 |
The Public Opinion Soapbox
Welcome to the Public Opinion's community message board. You must be registered to post, and all posts are subject to moderation by our staff.
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Coppy
Joined: 28 Oct 2007
Posts: 2267
Location: Chambersburg
|
 Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 6:46 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
I sometimes think that Clinton's divisive persona is more the fault of the Republican establishment than anything that she has done as a politician. But I really can't argue with your point that Clinton does represent part of the Washington establishment that so many of us are trying to leave behind.
If we're truly looking for a leader that represents change, it has to be Obama. Not just in America, but around the world. We're not just voting for our president, but the leader of the most influential nation on the planet. For the citizens of other nations to look at America as represented by a young, black man voted in a popular election would dramatically change their perception of our country overnight. In a good way.
I'm just trying to be optimistic. It's hard. It's very hard. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Bobo
Joined: 22 Oct 2007
Posts: 173
Location: Chambersburg
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 9:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I just can't go with Obama.
_________________
The sun, the moon and the stars would have disappeared long ago... had they happened to be within the reach of predatory human hands. ~Havelock Ellis, The Dance of Life, 1923 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cookieclaygirl
Joined: 03 Dec 2007
Posts: 1805
Location: shippensburg
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 9:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| i would prefer a candidate with more experience, personally.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
.45chel
Joined: 26 Oct 2007
Posts: 2758
Location: Chambersburg
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 10:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I just talked to my Yellow-Dog-Democrat Grandparents (and was guilted for not calling enough) and was informed that they voted Clinton in the primaries. The exit pollers offended them by asking if they had any trouble with the machines (first if there were malfunctions and then if my grands had understood the instructions, that being the part that offended.)
When I questioned them as to what they thought of Obama, they both said they thought he was a fence sitter and was just telling people what they wanted to hear. They think people are voting for him because he is 'something new.' BTW I love them to death, but they hardly ever agree...on anything.
I have to admit I was surprised at how strongly they felt. They may actually go McCain if it is an Obama/McCain match-up.
I'd prefer a Clinton ticket, but I can't say I'd go McCain over Obama, but then again, I can't say I wouldn't either.
_________________
I demand euphoria! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bobo
Joined: 22 Oct 2007
Posts: 173
Location: Chambersburg
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2008 10:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well, good news - the Pa. primary may actually have an impact on the outcome on the Democratic side (Page 1 story in today's PO.) Hurrah. Nice to actually have a say.
There was also some interesting stuff on Page 9A showing race and gender as factors in the Democratic primaries. The most stunning - but not surprising, I suppose - statistic is this: Obama is getting 85% of the black male vote and 80% of the black female vote. And Tavist Smiley said on TV Tuesday that this race shows that black voters are no longer monolithic. In what universe??
I have to admit it. I think this is one of the things that bothers me most about the prospect of Obama in the White House. It just doesn't seem right to me that one group of people is voting so overwhelmingly for Obama, which in turn is making this race a lot closer than it would otherwise be, in my humble opinion. I mean, women are leaning toward Hillary but not anywhere near to this degree.
And I also worry about Obama's electability in a general election. Let's be honest. There are a lot of white voters out there who would have a very hard time with a black family in the White House (perhaps as evidenced in Massachusetts and the other big industrial states that have voted so far?). Especially with a president of the U.S.A. named Barack Hussein Obama.
What do you all think?
_________________
The sun, the moon and the stars would have disappeared long ago... had they happened to be within the reach of predatory human hands. ~Havelock Ellis, The Dance of Life, 1923 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AnonyMouse
Joined: 22 Oct 2007
Posts: 405
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2008 10:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bobo wrote: | Well, good news - the Pa. primary may actually have an impact on the outcome on the Democratic side (Page 1 story in today's PO.) Hurrah. Nice to actually have a say.
There was also some interesting stuff on Page 9A showing race and gender as factors in the Democratic primaries. The most stunning - but not surprising, I suppose - statistic is this: Obama is getting 85% of the black male vote and 80% of the black female vote. And Tavist Smiley said on TV Tuesday that this race shows that black voters are no longer monolithic. In what universe??
