# Super Tuesday Super Thread **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 5, 2008, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/super-tuesday-super-thread/436453 "2008-02-05T23:49:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![guizot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guizot/32/3636_2.png) [@guizot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/guizot)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2008, 9:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/super-tuesday-super-thread/436453/121 "2008-02-06T09:55:35Z")
[QUOTE=Martin Hyde] I’m not sure where you’re from, but no President is going to fundamentally change America. What do you really imagine when you say “fundamental change” in government? How would he implement this “fundamental change?” I’ve looked through his website, and I don’t see much on his platform that speaks to “fundamental change.” Nothing about breaking the backs of corporations or et cetera. Obama is actually a centrist, I think a lot of people on the SDMB would be bored by his policies if they actually knew what they were. But he plays like some liberal crusader in his speeches, in reality there’s very few risky or outside the middle policies in his “issues” section on his website (Iraq being one of the key ones where he is genuinely a radical.) [/QUOTE] Yes, if you ask the average Obama supporter what he would do differently than Clinton (as president), they usually can’t tell you anything. That said, maybe Obama would have a better chance against McCain simply because of the rabid anti-Clinton sentiment. ---
**Author:** ![Desert\_Nomad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/desert_nomad/32/177_2.png) [@Desert\_Nomad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desert_Nomad)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2008, 11:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/super-tuesday-super-thread/436453/122 "2008-02-06T11:32:23Z")
For one Clinton’s health care proposal is vastly more expensive and she is pro war. With Obama we know his spouse will not be running the country. ---
**Author:** ![Sublight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@Sublight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sublight)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2008, 12:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/super-tuesday-super-thread/436453/123 "2008-02-06T12:00:20Z")
[QUOTE=JohnnieEnigma] well, you’re dealing with a different mentality in massachusetts; progressive liberals who aren’t going to give Obama an opportunity because in their minds, ‘the country is not ready for a black president’. It’s a different kind of racism that will hold Obama back with their tiny mite mentalities. They’re not accepting of the concept of “[Yes. We. Can](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fe751kMBwms)”. [/QUOTE] Actually, I voted for Obama because I think women should stay in the kitchen. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![casieispretty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/258eb7/32.png) [@casieispretty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/casieispretty)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2008, 12:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/super-tuesday-super-thread/436453/124 "2008-02-06T12:10:36Z")
[QUOTE=unconventional] Maybe – Obama speaks to the heart of Americans. He has managed to inspire an increasingly hopeless populous and create a movement for fundamental change in government. He is different and fresh. He is symbolic of a new beginning and the end to the corporate politics of corruption. [/QUOTE] Or maybe he’s just a politician who is manipulating people into buying into some sort of false hope of massive change in order to get elected, like so many other politicians before him. Yeah, I’m gonna go with that one. I’m not saying he would be awful or anything, but I seriously doubt he’ll be ushering in any political revolution. ---
**Author:** ![EsotericEnigma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e274bd/32.png) [@EsotericEnigma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EsotericEnigma)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2008, 12:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/super-tuesday-super-thread/436453/125 "2008-02-06T12:39:23Z")
[QUOTE=casieispretty] Or maybe he’s just a politician who is manipulating people into buying into some sort of false hope of massive change in order to get elected, like so many other politicians before him. Yeah, I’m gonna go with that one. I’m not saying he would be awful or anything, but I seriously doubt he’ll be ushering in any political revolution. [/QUOTE] It would be enough if he can run an administration with integrity and transparency (which he seems to be trying to do). He could do absolutely nothing policy-wise save for managing to restore a level of trust in the government by the American people and I would consider him an outstanding, historic success. ---
