Obama's inexperience is already showing

Miklos7 wrote:

Talk7200,

You speak of Obama's "immaturity." How about Senator Clinton's childish lie that she left a plane "under sniper fire," when the file videotape shows her and Chelsea waving to bystanders as they saunter across the tarmac?

Even so, I will take Obama's "immaturity" over the doddering, old fool who doesn't know the difference between Shia and Sunni and admits that he knows nothing about the economy.

0 Replies

fishin wrote:

Ah! The desperation level of the Clinton supporters is climbing...

or descending...

0 Replies

Roxxxanne wrote:

Miklos7 wrote:
Talk7200,

You speak of Obama's "immaturity." How about Senator Clinton's childish lie that she left a plane "under sniper fire," when the file videotape shows her and Chelsea waving to bystanders as they saunter across the tarmac?

Even so, I will take Obama's "immaturity" over the doddering, old fool who doesn't know the difference between Shia and Sunni and admits that he knows nothing about the economy.

In terms of religious practices, do you know the difference?
What are the major religious holy days the two branches have in common, and what are the differences?
Who are the major religious leaders, living and dead, of each sect of Islam?
Can YOU look at a Muslim and tell which one is Sunni And which one is Shia?

0 Replies

I can live with an Obama victory but I fear an abrupt end or escalation of tension with one or more of the world nuclear powers as with JFK and Bill Clinton in the Cuban Missile Crisis and the Kosovo airport incident with Russian armored personnel vehicle carriers in the runway blocking American warplanes from landing in the Pristina Airport.

0 Replies

Here is the discussion about States moving up their Primaries schedules.

Webpage Title

0 Replies

Wikipedia shows fives states that violated the Februry 5 date but onlyflorida and Michigan were stripped.

For 2008, both the Republicans and the Democrats have moved their Nevada caucus to an earlier date than traditional, to January 19. In response, other states have also changed their primary election dates for 2008, creating a cascade of changes in other states. The current dates up to and including Super Tuesday are now:[1]

* January 3 ?- Iowa caucus
* January 5 ?- Republican Wyoming caucus
* January 8 ?- New Hampshire primary
* January 15 ?- Michigan primary (allowed on appeal[2])
* January 19 ?- Nevada Caucus / Republican South Carolina primary
* January 26 ?- Democratic South Carolina primary
* January 29 ?- Florida primary
* February 1 - February 2―Republican Maine caucus
* February 5 ― Super Tuesday: Primaries/caucuses for both parties in 19 states, plus three

Wikipedia

0 Replies

talk72000 wrote:

Wikipedia shows fives states that violated the Februry 5 date but onlyflorida and Michigan were stripped.

For 2008, both the Republicans and the Democrats have moved their Nevada caucus to an earlier date than traditional, to January 19. In response, other states have also changed their primary election dates for 2008, creating a cascade of changes in other states. The current dates up to and including Super Tuesday are now:[1]

* January 3 ?- Iowa caucus
* January 5 ?- Republican Wyoming caucus
* January 8 ?- New Hampshire primary
* January 15 ?- Michigan primary (allowed on appeal[2])
* January 19 ?- Nevada Caucus / Republican South Carolina primary
* January 26 ?- Democratic South Carolina primary
* January 29 ?- Florida primary
* February 1 - February 2―Republican Maine caucus
* February 5 ― Super Tuesday: Primaries/caucuses for both parties in 19 states, plus three

Wikipedia

First of all, there are 2 seperate rules - one within the Democratic Party and one within the Republican Party. The discussion here is strictly with teh Democratic Party hence, that removes Wyoming from your list of violaters.

And Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada were all specifically exempted from the rule when the Feb 5th date limit was set. You can't be in violation of a rule if the rule specificlly excludes you.

0 Replies

It doesn't only specifically exclude -- it's designed that way. Hear from four very different regions and see what they have to say, before having the big day that could decide the nominee.

So,

Iowa: Midwestern, white, farmers, etc.

NH: Northeastern, white, intellectuals + rank-and-file Dems, etc.

NV: Western/ Southwestern, large Hispanic population + rural whites, etc.

SC: Southern, large black population, etc.

Greatly oversimplifying the attributes of each state of course -- point is that it is a purposely diverse group, meant to see which candidate does best with all of these different parts of America. Does he or she do great in Iowa but tank in SC? Etc.