I have to admit it. I think this is one of the things that bothers me most about the prospect of Obama in the White House. It just doesn't seem right to me that one group of people is voting so overwhelmingly for Obama, which in turn is making this race a lot closer than it would otherwise be, in my humble opinion. I mean, women are leaning toward Hillary but not anywhere near to this degree.
And I also worry about Obama's electability in a general election. Let's be honest. There are a lot of white voters out there who would have a very hard time with a black family in the White House (perhaps as evidenced in Massachusetts and the other big industrial states that have voted so far?). Especially with a president of the U.S.A. named Barack Hussein Obama.
What do you all think? |
I think that it wasn't right that Bush got into office because one group of people (evangelicals) voted so overwhelmingly for him, which made the race a lot closer than it would have otherwise been. But I guess that's the nature of the political process in a Democracy.
I share your concern about Obama's safety if he is elected. Lots of ignorant, prejudiced people would have a big problem with his race and his name, and some of them might be crazy enough to try to take him out. He already has Secret Service protection because of hateful, threatening mail he has received.
As encouraged as I am by our ability to come this close to nominating an African American, I get pretty discouraged when I hear about threats he's received purely on the basis of his skin color. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Torgo
Joined: 24 Oct 2007
Posts: 466
Location: Manos: The Hands of Fate
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2008 11:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bobo wrote: | | It just doesn't seem right to me that one group of people is voting so overwhelmingly for Obama, which in turn is making this race a lot closer than it would otherwise be, in my humble opinion. I mean, women are leaning toward Hillary but not anywhere near to this degree. |
The race is close because the candidates are trying very hard to exploit their respective built-in bases. They're two sides of the same coin in that respect, so it's amusing to me to see a Hillary backer complain about Obama's lock on the black vote.
Hillary has plenty of other bases to draw upon, Obama not so much. She'll be sure to garner support from (and be accountable to) the corporations, the war profiteers, the trial lawyers, etc. Basically, business as usual, except for her gender.
Which is probably why her backers go to such lengths to emphasize it.
| Bobo wrote: | | And I also worry about Hillary's electability in a general election. Let's be honest. There are a gazillion male, Republican voters out there who would have a very hard time with a female Clinton in the White House. |
Fixed.
| Bobo wrote: | | What do you all think? |
I think many of the same divisiveness issues that apply to Hillary also apply to Obama, to a lesser extent however due to his natural charisma and appeal to the young. But they won't vote anyway, so it's a wash.
I think both are good candidates for different reasons, and both are bad candidates for the same reason.
I think we're very likely to see a GOP victory in 2008.
_________________
"The Master would not approve..."
Last edited by Torgo on Thu Feb 07, 2008 12:00 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Torgo
Joined: 24 Oct 2007
Posts: 466
Location: Manos: The Hands of Fate
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2008 11:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| AnonyMouse wrote: | | Bobo wrote: | Well, good news - the Pa. primary may actually have an impact on the outcome on the Democratic side (Page 1 story in today's PO.) Hurrah. Nice to actually have a say.
There was also some interesting stuff on Page 9A showing race and gender as factors in the Democratic primaries. The most stunning - but not surprising, I suppose - statistic is this: Obama is getting 85% of the black male vote and 80% of the black female vote. And Tavist Smiley said on TV Tuesday that this race shows that black voters are no longer monolithic. In what universe??
I have to admit it. I think this is one of the things that bothers me most about the prospect of Obama in the White House. It just doesn't seem right to me that one group of people is voting so overwhelmingly for Obama, which in turn is making this race a lot closer than it would otherwise be, in my humble opinion. I mean, women are leaning toward Hillary but not anywhere near to this degree.
And I also worry about Obama's electability in a general election. Let's be honest. There are a lot of white voters out there who would have a very hard time with a black family in the White House (perhaps as evidenced in Massachusetts and the other big industrial states that have voted so far?). Especially with a president of the U.S.A. named Barack Hussein Obama.
What do you all think? |
I think that it wasn't right that Bush got into office because one group of people (evangelicals) voted so overwhelmingly for him, which made the race a lot closer than it would have otherwise been. But I guess that's the nature of the political process in a Democracy.
