The VA Beach definition of 'obscene' is the same as everywhere else (prurient interests, etc.), but I guess the cops confused it with, "if random people give oral complaints that aren't even written down by the police, then something is obscene."

Also, does anyone else think it odd that the vizu poll for 'who will be the Repub. presidential nominee' only includes Romney, Huckabee, Guiliani, and Thompson? When the poll was made, McCain was off the radar screen.

A VOTE FOR OBAMA IS A VOTE FOR HOPE AND CHANGE. NO ONE UNDER 40 HAS EVER VOTED IN A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION WHERE EITHER A BUSH OR A CLINTON HASN'T BEEN ON THE TICKET. THINK ABOUT THAT FOR A MOMENT.

HILLARY HAS SHOWN THAT SHE CAN DO WELL IN NEW YORK, CALIFORNIA AND MASS. BUT AS KARL ROVE, GEORGE W. BUSH AND THE REST OF THE REPUBLICANS HAVE SHOWN US OVER THE LAST 8 YEARS, NEW YORK, CALIFORNIA AND MASS DO NOT THE COUNTRY MAKE.

OBAMA, BY CONTRAST, DID REMARKABLY WELL THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY (SEE HIS WIN IN ALABAMA FOR INSTANCE, AND 40 PERCENT OF THE WHITE VOTE IN GEORGIA), EVEN SCORING A BIG WIN IN HILLARY'S BACKYARD -- CONN.

IN THE END, IF WE NOMINATE OBAMA, WE'LL BEAT JOHN MCCAIN IN THE GENERAL. IF WE NOMINATE HILLARY, SHE (AND THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY) WILL GO DOWN IN A BLAZE OF GLORY.

WHICH DO YOU PREFER?

BLAZE OF GLORY!!!

Let's see, higher taxes, amnesty for all illegals, socialized health care (months of waiting, shitty doctors, etc.). Increased Gov, fewer individual rights.

It doesn't matter which dem you vote for, America will pay for it.

CAPS MAN: I thought about it for a moment, but IF (big if) Hillary is the best candidate, then I can't understand why it's relevant that there have been two Bushes and a Clinton in the White House recently. I'm for Obama as much as the next guy, but that argument is dumb.

10:48(2): For those people who can't even go to a doctor, having to wait for a sh**ty one is a small price to pay. You and I will still be able to use our insurance to go to the ones we already see.

As opposed to now, when America spends like a Beverly Hills housewife and does not pay for anything? Lower taxes, more spending. Fewer domestic programs, more military spending. AMT for the middle class, $1.5 billion stimulus. Of course, it will not cost anything to round up and deport millions of illegal aliens, as opposed to spending less to secure the borders. Makes sense to me.

Also, I have to give a special shout out to war in Iraq; diverting resources from the war in Afghanistan; stellar diplomacy with Iran; the Middle East peace process; and my personal favorite... using the Congressional page program as a dating service and then covering it up.

10:52 AM, THE ARGUMENT ISN'T DUMB. IN FACT, IT'S THE ARGUMENT THAT OBAMA MADE ON THE STUMP LAST NIGHT.

IF HILLARY'S CLAIM TO FAME IS WASHINGTON EXPERIENCE, MCCAIN BESTS HER IN THAT RESPECT. SHE CAN'T HITCH HER WAGON TO WASHINGTON INSIDER POLITICS AND THEN BEAT MR. INSIDER HIMSELF, JOHN MCCAIN.

MOREOVER, HER PERFORMANCE LAST NIGHT SHOWS US THAT SHE CAN WIN THE FAR REACHES OF THE COUNTRY. GREAT. BUT THAT DIDN'T WORK IN 2000 OR 2004 FOR DEMOCRATS. MIDDLE AND SOUTHERN AMERICA COUNTS, AND OBAMA HAS MUUUUUCH BROADER APPEAL IN THESE PLACES THAT HILLARY DOES.

