Slick Hillary "won" Super Tuesday? They simply do not want to admit that the junior senator from Wall Street, the creature they anointed a year ago to ride the Democratic donkey in the general election this November, LOST.

Just who do they think they are kidding? The American people are fed up with politics as usual. Hillary Clinton is the poster girl for politics as usual. The people want a change. They want someone they can respect in the Oval Office. That might be McCain, or it might be Obama, but it surely is not Hillary Clinton.

It would be nice if the political-beat columnists did their jobs and reported what actually happened and not what they wish had happened. Hillary lost Super Tuesday. That's the fact. Deal with it.

Bravo · 02-06-2008, 10:57 AM

I'm as anti-hillary as the rest of us, but she really did "win". She didn't do the best on tuesday, but the fact that she still has more delegates than Obama after tuesday says a lot.

ArkansasHunter · 02-06-2008, 11:02 AM

Let me say this and I mean know harm. Many Many Many democrats voted for Obama that are really going to vote for a Republican in order to beat Hillary out.

I want bet on this, but voters are more savvy now and most are like us. There sick and tired of our Lame Duck Polititians.

You'll see...A.H

The_Patriot · 02-06-2008, 11:25 AM

I'm not sure who won, but I know who lost--conservatives. McCain is a fence-sitter and the to donkeys are as left as you can get. Obama, though a articulate person with a magnetic personality, is even further left than Hillary and Kenney, according to his voting record.

I'm hopping mad at the way the media shapes our choices for us. Yes, we get to vote, but we get to do that only after the media spends a couple years shaping our choices for us. We get to vote, but only to choose from the group that they give us.

I've said it before and I'll say it again...in a country of 300 million people, THESE are the best and brightest? NO WAY! I've served with people much smarter and more honorable than any of these candidates. Makes my stomach churn.

Again, don't know who won, but in my opinion, we all lost.

TXplt · 02-06-2008, 11:27 AM

We own this process, though.

The_Patriot · 02-06-2008, 11:31 AM

Now you did it...I'm mad. I hate thinking about this stuff on my days off.

You know what else REALLY burns my buns?

I'll tell you.

How the fudge do these elected leaders get to take 18 months off work to campaign for a better job?

I realize they make some votes, and have staffs, but none of the candidates (the ones that hold office) aer giving due attention to the people that elected them (their states/districts).

In addition to term limits (1), I'd like to see a new rule: If you choose to run for the Presidency, you give up your seat as Governor/Congressman/Senator and someone else is appointed in your place.

These sumbitches get a free ride on our tax dollar while they pursue other ambitions...all the while not doing the work we elected them to do.

Imagine your employer if you asked to take 18 months off work (with pay) to search for a better job.

TXplt · 02-06-2008, 11:34 AM

Sorry, didn't mean to get you fired up.

18 months off your job ? Sounds like ISS......

I have an idea--for the next 3 elections let's vote against the incumbents. Granted, we may not get who we want but we can break the power train in Washington. Just a thought.

tlarkin · 02-06-2008, 11:39 AM

While we are at it why don't we also hold them accountable for their screw ups, and also make them serve mandatory time in the service. I think if you are given the ability to declare war you should serve that way you can better understand it. The politicians never see war and they never send their families off to fight its always the middle and lower classes. I do not think that every citizen should serve time, but if you want to get into politics you should have to. The military is part of our government and you should fully understand it.

Also, when the administration tries to change things and blatantly lie about things they should be held accountable. When Cheney tried to say that the VPs office was not part of the executive branch and they were with holding information. Someone or something should have prevented them from doing that.

I would just settle for accountability though. When they break the law they should be held accountable, period. Also, I could do away with all lobbyist as well.

kspriggs · 02-06-2008, 11:43 AM

iam no hillary fan but they are saying she won nys and who is this ron paul guy whats the story on him

TXplt · 02-06-2008, 11:46 AM

Actually, for the health and well being of our country as a whole I think a peacetime draft would be an excellent idea. Our sons and daughters would have to serve, and this would build character and discipline amongst our population (as well as self-reliance to our young adults). It would also make us very careful in where and how we fight our wars.

