Politics 2008:The Caucuses and The Dem/Rep Conventions

[darling1]

what i don't get is how she is counting her role as first lady into her 35 years of experience.

Originally Posted by SummerChild

Shawneeeb,

What about the work that he did during his 8 years as an IL senator? That's a long time in the legislative business. As a past IL resident, I can say that he was instrumental in bringing and getting passed many pieces of legislation that were very significant in IL - statewide.

Additionally, I can personally vouch for his knowledge of our government and the processes therein as I was in his Constitutional Law class while in lawschool. He taught three classes each year while also serving as an IL legislator and working the process in Springfield. I had the pleasure of learning about Brown v. Board from this man (our class dealt with the portion of Con Law addressing separation and equality issues - women's rights, voting rights, etc.) and many, many other pivotal constitutional law cases - as did many other students. Each quarter, he would allow students to override into his classes, even given his busy schedule, b/c there was that much interest in taking Constitutional Law from him. At that time, he was not in the U.S. senate nor running for the U.S. senate. Students wanted to take his class b/c he was a great professor and knew his stuff. He also engaged the class in a way that made everyone feel as if they had something to contribute...which can be a rarity in law school classes. Finally, his classes were challenging and very thought-provoking. Further, I can say that the man actually is as genuine and down-to-earth as he appears to be on television. He could have acted any way that he wanted to with us as students - and many professors did - but he was always genuine and down-to-earth.

8 years in the IL legislator (which is quite some time) in addition to those year in the U.S. senate, I would wager to say, probably gives him more legislative experience.

Whether you agree or not. I think that it's safe to say that Obama has significant legislative experience - dispelling the incorrect rumors of the media.

SC

[darling1]

i think that because mccain has a lot of widespread appeal reaching alot of moderate folks, obama may have a tough time. the fact that we are still in a war still may be a large enough factor to pull folks toward mccain.

both candidates can unify this country. it will be pretty close.

Originally Posted by Wonderful1908

This is amazing I believe it would be no contest between him and John Mccain so the thought that we are seriousy on the brink of an African American president it so awesome!

[TonyB06]

Originally Posted by darling1

i think that because mccain has a lot of widespread appeal reaching alot of moderate folks, obama may have a tough time. the fact that we are still in a war still may be a large enough factor to pull folks toward mccain.

both candidates can unify this country. it will be pretty close.

time will indeed tell, but look at the factors already in play:

In their respective primary races, D primary voters are outvoting their R counterparts by large margins. I think I read in the Wisconsin primary, Obama received more total votes than McCain and Huckabee combined did in the R primary. ...separating out what it means for the individual popularity of a candidate, particularly if the D primary ends within a few weeks or so, these trends seem to indicate that Democrats are more enthusiastic, and perhaps more likely to show up at the polls in Nov.

Both Obama and McCain will battle for independents. We can all guess about who'll win that. However at this relatively late date, McCain still has a lot of disaffection with the conservative base of his party. They will likely come back to him by November, but who can say in what numbers? particulary if he's in a pitched battle with Obama for independents. McCain is in the weakest position I've seen a Rep. candidate enter the fall election in quite a while.

What decides elections is, of course, a home-by-home decision, but it appears the economy and Iraq will be the dominant issues. Neither of which bode well for Repubs at present.

[mccoyred]

Putting aside all of the experience vs eloquence personality issues THIS is the kind of issue that will have long-term effects on our country, i.e. Supreme Court nominations and other judicial appointments FOR LIFE, presidential cabinet and other national security advisors, ambassadors to the UN and other countries, etc.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-j...h_b_87953.html

EXCERPT

This lack of vision by the candidate herself was compounded by her senior staff, a deeply unappealing group whose arrogance continues to damage her campaign, and who seem unable to convey the most basic truths to their boss. That she has surrounded herself with relative incompetents such as Mark Penn, Howard Wolfson and Patti Solis Doyle is obviously one of her biggest failings, and should give pause to anyone reflecting on the kind of staffing choices she would have to make as president.

[mccoyred]

Clinton http://www.votesmart.org/voting_cate...p?can_id=55463

Obama http://www.votesmart.org/voting_cate...hp?can_id=9490

Originally Posted by shawneeeb

This misleading blog piece has been proliferated throughout the internet. First of all, it compares apples to oranges. It attempts to understate Clinton's accomplishments by citing the number of bills she authored and passed into law. And then it attempts to over-inflate Obama's record by citing the total number of bills he sponsored (BOTH in state and federal congress).

If you look up the information for yourself (http://thomas.loc.gov/bss/110search.html) you can compare apples to apples:

- In the 109th Congress Obama sponsored 152 bills (26 were signed into law) and co-sponsored 427 (12 were signed into law). Clinton sponsored 177 (21 were signed into law) and co-sponsored 720 (19 were signed into law).

- In the 110th Congress Obama sponsored 113 (0 signed into law) and co-sponsored 375 (3 signed into law). Clinton sponsored 150 (0 signed into law) and co-sponsored 477 (4 signed into law).

- Grand Total Authored - Clinton 327 sponsored / 1197 co-sponsored vs. Obama 265 sponsored / 802 co-sponsored

- Grand Total Passed – Clinton 44 vs. Obama 41

THE FACT - During the time that Obama and Clinton were in Senate together, Clinton authored 23% more bills and co-sponsored 49% more bills. Clinton helped to pass 7% more bills than Obama. In addition, Clinton sponsored 299 bills and co-sponsored 1183 from 2001-2004 while Obama was not involved in national politics.

[Blacksocialite]

I have grown absolutely exhausted by the in-fighting and 'poison pen' emails of the Democrats in this recent primary. My jaw drops every time a read something negative about a Democratic candidate or the party sent by registered Democrats.