**Author:** ![wolfman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/a8b319/32.png) [@wolfman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfman)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2008, 1:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/super-tuesday-super-thread/436453/126 "2008-02-06T13:02:49Z")
[QUOTE=JohnnieEnigma] well, you’re dealing with a different mentality in massachusetts; progressive liberals who aren’t going to give Obama an opportunity because in their minds, ‘the country is not ready for a black president’. It’s a different kind of racism that will hold Obama back with their tiny mite mentalities. They’re not accepting of the concept of “[Yes. We. Can](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fe751kMBwms)”. [/QUOTE] Actually I think it is just the normal kind of racism. People love to bring up the southern redneck racist, but in my personal experience they have nothing on the Boston-working-man-Democrat racists, in either percentage of population, of degree of hatred. ---
**Author:** ![casieispretty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/258eb7/32.png) [@casieispretty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/casieispretty)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2008, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/super-tuesday-super-thread/436453/127 "2008-02-06T13:38:03Z")
[QUOTE=EsotericEnigma] It would be enough if he can run an administration with integrity and transparency (which he seems to be trying to do). He could do absolutely nothing policy-wise save for managing to restore a level of trust in the government by the American people and I would consider him an outstanding, historic success. [/QUOTE] So, he could ruin foreign policy, drive the economy even lower and appoint inept Supreme Court judges, but you wouldn’t care so long as he did so openly and honestly? Personally, I don’t give a damn about a President’s integrity, so long as they run the country in a way that is prosperous and fruitful for its people. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2008, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/super-tuesday-super-thread/436453/128 "2008-02-06T13:49:43Z")
[QUOTE=Martin Hyde] I’m not sure where you’re from, but no President is going to fundamentally change America. [/QUOTE] Maybe you’ve slept through the past seven years? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2008, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/super-tuesday-super-thread/436453/129 "2008-02-06T13:56:23Z")
CNN’s delegate count is currently showing Clinton about 20 ahead for the night, but not all the delegates have been allocated in a number of states - California in particular is still mostly outstanding. So it wouldn’t surprise me if the final tally had Clinton winning the Super Tuesday delegate count by 40-50 delegates. ---
**Author:** ![Shayna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shayna/32/17976_2.png) [@Shayna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shayna)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2008, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/super-tuesday-super-thread/436453/130 "2008-02-06T14:09:53Z")
[QUOTE=Martin Hyde] If you look at this website he has some pretty clear ideas out there. What scares me is he’s running on his charisma and not his issues. The public deserves to vet this man on the issues. If Obama lays out his issues, using all that charisma the public is so orgasmic over (personally I’ve never been one easily moved, Obama comes off to me as being akin to a network news personality) and wins, then that’s perfectly fine–the public has spoken. But if he gets all the way to November and hasn’t been seriously challenged across the board on his policy positions, that’s _extremely frightening_. . . . For the Democrat’s sake, they should be challenging him on the issues _now_. We have no idea how well Obama’s stances on the issues will play out in the general election because he’s never been called to seriously defend them in a manner that makes the public aware of it. His issues-stances may be quite untenable in a general election (where, all told, I think he eventually **will** be challenged on them), and if he’s allowed to get nominated without ever really being challenge no one on the Dem side will know it until it is too late. [/QUOTE] This is all absolute nonsense. That you could say this and believe it means you simply aren’t paying attention. Either that, or you’ve drunk the kool-aid the Clinton camp is pouring, because he _is_ running on the issues. Health care The Environment Tax cuts Ousting the Lobbyists Transparency in our government Iraq Immigration He talks about how he’ll tackle these issues in his speeches and he’s been questioned about them in every single debate. [QUOTE=Martin Hyde] I’m not sure where you’re from, but no President is going to fundamentally change America. What do you really imagine when you say “fundamental change” in government? How would he implement this “fundamental change?” I’ve looked through his website, and I don’t see much on his platform that speaks to “fundamental change.” Nothing about breaking the backs of corporations or et cetera. Obama is actually a centrist, I think a lot of people on the SDMB would be bored by his policies if they actually knew what they were. But he plays like some liberal crusader in his speeches, in reality there’s very few risky or outside the middle policies in his “issues” section on his website (Iraq being one of the key ones where he is genuinely a radical.) [/QUOTE] Again, not true. That you believe this tells me you haven’t read his [Blueprint for Change](http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf), which is filled with how he does, indeed, intend to fundamentally change how our government operates. For example, right off the bat we have this: > [@](#): > > BARACK OBAMA’s Plan > > _ **Shine Light on Washington Lobbying** _ > Centralize Ethics and Lobbying Information for Voters: Obama will create a centralized Internet database of lobbying reports, ethics records, and campaign finance filings in a searchable, sortable and downloadable format. > > Require Independent Monitoring of Lobbying Laws and Ethics Rules: Obama will use the power of the presidency to fight for an independent watchdog agency to oversee the investigation of congressional ethics violations so that the public can be assured that ethics complaints will be investigated. > > Support Campaign Finance Reform: Obama supports public financing of campaigns combined with free television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests. Obama introduced public financing legislation in the Illinois State Senate, and is the only 2008 candidate to have sponsored Senator Russ Feingold’s (D-WI) tough bill to reform the presidential public financing system. > > _ **Shine the Light on Federal Contracts, Tax Breaks and Earmarks** _ > Create a Public “Contracts and Influence” Database: As president, Obama will create a “contracts and influence” database that will disclose how much federal contractors spend on lobbying, and what contracts they are getting and how well they complete them. > > Expose Special Interest Tax Breaks to Public Scrutiny: Barack Obama will ensure that any tax breaks for corporate recipients – or tax earmarks – are also publicly available on the Internet in an easily searchable format. > > End Abuse of No-Bid Contracts: Barack Obama will end abuse of no-bid contracts by requiring that nearly all contract orders over $25,000 be competitively awarded. > > Sunlight Before Signing: Too often bills are rushed through Congress and to the president before the public has the opportunity to review them. As president, Obama will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days. > > Shine Light on Earmarks and Pork Barrel Spending: Obama’s Transparency and Integrity in Earmarks Act will shed light on all earmarks by disclosing the name of the legislator who asked for each earmark, along with a written justification, 72 hours before they can be approved by the full Senate. > > _ **Bring Americans Back into their Government** _ > Hold 21st Century Fireside Chats: Obama will bring democracy and policy directly to the people by requiring his Cabinet officials to have periodic national broadband townhall meetings to discuss issues before their agencies. > > Make White House Communications Public: Obama will amend executive orders to ensure that communications about regulatory policymaking between persons outside government and all White House staff are disclosed to the public. > > Conduct Regulatory Agency Business in Public: Obama will require his appointees who lead the executive branch departments and rulemaking agencies to conduct the significant business of the agency in public, so that any citizen can watch these debates in person or on the Internet. > > Release Presidential Records: Obama will nullify the Bush attempts to make the timely release of presidential records more difficult. > > _ **Free the Executive Branch from Special Interest Influence** _ > Close the Revolving Door on Former and Future Employers: No political appointees in an Obama administration will be permitted to work on regulations or contracts directly and substantially related to their prior employer for two years. And no political appointee will be able to lobby the executive branch after leaving government service during the remainder of the administration. > > Free Career Officials from the Influence of Politics: Obama will issue an executive order asking all new hires at the agencies to sign a form affirming that no political appointee offered them the job solely on the basis of political affiliation or contribution. > > Reform the Political Appointee Process: FEMA Director Michael Brown was not qualified to head the agency, and the result was a disaster for the people of the Gulf Coast. But in an Obama administration, every official will have to rise to the standard of proven excellence in the agency’s mission. If that’s not fundamentally different than the secrecy, subterfuge and outside interest influence we’re currently operating under, then I don’t know how else you’d define it. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2008, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/super-tuesday-super-thread/436453/131 "2008-02-06T14:23:32Z")