However, the primary function of our military requires it to pragmatically do its job very well. The all volunteer force works exceptionally well (because people want to be there), and tampering with this in the name of social improvement is very much the wrong thing to do.

Bravo · 02-06-2008, 11:52 AM

Quote:

who is this ron paul guy whats the story on him

Are you being sarcastic, or do you honestly want to know more about him? Because I would gladly tell you anything you want to know about his political agenda.

If you're making fun of how few American's actually voted for him, then please go elsewhere, or keep to the subject and talk about Billary.

tlarkin · 02-06-2008, 11:52 AM

I am against the draft of private citizens, they should be given a choice in my mind. I think that is the Democratic philosophy. I just think if you are going to serve as a government official you should have served in some sort of military, and not how Bush served his "time" in the USAAF. I mean actually serve. If you can send people to war, you should understand of how it works and have to have been in that same situation so you can fully understand and sympathize with the situation.

Instead of saying things like, "Mission Accomplished," when in fact we really didn't accomplish anything.

We up to 5,000 dead USA soldiers yet? If not we are very close.

The_Patriot · 02-06-2008, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TXplt

Actually, for the health and well being of our country as a whole I think a peacetime draft would be an excellent idea. Our sons and daughters would have to serve, and this would build character and discipline amongst our population (as well as self-reliance to our young adults). It would also make us very careful in where and how we fight our wars.

However, the primary function of our military requires it to pragmatically do its job very well. The all volunteer force works exceptionally well (because people want to be there), and tampering with this in the name of social improvement is very much the wrong thing to do.

No worries...you didn't get me fired up. The topic as a whole did. I'm so tired of these "news" channels telling us what to think. I don't watch them much anymore other than to keep tabs on what the adversaries are doing.

As far as the draft...whoa. The problem with a peacetime draft is that you never know when that peace ends...it could end in a moment. And I wouldn't want our military left riddled with folks that don't want to serve. No, I pretty much oppose any draft. I want people fighting for us that want to be there...that believe in what they're doing. I think the Peace Corps or something along those lines would be a better disciplinary tool to help our youth.

Bravo · 02-06-2008, 11:57 AM

Quote:

We up to 5,000 dead USA soldiers yet? If not we are very close.

We're at 3,948 right now.

Quote:

I am against the draft of private citizens, they should be given a choice in my mind.

We really shouldn't need a draft. If the war is meaningful enough to American's, then people will literally flock to go fight. If we were to be attacked on our homeland, I really doubt that we would have a shortage of fighters. If I remember right, after 9/11, the number of enlisted men/women went up to go fight in Afghanistan. It has only dropped since we went in Iraq, since most people feel that we shouldn't be there.

The_Patriot · 02-06-2008, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tlarkin

I am against the draft of private citizens, they should be given a choice in my mind. I think that is the Democratic philosophy. I just think if you are going to serve as a government official you should have served in some sort of military, and not how Bush served his "time" in the USAAF. I mean actually serve. If you can send people to war, you should understand of how it works and have to have been in that same situation so you can fully understand and sympathize with the situation.

Instead of saying things like, "Mission Accomplished," when in fact we really didn't accomplish anything.

We up to 5,000 dead USA soldiers yet? If not we are very close.

Couple points:

1) I think it's tough to say a guy should have served to be the President. Does that mean he/she should also be an accomplished, well-schooled economist? Doctor? Geo-political expert? History major? No, I think the founders had a good idea putting the military under civilian control (and didn't necessarily exclude prior military). And I don't think we'll ever find anyone with all the qualifications necessary to be President. That's why they are SUPPOSED to surround themselves with subject matter experts and listen to their advice. Don't forget, I spent 20 years in the military; I still don't think it's a rock-solid prerequisite to being the big boss.

