"Shame on you, Barack Obama"

[DGTess]

Originally Posted by texas*princess

<snip>
And I do find it hilarious that when any news channel talks to people outside of Obama rallies, they are all psyched up but when asked, none of them can tell reporters why they support him or any of this accomplishments. They must really just like the words "change" and "hope" a lot.
<snip>

Well, his endorsers sure know </sarcasm>

Washington Post, 2/20/08
Quote

"He's definitely confusing to everyone who really hates America for hating Muslims, because [with] a name like Obama and [his being] a black man, they're probably going to go, 'Oh, wait a minute -- what?' . . . He definitely has convinced people that he stands for change and for hope, and I can't wait to see what he stands for."
-- Susan Sarandon, announcing her support of Barack Obama on "Tavis Smiley" last week, now that favorite John Edwards has dropped out. (Reminder: Barack Obama is not Muslim.)

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

No, it doesn't actually if you read the poster at the link. It says "which of these people" which I think could be either singular or plural depending on if you could only choose one or more than one. (unless it's been changed)

Unless I'm missing something, there's no reason why one would assume only one of the group pictured doesn't deserve health care, rather than two or three.

"Which" is a relative pronoun in the sentence. What is "which" referring to? It is referring to an understood "one" because there is no other useable noun in the sentence - it can't refer to a noun within a prepositional phrase (i.e. "of these people"). "One" is singular, therefore, the verb has to be singular. If the sentence said "Which people don't deserve health care?" the verb "don't" would be appropriate, because "which" would be referring to "people" which is plural.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

"Which" is a relative pronoun in the sentence. What is "which" referring to? It is referring to an understood "one" because there is no other useable noun in the sentence - it can't refer to a noun within a prepositional phrase (i.e. "of these people"). "One" is singular, therefore, the verb has to be singular. If the sentence said "Which people don't deserve health care?" the verb "don't" would be appropriate, because "which" would be referring to "people" which is plural.

If you're going to be a grammar nazi, it's important to be right.

The word "one" isn't present and there's no reason that the subject would need to be singular or that "one" would be understood to be present. It could just as easily by understood to be "three."

There is no clear referent for "which," which by the way is probably functioning as an interrogative pronoun rather than as a relative pronoun. Any number of people in the photo could be the "which." It doesn't have to be understood to be singular and is probably more effective as an ad if it's understood to be plural.

Again, I probably wouldn't have set it up to read like that because it was going to bug some people, but you are insisting that it's incorrect as written, and I don't think it is.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

If you're going to be a grammar nazi, it's important to be right.

Nazi? No. The ad is a reflection on the campaign, not on you. There's no need to defend the people who decided this ad was good to go.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

Nazi? No. The ad is a reflection on the campaign, not on you. There's no need to defend the people who decided this ad was good to go.

But from a purely grammatical point of view, it was good to go.

There's enough out there to keep you busy if you just worry about the stuff that's actually wrong or if you just want to focus on health care without expanding into the stuff that's awkward because you're not sure of the number intended in advance.

And with the grammar nazi comment, I include myself in that anytime I'm going to call someone out. It's one thing to correct or comment on something that's wrong. It's something else to correct or comment on something that turns out to be right.

ETA: but I wrote Bosnia when I meant Serbia early this week, so I'm really not trying to pretend I'm upholding some high standard of commentary.

[GeekyPenguin]

Originally Posted by texas*princess

He has been in the Junior Senate for 2 years. Seriously? In a time like we are in right now (we've got a "war" in Iraq... we still have people looking for Osama... the economy is a mess and we are several trillion $$'s in national debt) I would prefer someone who has more than 2 year's worth of experience... but that's just me.

Um, I think he's been in the regular Senate, it's not like there's a junior Senate equivalent to junior Panhell.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by GeekyPenguin

Um, I think he's been in the regular Senate, it's not like there's a junior Senate equivalent to junior Panhell.

But couldn't we write a great SNL skit based on this premise?

[GeekyPenguin]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

But couldn't we write a great SNL skit based on this premise?

For sure. Teddy Kennedy as John Kerry's "big" shows a lot of potential.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by texas*princess

He has been in the Junior Senate for 2 years. Seriously? In a time like we are in right now (we've got a "war" in Iraq... we still have people looking for Osama... the economy is a mess and we are several trillion $$'s in national debt) I would prefer someone who has more than 2 year's worth of experience... but that's just me.

And I do find it hilarious that when any news channel talks to people outside of Obama rallies, they are all psyched up but when asked, none of them can tell reporters why they support him or any of this accomplishments. They must really just like the words "change" and "hope" a lot.

He is very well spoken and does a good job of getting people excited, but it takes waaaaay more than that to run a country. But that's just IMHO. If you think differently, rock on with your bad self

He has about as much experience as Abe Lincoln. He's been a community organizer, a civil rights lawyer, a state legislator and a US Senator. He's not 23 and fresh out of college.

I know which one of his supporters you're referring to, but if you watched the debate he laid out his accomplishments, you can see them on public websites, and see this site: http://www.usaspending.gov/. Obama was one of the two major sponsors of the legislation to create a public, searchable database of where our money goes. If you don't know his accomplishments it's because you haven't listened for them.