I share your concern about Obama's safety if he is elected. Lots of ignorant, prejudiced people would have a big problem with his race and his name, and some of them might be crazy enough to try to take him out. He already has Secret Service protection because of hateful, threatening mail he has received.
As encouraged as I am by our ability to come this close to nominating an African American, I get pretty discouraged when I hear about threats he's received purely on the basis of his skin color. |
I'm trying hard to find any reference to Obama's personal safety in that post. I'm not seeing it.
Why bring it up?
_________________
"The Master would not approve..." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cookieclaygirl
Joined: 03 Dec 2007
Posts: 1805
Location: shippensburg
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2008 11:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Torgo wrote: |
I think both are good candidates for different reasons, and both are bad candidates for the same reason. That is, neither is highly electable. |
actually i sort of agree w/this....both are so 'different' than our 'norm' that it may wash out the dems in the race (even tho i think hillary would be awesome...she'd be stonewalled at every turn, imo)
| Torgo wrote: |
I think we're very likely to see a GOP victory in 2008. |
*sigh*
i think i may be in shel's boat....mccain? maybe? (as per the mccain over obama dilemma) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Coppy
Joined: 28 Oct 2007
Posts: 2267
Location: Chambersburg
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2008 12:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Many evangelicals are already saying that they will boycott the election if McCain wins the nomination. James Dobson has had quite a few things to say on the matter:
| James Dobson wrote: |
I am convinced Sen. McCain is not a conservative, and in fact, has gone out of his way to stick his thumb in the eyes of those who are.
|
Yeah, that whole stem cell research thing sure does shake this country to its very core. For the single-issue voters, it's Huckabee or no one, despite him having absolutely no clear stance on anything important.
Limbaugh's had some harsh words for McCain as well, but I'm pretty sure that moderate voters aren't listening to Rush.
I must say though, I absolutely love the idea of evangelicals abstaining from the general election. The support that Mike Huckabee receives is living proof that leadership qualities and positions on the issues that actually matter (economy, healthcare, education, social security, unemployment, cost of living, etc.) are irrelevant so long as the candidate is socially conservative, very white and very Christian.
I think that Obama has a better chance at beating McCain in a general election than Hillary does. That's simply how I see it at this point. And the comments about Obama being a fence-sitter don't make sense to me; he's laid out his position on many different issues throughout the campaign, more so than other candidates, at least according to http://www.2008electionprocon.org/. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Torgo
Joined: 24 Oct 2007
Posts: 466
Location: Manos: The Hands of Fate
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2008 12:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The evangelicals have historically been a fringe element in the GOP. It wasn't until recently that they became so influential and created this schism in the Republican party.
Fine, let them sit out, it will restore some sanity to the debate. Maybe they'll go one step further, break away, and form their own party. But I doubt it, as that would just marginalize them further.
Either way, the core group of Republican (non neo) conservatives and moderates will remain. Faced with a choice between Hillary and McCain, most will go with McCain. And regardless of what Dobson says, I predict many evangelicals will nonetheless go out of their way to vote against Hillary.
I agree, Obama does have a better chance against McCain. But he won't get that far.
_________________
"The Master would not approve..." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bobo
Joined: 22 Oct 2007
Posts: 173
Location: Chambersburg
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2008 2:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I doubt anyone clicked on the link so ...
| Quote: | Goodbye To All That (#2) by Robin Morgan
February 2, 2008
“Goodbye To All That” was my (in)famous 1970 essay breaking free from a politics of accommodation especially affecting women (for an online version, see http://blog.fair-use.org/category/chicago/).
During my decades in civil-rights, anti-war, and contemporary women’s movements, I’ve avoided writing another specific “Goodbye . . .” But not since the suffrage struggle have two communities—joint conscience-keepers of this country—been so set in competition, as the contest between Hillary Rodham Clinton (HRC) and Barack Obama (BO) unfurls. So.
Goodbye to the double standard . . .
—Hillary is too ballsy but too womanly, a Snow Maiden who’s emotional, and so much a politician as to be unfit for politics.
—She’s “ambitious” but he shows “fire in the belly.” (Ever had labor pains?)
—When a sexist idiot screamed “Iron my shirt!” at HRC, it was considered amusing; if a racist idiot shouted “Shine my shoes!” at BO, it would’ve inspired hours of airtime and pages of newsprint analyzing our national dishonor.