0 Replies

let me project the day-to-day life.
I met a wonderful 20 years old mother of a bewitching child..
Mother is 20 years old and will be be 21( unwed)
I asked the mother whether you have the warmth of your parents and she said no.
i am helpless and my child is my vission.
I was shocked.
This is my experience in K?-LN- Germany

0 Replies

Are you normal to allow this state of affairs?
An unwed mother( twenty years old) had no warmth from her parents.
Christian culture?

Experience?

0 Replies

Re: Obama's inexperience is already showing

talk72000 wrote:

He wants to overturn the Democratic Party's superdelegates' role in choosing a nominee who will be accepted by all of America not just nut cases in the Democratic Party.

Interesting point, but I've found few who are willing to discuss.

Are the supers supposed to be just a 'rubber stamp' of the primary results?

If the supers are simply supposed to 'mirror' the votes counted in the primary, what useful function do they serve?

I'd have the same question if HillyBilly were currently ahead in the delegate count and were expecting the supers to 'follow the will of the people' , as Obama supporters are currently suggesting.

If the supers have no independent voice, then why are they there?

I don't think the intent of the DNC was to create a 'rubber stamp'.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

engineer wrote:
If anything, I think Obama's team very adroitly deflected Clinton's efforts to get Michigan and Florida back into play. I thought Clinton would be able to force one or both revotes and Obama deflected both. He is certainly ready to play hardball politics if he can hang with and beat the Clintons.

But that may cost him in the general election if he is the nominee.
The repubs will jump all over the fact that Obama wouldnt let the voters in Fl and Mi have a voice in who their candidate is.

If even a small % of Dems in MI and FL sit at home in November, it could cost the Dems the election.

HillyBilly understood this from the beginning.

There is NO way that the National party won't seat the MI and FL delegates.

Hilly sandbagged Obama and the rest of the Dem slate by breaking the pledge that she and all Dems signed, and leaving her name of the MI ballot.

And she immediately started talking about how the votes should count. MI voters won't forget who was more vocal in supporting their state's right to hold it's primary when it wished to.

A revote is not want Hilly wants or needs. She needs to go into the convention standing AGAINST disenfranchisement, so that she can portray Obama as FOR it.

If Obama had agreed to a revote, it would've been disastrous for her. The PR this way is much better and will get her many more votes at the convention when the delegations are seated. And they will be.

0 Replies

Quote:

If even a small % of Dems in MI and FL sit at home in November, it could cost the Dems the election.

What can you provide to show this isn't just wishful thinking on the part of the GOP supporters? I'm trying to figure out what numbers you're using to come up with this. The number of voters that have been energized, and have come out for the Dem primaries has been in some cases double that of the Republican primaries.

Also, I can't figure out how you figure it is that Obama is the one who caused Mich. and Fla. not to be counted, when their election committees agreed to that very thing when they accelerated their primaries.

0 Replies

And let's not forget the percentage of Republicans who swore they would NEVER vote for McCain. After all, he's a traitor to them on many issues, remember?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I suggested to Gore's website after the 2000 that smaller states in four regions should have primaries after Iowa and New Hampshire as these two Liberal states may produce an extreme left-wing candidate for the Democrats unacceptable to the nation in a general election. I also suggested holding bigger states back a bit for if they held their primaries early the kind of candidate may not be representative of the general public and unacceptable.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

Quote:
If even a small % of Dems in MI and FL sit at home in November, it could cost the Dems the election.

What can you provide to show this isn't just wishful thinking on the part of the GOP supporters? I'm trying to figure out what numbers you're using to come up with this. The number of voters that have been energized, and have come out for the Dem primaries has been in some cases double that of the Republican primaries.

Florida was won by a fairly small percentage of the vote in 2000 and in 2004. In each case, Bush won the Presidency by one state.

Doubling the number of Dems in New York or California won't help the Ds win Michigan or Florida.

If Dem voters in those states are angry about their delegation being snubbed, they could stay home.

Thats why the National party will seat the delegates.

snood wrote:

Also, I can't figure out how you figure it is that Obama is the one who caused Mich. and Fla. not to be counted, when their election committees agreed to that very thing when they accelerated their primaries.

Maybe it's because I didn't say that.

0 Replies

Obama's inexperience is already showing

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know