2) As far as Bush's "Mission Accomplished." I think Bush as bumbled and stumbled in MANY areas, but I don't think that was such a bad thing that he did that day on the deck. After all, our country needed a shot in the arm like that, and the military deserved the accolades. They did just quickly defeat the 4th largest army in the world, regardless of the fight they put up. No, I think what he did that day was okay...the mission at that time was to grab Baghdad, which they did. The mission that wasn't accomplished was the huge underestimation of what was about to go on vis-a-vis an insurgency.

3) Just remember, of those ~4,000 dead (and many more injured) Airmen, Soldiers, Marines, Sailors, Coasties and civilian/contractors, the VAST majority of them felt very strongly about what they were doing, and that it is/was going to change the world for the better. Each knew the dangers and were proud to serve despite that danger. They died doing something honorable; there are far worse ways to spend a lifetime. Further, I don't want to get off on a rant here, but there have probably been about 8 million babies aborted (life that never had a choice) since the start of the war. I'm not rabid about abortion, but I do think it's wrong...just added that for some perspective.

TXplt · 02-06-2008, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Patriot

No worries...you didn't get me fired up. The topic as a whole did. I'm so tired of these "news" channels telling us what to think. I don't watch them much anymore other than to keep tabs on what the adversaries are doing.

As far as the draft...whoa. The problem with a peacetime draft is that you never know when that peace ends...it could end in a moment. And I wouldn't want our military left riddled with folks that don't want to serve. No, I pretty much oppose any draft. I want people fighting for us that want to be there...that believe in what they're doing. I think the Peace Corps or something along those lines would be a better disciplinary tool to help our youth.

yeah....that's why I said that 2nd part--I think it would hurt our forces.

And I think, to be honest, Hillary is fading at least in terms of electors at the DNC

ezearln · 02-06-2008, 12:21 PM

A little known law that seems to regulary get over looked because of our having shifted from conscription to an all volunteer force (AVF) is the UTSA ( and no for all you smart arses out there that doesn't stand for University of Texas San Antonio!) the Uniform Service and Training Act, which is one of many many reasons that registration for the draft was reinstated. Basically what it says is each United States Male Citizen 18 years of age is subject to a mandatory term of service to his country (of as of the last ammendment I am aware of) a total of 8 years of Federal Uniform Service. Unless they have seriously reworded the language in the act since I last checked, the term "Military Service" was intentionally left out/replaced by Federal UNIFORM service to permit service in such organizations as the Coast Guard, NOAA, CDC etc to count towards ones service obligation.

tlarkin · 02-06-2008, 12:22 PM

Patriot -

Should they be experts in every field? No, that is impossible, however they should have a strong basic knowledge of all that makes up our country, society, and our economy. I feel that too many times we get people in office that talk like they know what they are doing then royally screw things up.

The_Patriot · 02-06-2008, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tlarkin

Patriot -

Should they be experts in every field? No, that is impossible, however they should have a strong basic knowledge of all that makes up our country, society, and our economy. I feel that too many times we get people in office that talk like they know what they are doing then royally screw things up.

That was my point, that you can't have someone that knows everything. At some point, even the brightest person we elect President is going to have to listen to advisors. The Joint Chiefs are there to help advise the President on military matters; if a President is wise, he/she will listen to them.

I agree with you. I think maybe it's in our best interest to elect someone that has shown a desire to learn and use experts' advice in grave matters. I thought we were getting that with Bush...I always thought he was dingy, but I thought he surrounded himself with a good team that brought lots of expertise to the table. I think that was true, but history will probably tell that he didn't use much of their advice. If that's the case, it's unfortunate.

tlarkin · 02-06-2008, 12:44 PM

How many of Bush's advisors have resigned? It is quite a few if I recall.

I never liked the Bush family at all, or their politics, or their businesses either. Too much self interest on their part, and too much self interest scares me that they will make worse decisions to better them self. You would think that being in office people should be more selfless, but it never works out that way.

I do think that if you hold a job in government office you should not be allowed to be a member of a board for any other company nor affiliated with any other company. It just gives too much of a bias for self interest. Just like Haliburton.