—Young political Kennedys—Kathleen, Kerry, and Bobby Jr.—all endorsed Hillary. Senator Ted, age 76, endorsed Obama. If the situation were reversed, pundits would snort “See? Ted and establishment types back her, but the forward-looking generation backs him.” (Personally, I’m unimpressed with Caroline’s longing for the Return of the Fathers. Unlike the rest of the world, Americans have short memories. Me, I still recall Marilyn Monroe’s suicide, and a dead girl named Mary Jo Kopechne in Chappaquiddick.)
Goodbye to the toxic viciousness . . .
Carl Bernstein's disgust at Hillary’s “thick ankles.” Nixon-trickster Roger Stone’s new Hillary-hating 527 group, “Citizens United Not Timid” (check the capital letters). John McCain answering “How do we beat the ***?" with “Excellent question!” Would he have dared reply similarly to “How do we beat the black bastard?” For shame.
Goodbye to the HRC nutcracker with metal spikes between splayed thighs. If it was a tap-dancing blackface doll, we would be righteously outraged—and they would not be selling it in airports. Shame.
Goodbye to the most intimately violent T-shirts in election history, including one with the murderous slogan “If Only Hillary had married O.J. Instead!” Shame.
Goodbye to Comedy Central’s “Southpark” featuring a storyline in which terrorists secrete a bomb in HRC’s vagina. I refuse to wrench my brain down into the gutter far enough to find a race-based comparison. For shame.
Goodbye to the sick, malicious idea that this is funny. This is not “Clinton hating,” not “Hillary hating.” This is sociopathic woman-hating. If it were about Jews, we would recognize it instantly as anti-Semitic propaganda; if about race, as KKK poison. Hell, PETA would go ballistic if such vomitous spew were directed at animals. Where is our sense of outrage—as citizens, voters, Americans?
Goodbye to the news-coverage target-practice . . .
The women’s movement and Media Matters wrung an apology from MSNBC’s Chris Matthews for relentless misogynistic comments (www.womensmediacenter.com). But what about NBC’s Tim Russert’s continual sexist asides and his all-white-male panels pontificating on race and gender? Or CNN’s Tony Harris chuckling at “the chromosome thing” while interviewing a woman from The White House Project? And that’s not even mentioning Fox News.
Goodbye to pretending the black community is entirely male and all women are white . . .
Surprise! Women exist in all opinions, pigmentations, ethnicities, abilities, sexual preferences, and ages—not only African American and European American but Latina and Native American, Asian American and Pacific Islanders, Arab American and—hey, every group, because a group wouldn’t exist if we hadn’t given birth to it. A few non-racist countries may exist—but sexism is everywhere. No matter how many ways a woman breaks free from other discriminations, she remains a female human being in a world still so patriarchal that it’s the “norm.”
So why should all women not be as justly proud of our womanhood and the centuries, even millennia, of struggle that got us this far, as black Americans, women and men, are justly proud of their struggles?
Goodbye to a campaign where he has to pass as white (which whites—especially wealthy ones—adore), while she has to pass as male (which both men and women demanded of her, and then found unforgivable). If she were blackor he were female we wouldn’t be having such problems, and I for one would be in heaven. But at present such a candidate wouldn’t stand a chance—even if she shared Condi Rice’s Bush-defending politics.
I was celebrating the pivotal power at last focused on African American women deciding on which of two candidates to bestow their vote—until a number of Hillary-supporting black feminists told me they’re being called “race traitors.”
So goodbye to conversations about this nation’s deepest scar—slavery—which fail to acknowledge that labor- and sexual-slavery exist today in the U.S. and elsewhere on this planet, and the majority of those enslaved are women.
Women have endured sex/race/ethnic/religious hatred, rape and battery, invasion of spirit and flesh, forced pregnancy; being the majority of the poor, the illiterate, the disabled, of refugees, caregivers, the HIV/AIDS afflicted, the powerless. We have survived invisibility, ridicule, religious fundamentalisms, polygamy, teargas, forced feedings, jails, asylums, sati, purdah, female genital mutilation, witch burnings, stonings, and attempted gynocides. We have tried reason, persuasion, reassurances, and being extra-qualified, only to learn it never was about qualifications after all. We know that at this historical moment women experience the world differently from men—though not all the same as one another—and can govern differently, from Elizabeth Tudor to Michele Bachelet and Ellen Johnson Sirleaf.