[QUOTE=Sublight] Actually, I voted for Obama because I think women should stay in the kitchen. :rolleyes: [/QUOTE] Sexism/racism: one or the other is good enough for _most_ registered democrats. I ran across a poll yesterday, now lost in the blizzard of super tuesday coverage, which indicated that 72% of democratic Obama supporters would happily vote for Hillary in november, while 71% of democratic Hillary supporters would happily vote for Obama. No matter how you look at the data, it proves that the majority of democrats are horrible people. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2008, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/super-tuesday-super-thread/436453/132 "2008-02-06T15:25:35Z")
> [@Martin Hyde](#): > > If Obama lays out his issues, using all that charisma the public is so orgasmic over (personally I’ve never been one easily moved, Obama comes off to me as being akin to a network news personality) and wins, then that’s perfectly fine–the public has spoken. But if he gets all the way to November and hasn’t been seriously challenged across the board on his policy positions, that’s extremely frightening. He will be challenged. A lot depends on how he (or his handlers and advocates) respond. If he actually talks policy, well and good. He probably shouldn’t - he’s gotten this far without it. But if he does, and it doesn’t go as well as relying on charisma, and his supporters and handlers start saying, “what’s the matter - you don’t like black people?” then that is a bad sign. Like I say, he has not done so to date, and this against someone who is likely a nastier campaigner than McCain (or whoever will be the GOP candidate). So maybe he will continue to stay on “message” after he gets the nomination. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2008, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/super-tuesday-super-thread/436453/133 "2008-02-06T15:38:31Z")
[QUOTE=JohnnieEnigma] well, you’re dealing with a different mentality in massachusetts; progressive liberals who aren’t going to give Obama an opportunity because in their minds, ‘the country is not ready for a black president’. It’s a different kind of racism that will hold Obama back with their tiny mite mentalities. They’re not accepting of the concept of “[Yes. We. Can](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fe751kMBwms)”. [/QUOTE] That’s possible, but it also might be because Tom Merino, the mayor of Boston, is a Hillary supporter, and he has a pretty effective organization. Not every vote against Obama is because of racism, you know. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2008, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/super-tuesday-super-thread/436453/134 "2008-02-06T16:20:18Z")
[QUOTE=RTFirefly] CNN’s delegate count is currently showing Clinton about 20 ahead for the night, but not all the delegates have been allocated in a number of states - California in particular is still mostly outstanding. So it wouldn’t surprise me if the final tally had Clinton winning the Super Tuesday delegate count by 40-50 delegates. [/QUOTE] It would surprise everyone. All sides have it within 10 either way. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2008, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/super-tuesday-super-thread/436453/135 "2008-02-06T16:29:09Z")
[QUOTE=Shayna] Sunlight Before Signing: Too often bills are rushed through Congress and to the president before the public has the opportunity to review them. As president, Obama will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days.. [/QUOTE] Why am I finding myself moved to enthusiasm by measures that I _know_ are merely token gestures? -FrL- ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2008, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/super-tuesday-super-thread/436453/136 "2008-02-06T16:46:45Z")
Well I did my part. Voted early for Obama and did Obama voter support work at two precincts. Random notes: Obama won all age groups in Georgia, but overwhelmingly won the youth vote (with something like 75% of voters 35 and under). Obama won among white males. Basically, the only demographic that belonged to Hillary here was white women over 50. Polls were crowded, and there were a lot of people coming out who had never voted, or who hadn’t voted in years. I had to field a lot of questions from voters on the “inactive voter” list (voters who hadn’t cast a ballot in any recent elections). (They were entitled to vote, and did. For Obama.) It would be a huge mistake for the Democrats to nominate Hillary. She would never be able to generate this sort of enthusiasm or turnout in the fall. (Well, among _Republicans_ maybe.) It was great fun, while driving back and forth between precincts, listening to Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity go into meltdown over the success of McCain. Hee hee. All day long they were urging Southern Democrats to abandon Huckabee and vote for Romney. To no effect, it seems. By the end of the day, Limbaugh/Hannity had become so shrill that only dogs could hear them. ---