02-06-2008, 10:55 AM	#1
Cyrano Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: New York Posts: 3,032	Who Won Super tuesday? (Hint: It Wasn't Hillary) There are two ways you can look at who wins a primary. The first way is the more important: by the number of delegates a candidates picks up. By that standard, Obama won the day. The second is by how many states a candidate wins. Obama again, 13 to 8. So how on earth can the political pundits be braying that Slick Hillary "won" Super Tuesday? They simply do not want to admit that the junior senator from Wall Street, the creature they anointed a year* ago* to ride the Democratic donkey in the general election this November, LOST. Just who do they think they are kidding? The American people are fed up with politics as usual. Hillary Clinton is the poster girl for politics as usual. The people want a change. They want someone they can respect in the Oval Office. That might be McCain, or it might be Obama, but it surely is not Hillary Clinton. It would be nice if the political-beat columnists did their jobs and reported what actually happened and not what they wish had happened. Hillary lost Super Tuesday. That's the fact. Deal with it.

02-06-2008, 11:25 AM	#4
The_Patriot Right Wing Nutjob Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Behind Enemy Lines...Ohio..GO BLUE! Posts: 542	I'm not sure who won, but I know who lost--conservatives. McCain is a fence-sitter and the to donkeys are as left as you can get. Obama, though a articulate person with a magnetic personality, is even further left than Hillary and Kenney, according to his voting record. I'm hopping mad at the way the media shapes our choices for us. Yes, we get to vote, but we get to do that only after the media spends a couple years shaping our choices for us. We get to vote, but only to choose from the group that they give us. I've said it before and I'll say it again...in a country of 300 million people, THESE are the best and brightest? NO WAY! I've served with people much smarter and more honorable than any of these candidates. Makes my stomach churn. Again, don't know who won, but in my opinion, we all lost. __________________ "If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace." Tom Paine 1776

02-06-2008, 11:27 AM	#5
TXplt Conservative in Exile Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Fort Worth, TX Posts: 3,194 Images: 4 Blog Entries: 2	We own this process, though. __________________ Old fighter pilots never die.....They just wind up in Texas

02-06-2008, 11:31 AM	#6
The_Patriot Right Wing Nutjob Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Behind Enemy Lines...Ohio..GO BLUE! Posts: 542	Now you did it...I'm mad. I hate thinking about this stuff on my days off. You know what else REALLY burns my buns? I'll tell you. How the fudge do these elected leaders get to take 18 months off work to campaign for a better job? I realize they make some votes, and have staffs, but none of the candidates (the ones that hold office) aer giving due attention to the people that elected them (their states/districts). In addition to term limits (1), I'd like to see a new rule: If you choose to run for the Presidency, you give up your seat as Governor/Congressman/Senator and someone else is appointed in your place. These sumbitches get a free ride on our tax dollar while they pursue other ambitions...all the while not doing the work we elected them to do. Imagine your employer if you asked to take 18 months off work (with pay) to search for a better job. __________________ "If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace." Tom Paine 1776 Last edited by The_Patriot; 02-06-2008 at 11:39 AM.

02-06-2008, 11:34 AM	#7
TXplt Conservative in Exile Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Fort Worth, TX Posts: 3,194 Images: 4 Blog Entries: 2	Sorry, didn't mean to get you fired up. 18 months off your job ? Sounds like ISS...... I have an idea--for the next 3 elections let's vote against the incumbents. Granted, we may not get who we want but we can break the power train in Washington. Just a thought. __________________ Old fighter pilots never die.....They just wind up in Texas

02-06-2008, 10:57 AM	#2
Bravo Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Maine, USA Posts: 2,022	I'm as anti-hillary as the rest of us, but she really did "win". She didn't do the best on tuesday, but the fact that she still has more delegates than Obama after tuesday says a lot.

