"Shame on you, Barack Obama"

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Also, please note that the last quote on there is actually from HER as reported on CBSNews.com. Not from a reporter, she's quoting herself.

LOL

ETA: Drolefille, I just checked out the links and had a bad grammar moment on this one:

http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/d...Picture1-1.png

Which...don't??? Who wrote that?

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

LOL

ETA: Drolefille, I just checked out the links and had a bad grammar moment on this one:

http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/d...Picture1-1.png

Which...don't??? Who wrote that?

Does "which" always have to be singular?

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Does "which" always have to be singular?

The question is asking "which one of these people" so the correct verb is "does not deserve" not "do not deserve."

[OhSoVeryLadylike]

The mailers have been out for a while, why is she just NOW appalled, hurt, etc....

[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.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

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

Yes.

[DSTCHAOS]

The UFO one made more sense than the pee one.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

The UFO one made more sense than the pee one.

What were they posted in response to though?

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

What were they posted in response to though?

Random, I guess.

[DeltAlum]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

Random, I guess.

A random post on GC? Please say it isn't so.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by DeltAlum

A random post on GC? Please say it isn't so.

[srmom]

I'd say vote for any woman just so we could stop playing "Mine's bigger!" with every dictator around. Obama doesn't seem to play like that

Funny that you wrote this. I read an interesting op-ed by Maureen Dowd:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/op...=1&oref=slogin

Quien es Less Macho? Who is less macho?

And when historians trace how her inevitability dissolved, they will surely note this paradox: The first serious female candidate for president was rejected by voters drawn to the more feminine management style of her male rival.

Maybe his is smaller

JK!

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by srmom

Funny that you wrote this. I read an interesting op-ed by Maureen Dowd:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/op...=1&oref=slogin

Quien es Less Macho? Who is less macho?



Maybe his is smaller

JK!

I did say "any woman" to avoid the "But Hillary's a MAN Baby" jokes. Those cross a line, IMO, and appeal to people who think "strong woman" = bitch or lesbian or something.

Can't read the article because I don't register though but I get the gist.

[DSTCHAOS]

This may've been said in this thread already:

Honestly, Obama's experience is going to be partially based on his age (among possibly other factors that I won't get into). He was born in 1961 and that makes him the youngest candidate and president in a very long time. The other candidates and presidents were born in the 1940s and before.

Soooooo yes it makes sense for his State and U.S. Senate run to be relatively short, factoring in his law school, Harvard Law Review, civil rights attorney, and constitutional law professor stints.

But what he worked on during his political career had an impact. Of course, this impact will be lost on people who expect more time and impact from a candidate. This impact will also be lost on people who don't think programs like helping working class Americans and the education of all children are important.