The last election should have been a 'lay up' for the Democrats given Bush's record. Either Clinton and Obama will be better than a continuation of the Republican Party's leadership in The White House. I fear that if the in-fighting doesn't stop, John McClain will become President.

I am soooo tired of the Democratic Party now (after being active in it for literally half of my life), that after I vote in my state's primary - I'm becoming Independent.

[AKA2D '91]

Welcome to the land of Independents!

I-N-D-E-P-E-N-D-E-N-T....ya'll know the rest!

[WenD08]

TonyB06, i was going to say the same thing Obama, the economy and Iraq are getting folks to the polls. those same three AREN'T getting Repubs to the polls or at least to vote for Repubs. w/McCain saying, in effect, that we may stay in Iraq for years to come may very well hurt his campaign. in 2004, people were ready to follow bush and stay the course. as has been shown in previous elections, the populace tends to stick w/the sitting president. detrimental or no, unpopular war or no, folks tend to go w/what they know. Kerry and Dems weren't able to change popular thinking. is it the Dems fault? um...i tend to blame the voters and the non-voters who talk mess. people believed that just as in 2001, bush will lead them through the war mess, just like we were led out of 9/11. plus bush is such the Christian and we need a Christian leader to fight these Muslims, blah, blah, blah. smart thinking would've said bush led us into this mess and he needs to go. instead, folks voted for another 4 years of nonsense. hence, there was no "lay-up", history and misplaced fear kept bush in. i daresay, no party can go up against them.

[mccoyred]

Originally Posted by Blacksocialite

I have grown absolutely exhausted by the in-fighting and 'poison pen' emails of the Democrats in this recent primary. My jaw drops every time a read something negative about a Democratic candidate or the party sent by registered Democrats.

The last election should have been a 'lay up' for the Democrats given Bush's record. Either Clinton and Obama will be better than a continuation of the Republican Party's leadership in The White House. I fear that if the in-fighting doesn't stop, John McClain will become President.

I am soooo tired of the Democratic Party now (after being active in it for literally half of my life), that after I vote in my state's primary - I'm becoming Independent.

Being a registerd anything doesn't automatically tie you to the party line even when you go to the voting booth. I have been a registered independent since I first registered to vote on my 18th birthday over 20 years ago. I USUALLY vote Democrat but I have voted for an Independent party or Republican on occasion. Being an Independent has its pros - no 'guarantee' of my vote and no party crap - and its cons - not being able to vote in a closed state primary.

Besides, how do you know that the people sending the information are actually registerd Democrats? The only way you would know for sure is to look at their voter registration card! Heck some very venomous things about the candidates could be coming from the other party or even a so-called third party or other special interest...

[Blacksocialite]

Originally Posted by mccoyred

Being a registerd anything doesn't automatically tie you to the party line even when you go to the voting booth. I have been a registered independent since I first registered to vote on my 18th birthday over 20 years ago. I USUALLY vote Democrat but I have voted for an Independent party or Republican on occasion. Being an Independent has its pros - no 'guarantee' of my vote and no party crap - and its cons - not being able to vote in a closed state primary.

Besides, how do you know that the people sending the information are actually registerd Democrats? The only way you would know for sure is to look at their voter registration card! Heck some very venomous things about the candidates could be coming from the other party or even a so-called third party or other special interest...

I'm OK with not voting in the primary elections for the time being. In terms of the comments that I received via emails - they are coming from people who identified themselves as 'card carrying Democrats.'

So, I don't have to look at their voter registration cards.

[mccoyred]

I ran across a site that seems to do the research on truth vs fiction and appears to be referenced by BOTH Democratic candidates (maybe the Republicans too but I don't know). Take a look at http://www.factcheck.org/ to get the scoop and analysis, especially regarding the latest flack on campaign flyers.

[Blacksocialite]

I know that he owns his own business now.

But I'm curious as to why the Republicans never elevated him to run for President?

He appeared to have all of the right credentials and was elected from Oklahoma (which is very conservative from what I understand). He also appeared to be the Black 'poster child' of the party at one time.

I think it would have been quite the interesting race to see him and Sen. Obama discuss various topics.

[KAPital PHINUst]

I have a question for all of you Obama supporters reading:

What is it about Obama's issues that you find so appealing? I am asking because those who I have asked about his stance on the issues couldn't give me a definitive answer that told me what he would do if he was elected. Most responses alluded to him bringing back jobs, bringing change (but could not elaborate on what those changes involved) or simply the fact that he was black.

I have been getting more emails and e-vites to attend Obama-oriented events, and I am really trying to find out why I should get behind Obama or what he is really all about because all I am hearing is empty soundbites with no substance to support it

Please help me out with this.

[Little32]

^^There is a lot of information out there about all of the candidates; I would suggest you research this for yourself. One good way to do that is by perhaps going out to his events and hearing his stances on the issues that are important to you.




I answer this as though you are serious and not trying to take a backhand swipe at Obama supporters.

[AKA2D '91]

Originally Posted by Blacksocialite

I know that he owns his own business now.

But I'm curious as to why the Republicans never elevated him to run for President?

He appeared to have all of the right credentials and was elected from Oklahoma (which is very conservative from what I understand). He also appeared to be the Black 'poster child' of the party at one time.

I guess JC was reminded that althouh he was a REPUBLICAN, he was/is STILL a NIGRA! Therefore, when he saw there was no chance that he was going to be the Repub's poster child for Black Repubs or he was not going to be a key figure in the party, he reverted back to Oklahoma and away from politics.

Oh well!