FINALLY, THE WIN LAST NIGHT SHOWED THAT EDWARD'S BASE, UNDEREMPLOYED WHITE MEN, WON'T RELIABLY VOTE FOR HILLARY. IN THE GENERAL ELECTION, WHEN IT IS A CONTEST BETWEEN A BONA FIDE WAR HERO WHO CAN'T LIFT HIS ARMS OVER HIS HEAD BECAUSE OF INJURIES SUSTAINED AS A POW, MCCAIN, AND HILLARY CLINTON, WHO THE CULTURAL AND FISCAL CONSERVATIVES ALL HATE MUUUUUCH MORE THAN THEY HATE MCCAIN, WHO DO YOU THINK WINS?!!

THERE ARE LOTS OF REASONS TO VOTE FOR HILLARY CLINTON, BUT HER ARGUMENT OF BEING THE "EXPERIENCED CANDIDATE" BECAUSE OF HER DAYS AS FIRST LADY AND SEVEN YEARS IN THE SENATE DON'T STAND A CHANCE TO MCCAIN'S EXPERIENCE AS A SOLDIER; HIS EXPERIENCE AS A POW; HIS EXPERIENCE AS A PLAIN-SPEAKING SENATOR FROM THE WEST WHO CROSSED THE ISLE ROUTINELY TO VOTE WITH DEMS; HIS STANCE ON IMMIGRATION WHICH APPEALS TO HISPANICS, MODERATES AND SWING VOTERS; HIS APPEAL TO LOWER MIDDLE CLASS WHITE MEN; AND HIS REPACKAGING AS THE MAINSTREAM REPUBLICAN ALTERNATIVE (SEE VISIT TO BOB JONES UNIVERSITY AND MAKING "PEACE" WITH FALWELL) WHO ADVOCATED THE SURGE IN IRAQ THAT IS "WORKING."

THAT'S WHY WE NEED OBAMA, A GUY WHO WON'T BE ARGUING EXPERIENCE AT ALL; HE'LL BE ARGUING SOUND JUDGMENT (SEE STANCE AGAINT THE WAR FROM THE BEGINNING) AND CHANGE FOR THE CONVENTIONAL (MCCAIN, CLINTON, BUSH) WAY OF DOING THINGS. IN OTHER WORDS, OBAMA CHALLENGES THE ENTIRE SYSTEM; HILLARY ARGUES THAT SHE CAN WORK THEY SYSTEM BETTER THAN MCCAIN, WHICH IN MY VIEW IS A LOOSING ARGUMENT.

Atlanta to sand dunes and camels!

CAPS MAN: You're now arguing a different point. If you'll notice, I'm not saying that Hillary IS the best candidate (or the most electable). I'm only arguing that the fact that "NO ONE UNDER 40 HAS EVER VOTED IN A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION WHERE EITHER A BUSH OR A CLINTON HASN'T BEEN ON THE TICKET" is a bad reason not to vote for her IF (again, big if) she is the best candidate. See that not-so-subtle distinction? Nothing in your lengthy post contradicts my point at all.

David, that remark about Candy Crowley is cruel and beneath you.

10:52, I THOUGHT I MADE IT CLEAR. SORRY. THE FACT THAT NO ONE UNDER 40 HAS VOTED IN AN ELECTION WHERE A BUSH OR A CLINTON HAS BEEN ON THE TICKET GOES TO THE POINT THAT BOTH FAMILIES -- THE BUSHES AND THE CLINTONS -- ARE PERENNIAL INSIDERS. PUT DIFFERENTLY, THEY ARE EXPERT AT WORKING WITHIN THE SYSTEM TO GET ELECTED.

AS A BUSH ISN'T ON THE TICKET THIS TIME (IS JENNA RUNNING?), THE FOCUS IS ON HILLARY. HILLARY REMINDS THE VOTERS CONSTANTLY OF THIS FACT, I.E., THE BILLARY

SORRY AGAIN...

HILLARY REMINDS THE VOTERS CONSTANTLY OF THE FACT THAT SHE HAS 35 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE. THAT 35 YEARS, MANY OF WHICH WERE SPENT AS FIRST LADY OF ARK AND THE COUNTRY, WILL HAVE TO STAND AGAINST MCCAIN'S EXPERIENCE, WHICH IS MORE FORMIDABLE.

