Jump to content

slcathena

Member
  • Content Count

    1024
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by slcathena

  1. Actually, I'm pretty sure this country would have been better off had they listened to Senator Byrd when he was leading the opposition to the Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq. Ditto his vote against the reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act. I'm in no way condoning the man's (according to him former) views on race, but since you brought up the example...I think it goes against you.
  2. I like Sam Nunn, I think he definitely brings foreign policy experience. What he doesn't bring is executive experience (but I don't think that's devestating, Daschle doesn't either). I think the bigger problem with Nunn on the ticket is that he doesn't deliver a state. I don't think there is really a scenario where either Clinton or Obama win GA, so he's great for experience, not so much for delivering votes. I guess that's a reason to prefer Kaine or Sebelius (both have executive experience and are in states that could swing even if it's not likely...Daschle is in the same boat, but SD has a whopping 3 electoral votes, so I'm not sure how much that helps).
  3. A 160 delegate lead is a reason to concede when you cannot mathematically catch up, which she can't. Unless she knows something we don't and has some secret plan to take North Carolina by 65% or something. As for the original item, I still don't think it's going to happen. If Obama is the nominee there is no way he'd ask her, she does nothing for his ticket. He should pick someone like Tim Kaine or Tom Daschle, maybe even Sam Nunn. Hillary may very well offer it to Obama, but aside from the Hilzoy piece above even Pelosi has conceded that her antics have made that an unlikely ticket. He's better off staying far, far away from the Clintons. If he doesn't get the nod, he should run for Governor of Illinois when Blagovich's term is up, and then run again with that Executive experience. This is all null, I don't believe the superdelegates are dumb enough to alienate a generation of new, energized voters and African Americans by stealing the election from them, and if things hold, even with re-votes in MI and FL, Barack will have the lead in pledged delegates, states and the popular vote. She won't have an arg. There is zero risk he loses CA for example, in fact he does better than her against McCain in CA according to the SUSA polls.
  4. Clinton/Sinbad '08 And What was that about experience again...
  5. Yeah, particularly since he was a Clinton Superdelegate...
  6. Those numbers do not include MI or FL to my knowledge, they assume that those primaries do not count. If there are re-votes (as looks increasingly likely) the number should change to something else.
  7. Look, I'm not about to get into a protracted argument with a spammer, I'm responding to this and then I'm done. I am a political person, thus the quotes. I am also involved in cross-x debate, and therefore post on this forum. You seem to be spamming the place with political jargon, which is useless considering the points I made above.
  8. And we thank you for it. Dude, Galaxy, this is not a political forum, and most of the users are not old enough to vote. Please, stop.
  9. Sorry to bump an older thread, but I just saw this. Richardson would be an interesting choice, but not necessarily a good one. He definitely fits the experience/executive bill, but he has a massive problem in terms of "foot in mouth" disease. The man's performance on Meet The Press was beyond bad. It was like watching a train wreck, actually. The type of experience he garnered in the White House lends itself to fall-guy types of claims...some people can deal with those, Russert handed Richardson his hat on all of them. It was embarassing, and I wouldn't want the dude to be my VP because of it. Finally, he makes random claims that have nothing to do with experience, and are easily debunked (the whole "I played professional baseball" thing comes to mind.) That is the worst kind of distraction, and I wouldn't want it for a VP, even one that could deliver a swing state.
  10. Shorter Synergy: This thread can only end poorly. And Melissa's last name is "Leeworthy" there is no "S" in it.
  11. I really wish I could give you more rep for that. Well said.
  12. That's a strange statement considering that RHSM won the tournament two years in a row, and was in sems the year before.
  13. I think the notion of a Clinton/Obama Obama/Clinton ticket is dead on arrival for a couple of reasons. First, either of them would need a decidedly more experienced VP in order to go up against McCain. Second, it really doesn't make sense. Clinton probably wouldn't accept the VP slot (can you imagine?!) and Obama probably won't offer it, he's more likely to pick a much more experienced, established politician from a red state (think Tom Kaine, or Tom Daschle). Clinton might offer it, but if I'm Obama I say no for a few reasons: a) Hitching his campaign of hope to the triangulation and scandals of the Clintons is a bad idea. He wouldn't be 2nd, he'd be a distant 3rd behind Bill. c) The better option for his long term ambitions is to run for Governor of Illinois when Blagovich's term expires in 2010 and run again after having some executive experience if he so desires. Finally, they do not like each other. At all. The debate last week was a total show, there have been numerous documented incidents that indicate they don't get along at all. Not generally someone I link to, but Maureen Dowd has a pretty good anecdote along these lines.
  14. No, the break is at 5-2.
  15. Continually updated delegate count, by state and super delegate breakdwon
  16. I have a hunch Edwards will endorse before Feb. 5th. I could be wrong, but it seems to me that is the way to get the most bang for his influence and that's the game he's been playing since Iowa...just a hunch.
  17. I guess he just loves the Clintons that much.
  18. slcathena

    Gonz

    Props to Scott, Jordan, Basil and Mahjeed. Well done all of you.
  19. As far as the decision goes, dziegler, is there any reason you would think they still access their framework if they concede they don't solve? Why are you doing "even if there is a risk we solve..." analysis for them? I think Elliot is probably right to default to presumption. As for this: I don't know how much experience judging you have, but I find that often times the most difficult rounds to adjudicate are bad rounds. I think discussing those rounds and running your method for evaluating "who fucked up the most" with other people is probably a good thing, and helps judges develop. It's helpful for good rounds and for bad rounds. This post doesn't strike me as a rant about bad debating, it strikes me as an honest inquiry into a round that is very close to a tie, and therefore useful.
  20. Do they have any reason they would solve any patriarchy/domination at all in the 2AR? If not, it seems to me they are extending an internal link and impact on an advantage they can't solve, which wouldn't do very much towards getting my ballot. Based on current information, I'd vote neg.
  21. slcathena

    Speaker Points

    People used to use a lot more of the scale. I can't pinpoint exactly when point inflation began, but at some point 30s became almost non-existent, as did anything below a 25; it hasn't always been that way.
  22. Which absent a normal means concession are reasons you're plan plus.
  23. What if their answer to that question is "no, we'll defend plan passage. Period." Then what?
  24. mbv is right. Normal means isn't part of the plan text and no affirmative in their right might would defend it as such unless hoodwinked into it.
×
×
  • Create New...