**Author:** ![Gangster\_Octopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a8b319/32.png) [@Gangster\_Octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gangster_Octopus)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2008, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/super-tuesday-super-thread/436453/137 "2008-02-06T16:49:11Z")
I was a Reagan supporter and I am an Obama supporter and it is for the same reasons. This country is in a funk. In 1980 it was a confidence thing, Vietnam, Watergate, Iran, Afghanistan, the economy. Now it is more that we are embarrassed by our leadership and that is a reflection on ourselves. I put a lot of stock in a President who can lead not through his policies but through his vision, through the force of his personality, through his ability to get people to work for him and for the country, and what I percieve as a somebody who can really improve our relations with other countries. I may be naive, I may be wrong, but that is how I feel. He may not get his agenda through, but I think he can uplift and make us proud again, and I know that sounds corny and contrived, but I truly believe it. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2008, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/super-tuesday-super-thread/436453/138 "2008-02-06T17:21:56Z")
[QUOTE=RTFirefly] CNN’s delegate count is currently showing Clinton about 20 ahead for the night, but not all the delegates have been allocated in a number of states - California in particular is still mostly outstanding. So it wouldn’t surprise me if the final tally had Clinton winning the Super Tuesday delegate count by 40-50 delegates. [/QUOTE] [Obama claims delegate lead](http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8358.html). Obama won more states and (apparently) more delegates than Hillary last night. He also (it is projected) will have a slight lead in total pledged delegates, but the media is playing it like Hillary was a big winner. I also keep hearing commentators on CNN and Fox throwing out the same bogus claim that Massachusetts represents a “failure” for the Kennedys and Kerry because Obama didn’t win it. They never mention that Obama was never _expected_ to win Mass even after the endorsements, that Hillary’s had a ginormous lead in that very pro-Clinton state for months and that Obama did well to close the gap there as much as he did. If anything, the Kennedy endorsement (Caroline’s at least) probbly won him a few more delegates in Mass as well as the rest of the country. It’s possible that the Kennedy blessing played into his ability to take the overall lead. Anyway, Obama is now the marginal frontrunner in delegates and he has a money advantage in the remaining states as well as the ability to campaign more in those states and milk that charisma for all its worth. There’s still a chance they could go to the convention with Obama leading in delegates only to have the supers hand the nomination over to Hillary. I hope that doesn’t happen. That would really piss off the base. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2008, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/super-tuesday-super-thread/436453/139 "2008-02-06T17:32:59Z")
[QUOTE=Richard Parker] It would surprise everyone. All sides have it within 10 either way. [/QUOTE] I heard some people saying that last night, but who’s still saying that in the light of day? ---
**Author:** ![MovieMogul](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f08c70/32.png) [@MovieMogul](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MovieMogul)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2008, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/super-tuesday-super-thread/436453/140 "2008-02-06T17:58:21Z")
I think it’s to Obama’s advantage to continue to be seen as the underdog. It will motivate everyone in the upcoming primaries who support him to really pound the pavement to improve turnout even more. And the media narrative over the next couple weeks will be all about his momentum–him nickle & diming the delegate count higher and higher, him earning more $ than the Clintons by significant margins, and him continuing to pick off states, one by one. That McCain had a bigger night helped to defuse any traction Hillary might’ve gotten by her victories yesterday. He’s the real story today, while Obama has steadily closed the gap and only seems positioned to gain more and more popularity as he focuses his attention on these future battlegrounds. The longer a competitive campaign runs for the nomination, the more it is to his ultimate advantage. And as things becomes less and less rosy for his opponent, the more likely her/their true colors will resurface–which again, will only help Barack by comparison. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/super-tuesday-super-thread/436453.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/super-tuesday-super-thread/436453.md?page=8)