We remember when Shirley Chisholm and Patricia Schroeder ran for this high office and barely got past the gate—they showed too much passion, raised too little cash, were joke fodder. Goodbye to all that. (And goodbye to some feminists so famished for a female president they were even willing to abandon women’s rights in backing Elizabeth Dole.)
Goodbye, goodbye to . . .
—blaming anything Bill Clinton does on Hillary (even including his womanizing like the Kennedy guys—though unlike them, he got reported on). Let’s get real. If he hadn’t campaigned strongly for her everyone would cluck over what that meant. Enough of Bill and Teddy Kennedy locking their alpha male horns while Hillary pays for it.
—an era when parts of the populace feel so disaffected by politics that a comparative lack of knowledge, experience, and skill is actually seen as attractive, when celebrity-culture mania now infects our elections so that it’s “cooler” to glow with marquee charisma than to understand the vast global complexities of power on a nuclear, wounded planet.
—the notion that it’s fun to elect a handsome, cocky president who feels he can learn on the job, goodbye to George W. Bush and the destruction brought by his inexperience, ignorance, and arrogance.
Goodbye to the accusation that HRC acts “entitled” when she’s worked intensely at everything she’s done—including being a nose-to-the-grindstone, first-rate senator from my state.
Goodbye to her being exploited as a Rorschach test by women who reduce her to a blank screen on which they project their own fears, failures, fantasies.
Goodbye to the phrase “polarizing figure” to describe someone who embodies the transitions women have made in the last century and are poised to make in this one. It was the women’s movement that quipped, “We are becoming the men we wanted to marry.” She heard us, and she has.
Goodbye to some women letting history pass by while wringing their hands, because Hillary isn’t as “likeable” as they’ve been warned they must be, or because she didn’t leave him, couldn’t “control” him, kept her family together and raised a smart, sane daughter. (Think of the blame if Chelsea had ever acted in the alcoholic, neurotic manner of the Bush twins!) Goodbye to some women pouting because she didn’t bake cookies or she did, sniping because she learned the rules and then bent or broke them. Grow the hell up. She is not running for Ms.-perfect-pure-queen-icon of the feminist movement. She’s running to be president of the United States.
Goodbye to the shocking American ignorance of our own and other countries’ history. Margaret Thatcher and Golda Meir rose through party ranks and war, positioning themselves as proto-male leaders. Almost all other female heads of government so far have been related to men of power—granddaughters, daughters, sisters, wives, widows: Gandhi, Bandaranike, Bhutto, Aquino, Chamorro, Wazed, Macapagal-Arroyo, Johnson Sirleaf, Bachelet, Kirchner, and more. Even in our “land of opportunity,” it’s mostly the first pathway “in” permitted to women: Representatives Doris Matsui and Mary Bono and Sala Burton; Senator Jean Carnahan . . . far too many to list here.
Goodbye to a misrepresented generational divide . . .
Goodbye to the so-called spontaneous “Obama Girl” flaunting her bikini-clad *** online—then confessing Oh yeah it wasn’t her idea after all, some guys got her to do it and dictated the clothes, which she said “made me feel like a dork.”
Goodbye to some young women eager to win male approval by showing they’re not feminists (at least not the kind who actually threaten thestatus quo), who can’t identify with a woman candidate because she is unafraid of eeueweeeu yucky power, who fear their boyfriends might look at them funny if they say something good about her. Goodbye to women of any age again feeling unworthy, sulking “what if she’s not electable?” or “maybe it’s post-feminism and whoooosh we’re already free.” Let a statement by the magnificent Harriet Tubman stand as reply. When asked how she managed to save hundreds of enslaved African Americans via the Underground Railroad during the Civil War, she replied bitterly, “I could have saved thousands—if only I’d been able to convince them they were slaves.”