OBAMA DOESN'T HAVE THAT. HE IS A NEW FRESH ALTERNAIVE; NO BAGGAGE THAT WE KNOW OF.

Once again the MSM let its crush on Obama slant the predictions, unwittingly magnifying Hillary's achievements on Super Tuesday.

Clinton won California—the most prestigious primary aside from the ones she also won (NJ, NY)—by a 10 point margin even though pundits had her losing by double digits.

Hillary also won Massachusetts—Ted Kennedy’s turf—dispite the corpulent and formerly amphibious senator’s much ballyhooed endorsement there.

And she has more delegates.

More proof that we baby boomers still run things, and don’t you forget it. You will find my social security for the rest of my long life you little Obama lovers.

Shouldn't it be under 50?

1976-18=1958
2008-1958=50

Born in 1962--therefore I'm under 50. My first election was Reagan-Carter in 1980.

Or are you considering GHW Bush as VP there? (no one voted for Reagan because of Bush being on the ticket...)

CAPS MAN: I think the more you try to clarify, the less clear it gets. If it was your point that Clinton is a "perrenial insider", what do the Bushes have to do with anything? Who is invoking the Bushes and to what end? Are you saying that Hillary is saying that she is a "perennial insider" who is an "expert at working within the system to get elected" because the Bushes have been around since 1988 (or 1980)? Why does it matter that a Bush was on the ticket in 80, 84, 88, 92, 00, and 04? What do the Bushes have to do with Hillary's claim that she should be the nominee because she has more experience?

Is it just that your initial point was ill-conceived and I shouldn't have taken the time to "think about [it] for a moment"?

11:52, WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU, SOME CONTRARIAN ASSWIPE LAW SCHOOL GUNNER PRACTICING AT MOOT COURT OR TRIAL AD OR SOMETHING?

MY POINT IS SIMPLE: BUSHES + CLINTONS + LAST 30 YEARS = SYSTEM.

IF THE SYSTEM PREVAILS, AND BECAUSE HILLARY HAS CHOSEN TO RUN ON HER EXPERIENCE, SHE WILL BE FORCED INTO THIS DEBATE:

CLINTON + EXPERIENCE / MCCAIN + EXPERINCE.

FOR THE REASONS GIVEN IN MY EARLIER POST (TWO BACK), I THINK THE RESULT IS THIS: = PREZ MCCAIN NOV 2008.

WITH OBAMA, I THINK HE FORCES A NEW NATIONAL DEBATE: OBAMA = CHANGE; MCCAIN = SYSTEM. VOTERS, MAKE A CHOICE WHICH ONE YOU PREFER.

NOW BY NO MEANS DOES OBAMA HAVE THE ELECTION LOCKED UP SHOULD MY PREDICTION PROVE TRUE. BUT I THINK HE OFFERS A TRUER CONTRAST WITH MCCAIN PRECISELY BECAUSE HIS NAME AND RECORD HAVEN'T BEEN IN THE TABLOIDS AND ON THE BALLOT FOR DECADES.

YOU MAY DISAGREE WITH ME ON THE MERITS OF THIS POINT. FINE, ADULTS DISAGREE ON CLOSE ARGUMENTS LIKE THIS, AS EVIDENCED BY THE DEM DELEGATE COUNT TODAY.

BUT, SKIPPY, DON'T BE A SMARTASS. YOU EXPOSE YOURSELF AS MUCH MORE CONCERNED WITH BESTING ME IN A DEBATE THAN YOU DO WITH SUBSTANTIVELY ADDRESSING MY POINTS BY DOING JUST THAT -- NOT ADDRESSING MY POINTS. (E.G., NEVER TAKING A POSITION BUT TAKING POT SHOTS AT ME; TYPICAL ASSWIPE GUNNER.)

GOOD LUCK ON EXAMS, AND TRY NOT TO GET ANY PAPER CUTS IN THE LIBRARY.

The more comments I read, the less I like law students and big law associates.

CAPS MAN: You have a very nuanced view of the political landscape. I'll try not to confuse you any more. Proceed.