And finally, I don't think anyone's voting because they think that "getting people excited" is enough to run the country, but that in addition to his experience and skills he has the ability to excite people and inspire them.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

He has about as much experience as Abe Lincoln. He's been a community organizer, a civil rights lawyer, a state legislator and a US Senator. He's not 23 and fresh out of college.

But he's been a US Senator for a relatively short period of time, and I don't usually think that community organizer, civil rights lawyer, state legislator, 1/2 a Senate term, President of the US is the usual progression. And isn't Lincoln kind of the exception, rather than the rule? Aren't most serious candidates either long term US Senators or Representatives or Governors, in which position we assume they have experience with the executive branch?

On the other hand, Hillary's own experience isn't all that much deeper if we judge her strictly for positions she was elected to or selected for on her own merits. I only mean experience that we'd think for the Presidency; I think she's an accomplished lawyer in her own right and I'm not trying to diminish that.

(I say this knowing I would have voted for Fred Thompson and he's have the same "experience" weakness using this standard.)

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

But he's been a US Senator for a relatively short period of time, and I don't usually think that community organizer, civil rights lawyer, state legislator, 1/2 a Senate term, President of the US is the usual progression. And isn't Lincoln kind of the exception, rather than the rule? Aren't most serious candidates either long term US Senators or Representatives or Governors, in which position we assume they have experience with the executive branch?

On the other hand, Hillary's own experience isn't all that much deeper if we judge her strictly for positions she was elected to or selected for on her own merits. I only mean experience that we'd think for the Presidency; I think she's an accomplished lawyer in her own right and I'm not trying to diminish that.

(I say this knowing I would have voted for Fred Thompson and he's have the same "experience" weakness using this standard.)

Well, some of the most "experienced" presidents have been the worst. Nixon ran on experience for example. He has a decent amount of state legislative experience, he's familiar to politics without being an "insider" which appeals to me. And Senators don't usually do well in national elections because so many of the Senate votes are "bad" no matter which way you vote.

Honestly the fact that he's not stuck in the Washington politics is more appealing to me. I think he and Clinton have similar levels of experience and I like him better. Thus making that choice relatively easy for me.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Honestly the fact that he's not stuck in the Washington politics is more appealing to me. I think he and Clinton have similar levels of experience and I like him better. Thus making that choice relatively easy for me.

I think it's sometimes easier to run with no record because you're untainted, but consider the Jimmy Carter era. He's regarded as a man of great character today, but it's hard to make a case that his Presidency was good time for the USA. I think Obama would be better than Jimmy, but I'm still finding Obama a little insubstantial and not having been inside DC forever can have some drawbacks.

I prefer Obama to Clinton too, but McCain to both of them, I think.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

I think it's sometimes easier to run with no record because you're untainted, but consider the Jimmy Carter era. He's regarded as a man of great character today, but it's hard to make a case that his Presidency was good time for the USA. I think Obama would be better than Jimmy, but I'm still finding Obama a little insubstantial and not having been inside DC forever can have some drawbacks.

I prefer Obama to Clinton too, but McCain to both of them, I think.

Yeah I pretty muched missed the Jimmy Carter era and since recent history is the least taught (how much do you know about the Revolutionary War? The Civil War? WWII? Now, what about the 70s ((if you weren't alive for them)) ) I'll admit to not having a lot of perspective.

McCain, well I just don't trust him. He's a panderer and, imo, a liar. And I don't give a damn who he slept with or whether he did but lobbyists should not be making phone calls from a campaign bus. He's in bed with them, if you'll pardon the pun.

[DSTCHAOS]

http://election.msn.com/?GT1=10928

Even if Clinton quits, which I don't think would happen, McCain will probably win. That would include people who vote for McCain, people who vote for a third party or do a write-in, and people who opt not to vote at all because they are discontent with the candidates and process.

Obama is doing extremely well in the primaries but that doesn't mean that voters are ready for Obama (the change that he claims to stand for) and that election day will come out in his favor.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

http://election.msn.com/?GT1=10928

Even if Clinton quits, which I don't think would happen, McCain will probably win. That would include people who vote for McCain, people who vote for a third party or do a write-in, and people who opt not to vote at all because they are discontent with the candidates and process.

Obama is doing extremely well in the primaries but that doesn't mean that voters are ready for Obama (the change that he claims to stand for) and that election day will come out in his favor.

That didn't take me to anywhere that backs up what you're saying. Unless you're just referencing the Clinton quits thing.

Anyway, I disagree, Obama is beating McCain in the polls now, Nader will likely be less significant than he was in 2004 and definitely won't be the factor he was in 2000. Obama does well with the independents that McCain also attracts (and even has Republicans voting for him not just against Clinton). And the man isn't just Teflon he's Kevlar thus far. He's also mobilizing the "youth vote" in a way that actually gets them to come to the voting booth not just talk on the internet. He's got a lot going for him, and, though it's possible, I don't think McCain will pull it out.

I also get the feeling that some hard core conservatives are giving up on this election cycle. I saw an article talking about how it'd be good if a Democrat won, because then the GOP would come back even stronger. That might change between now and November, but it's out there nonetheless.