I’d rather say a joyful Hello to all the glorious young women who do identifywith Hillary, and all the brave, smart men—of all ethnicities and any age—who get that it’s in their self-interest, too. She’s better qualified. (D’uh.) She’s a high-profile candidate with an enormous grasp of foreign- and domestic-policy nuance, dedication to detail, ability to absorb staggering insult and personal pain while retaining dignity, resolve, even humor, and keep on keeping on. (Also, yes, dammit, let’s hear it for her connections and funding and party-building background, too. Obama was awfully glad about those when she raised dough and campaigned for him to get to the Senate in the first place.)
I’d rather look forward to what a good president he might make in eight years, when his vision and spirit are seasoned by practical know-how—and he’ll be all of 54. Meanwhile, goodbye to turning him into a shining knight when actually he’s an astute, smooth pol with speechwriters who’ve worked with the Kennedys’ own speechwriter-courtier Ted Sorenson. If it’s only about ringing rhetoric, let speechwriters run. But isn’t it about getting the policies we want enacted?
And goodbye to the ageism . . .
How dare anyone unilaterally decide when to turn the page on history, papering over real inequities and suffering constituencies in the promise of a feel-good campaign? How dare anyone claim to unify while dividing, or think that to rouse U.S. youth from torpor it’s useful to triage the single largest demographic in this country’s history: the boomer generation—the majority of which is female?
Old woman are the one group that doesn’t grow more conservative with age—and we are the generation of radicals who said “Well-behaved women seldom make history.” Goodbye to going gently into any goodnight any man prescribes for us. We are the women who changed the reality of the United States. And though we never went away, brace yourselves: we’re back!
We are the women who brought this country equal credit, better pay, affirmative action, the concept of a family-focused workplace; the women who established rape-crisis centers and battery shelters, marital-rape and date-rape laws; the women who defended lesbian custody rights, who fought for prison reform, founded the peace and environmental movements; who insisted that medical research include female anatomy; who inspired men to become more nurturing parents; who created women’s studies and Title IX so we all could cheer the WNBA stars and Mia Hamm. We are the women who reclaimed sexuality from violent pornography, who put childcare on the national agenda, who transformed demographics, artistic expression, language itself. We are the women who forged a worldwide movement. We are the proud successors of women who, though it took more than 50 years, won us the vote.
We are the women who now comprise the majority of U.S. voters.
|
I cut it there, but you get the drift.
_________________
The sun, the moon and the stars would have disappeared long ago... had they happened to be within the reach of predatory human hands. ~Havelock Ellis, The Dance of Life, 1923 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
A Talking Horse
Joined: 22 Oct 2007
Posts: 139
Location: Cove Gap
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2008 2:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
McCain is pretty old...would be the oldest ever elected...I respect age - but worry a bit if that's pushing it a bit...my dad is about the same age and pretty sharp - but...you can see the change.
_________________
Do everything that's in you, you feel to be your part... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dave
Joined: 22 Oct 2007
Posts: 162
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2008 2:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I am afraid we will be stuck, once again, with a choice between worse & worser.
The party leaders chose the candidates long ago.
McCain may have been "swiftboated" by Bush in 2000 but evidently he learned well & torpedoed Romney with the big lie two days before Florida with that total fabrication of Romney's Iraq position.
No fear though as honesty doesn't appear to be a virtur sought by Republican voters these days.
With Romney gone, will we see the VP choice of Huckabee as a reward for sticking around to undercut Romey?
On the Democratic side, Hillary only needs for it to go to the convention to get the party big wigs to annoint her as the nominee.
Super delegate- what the heck is that other than another term for "voters are irrevlevant".
The ONLY course of action to prevent Hillary's power move is to make sure Obama gets enough delegates before it gets to the convention.
Hillary = McCain=more gridlock & party politics.
We all need to push for Obama. He is the only true leader. The only one left to can end this bickering & take away the power of the parties. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bobo
Joined: 22 Oct 2007
Posts: 173
Location: Chambersburg
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2008 3:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dave, I don't agree with you on this, but I still have a crush on you. 
And I think you might be my neighbor.
_________________
The sun, the moon and the stars would have disappeared long ago... had they happened to be within the reach of predatory human hands. ~Havelock Ellis, The Dance of Life, 1923 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