02-06-2008, 11:02 AM	#3
ArkansasHunter Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: South Arkansas Posts: 10,998	Let me say this and I mean know harm. Many Many Many democrats voted for Obama that are really going to vote for a Republican in order to beat Hillary out. I want bet on this, but voters are more savvy now and most are like us. There sick and tired of our Lame Duck Polititians. You'll see...A.H

02-06-2008, 11:39 AM	#8
tlarkin Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Kansas City, MO Posts: 1,957	While we are at it why don't we also hold them accountable for their screw ups, and also make them serve mandatory time in the service. I think if you are given the ability to declare war you should serve that way you can better understand it. The politicians never see war and they never send their families off to fight its always the middle and lower classes. I do not think that every citizen should serve time, but if you want to get into politics you should have to. The military is part of our government and you should fully understand it. Also, when the administration tries to change things and blatantly lie about things they should be held accountable. When Cheney tried to say that the VPs office was not part of the executive branch and they were with holding information. Someone or something should have prevented them from doing that. I would just settle for accountability though. When they break the law they should be held accountable, period. Also, I could do away with all lobbyist as well.

02-06-2008, 11:43 AM	#9
kspriggs Registered User Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 5	iam no hillary fan but they are saying she won nys and who is this ron paul guy whats the story on him

02-06-2008, 11:46 AM	#10
TXplt Conservative in Exile Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Fort Worth, TX Posts: 3,194 Images: 4 Blog Entries: 2	Actually, for the health and well being of our country as a whole I think a peacetime draft would be an excellent idea. Our sons and daughters would have to serve, and this would build character and discipline amongst our population (as well as self-reliance to our young adults). It would also make us very careful in where and how we fight our wars. However, the primary function of our military requires it to pragmatically do its job very well. The all volunteer force works exceptionally well (because people want to be there), and tampering with this in the name of social improvement is very much the wrong thing to do. __________________ Old fighter pilots never die.....They just wind up in Texas

02-06-2008, 11:52 AM	#12
tlarkin Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Kansas City, MO Posts: 1,957	I am against the draft of private citizens, they should be given a choice in my mind. I think that is the Democratic philosophy. I just think if you are going to serve as a government official you should have served in some sort of military, and not how Bush served his "time" in the USAAF. I mean actually serve. If you can send people to war, you should understand of how it works and have to have been in that same situation so you can fully understand and sympathize with the situation. Instead of saying things like, "Mission Accomplished," when in fact we really didn't accomplish anything. We up to 5,000 dead USA soldiers yet? If not we are very close.

02-06-2008, 12:21 PM	#17
ezearln Senior Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Texas Hill Country Posts: 3,175	A little known law that seems to regulary get over looked because of our having shifted from conscription to an all volunteer force (AVF) is the UTSA ( and no for all you smart arses out there that doesn't stand for University of Texas San Antonio!) the *Uniform Service and Training Act*, which is one of many many reasons that registration for the draft was reinstated. Basically what it says is each United States Male Citizen 18 years of age is subject to a mandatory term of service to his country (of as of the last ammendment I am aware of) a total of 8 years of Federal Uniform Service. Unless they have seriously reworded the language in the act since I last checked, the term "Military Service" was intentionally left out/replaced by Federal UNIFORM service to permit service in such organizations as the Coast Guard, NOAA, CDC etc to count towards ones service obligation. __________________ "You can have my Freedom when I'm done with it!"

02-06-2008, 12:22 PM	#18
tlarkin Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Kansas City, MO Posts: 1,957	Patriot - Should they be experts in every field? No, that is impossible, however they should have a strong basic knowledge of all that makes up our country, society, and our economy. I feel that too many times we get people in office that talk like they know what they are doing then royally screw things up.

02-06-2008, 12:44 PM	#20
tlarkin Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Kansas City, MO Posts: 1,957	How many of Bush's advisors have resigned? It is quite a few if I recall. I never liked the Bush family at all, or their politics, or their businesses either. Too much self interest on their part, and too much self interest scares me that they will make worse decisions to better them self. You would think that being in office people should be more selfless, but it never works out that way. I do think that if you hold a job in government office you should not be allowed to be a member of a board for any other company nor affiliated with any other company. It just gives too much of a bias for self interest. Just like Haliburton.