2008 U.S. Presidential Election - Primaries

[firepokemon]

I'm really starting to like Obama. He had my support before, but all these so-called 'faux pas's' are making me support him more and more. He's honest. He's tellin' it like it is.

Obama '08!

Great you support Obama, but its easy to tell it like it is. Just like for McCain, he can say how wasteful White House spending is, I think Bush said the same, its likely Bill Clinton said so easy.

Obama offers lovely words, and says nice things that sound bloody good. But people must not forget that it is difficult to achieve anything in Washington, and though the signs are good in that the Democrats are likely to win the house with more seats than 2006 and could potentially reach 60 seats in the senate and of course Obama has a damn good shot at the presidency. If such things happen, Obama may well be able to achieve most things hes offering. But of course, one must not be so naive as to think Obama will actually deliver everything hes spoken of thus far. Its Washington after all.

[Roy Karrde]

You know I am curious, what is the draw of Obama? Maybe you guys can answer this, but what is the draw to support the man? I mean the guy has no real plan, he has tons of skeletons in the closet, and he is utterly dangerous to this country. Not to mention he doesn't have a chance to be elected in November.

So what is the draw to him? I mean it seems the Democrat party is going out of it's way to nominate a man that they know will lose. I really just do not get it.

[Heald]

You know I am curious, what is the draw of Obama? Maybe you guys can answer this, but what is the draw to support the man? I mean the guy has no real plan, he has tons of skeletons in the closet, and he is utterly dangerous to this country. Not to mention he doesn't have a chance to be elected in November.

To be honest, I thought exactly the same thing when Dubya came along in 2000, except I would add 'thicker than two short planks' to that list as well.

[Roy Karrde]

Yeah but the difference with Dubya was that he had experience in the past with Government. Obama on the other hand is a newbie to it. And of course it is arguable around idiological lines if Dubya was saying things that are as dangerous as what Obama in these past few months have said.

[kainashi]

he's better than hillary at least. the only thing a woman should be running is a kitchen!

[Blademaster]

Yeah but the difference with Dubya was that he had experience in the past with Government.

And booooooy, does it show!

Obama on the other hand is a newbie to it.

And no other President or presidential candidate in history has been a newb, right?

Actually, let me answer that for you: Wrong.

[Roy Karrde]

And booooooy, does it show!

Actually yeah it does, it helped him during the first few months of his Presidency when his administration was floundering and he was looking to try and get bipartisan support for his appointments.

And no other President or presidential candidate in history has been a newb, right?

Actually, let me answer that for you: Wrong.

Not to the point that Obama is, infact I would say no party has gambled so much on such a uncertain cannidate before with such a paper thin resume.

[Blademaster]

Actually yeah it does, it helped him during the first few months of his Presidency when his administration was floundering and he was looking to try and get bipartisan support for his appointments.

OK. Now what's his excuse for the other 90-something months?

Not to the point that Obama is, infact I would say no party has gambled so much on such a uncertain cannidate before with such a paper thin resume.

Thank you for proving my point. YOU would say that, when in truth, you have absolutely no proof.

Not that that's your fault - you'd need the complete comparative resumes of not just every U.S. President in history, but also those of every President of every presidential nation of the world to date. Once you have all of those, then you can tell me who's most qualified to do what. Until then, I'm afraid you're no more credible a source of presidential qualification than I am.

[Roy Karrde]

OK. Now what's his excuse for the other 90-something months?

Mainly 9/11. Remember we are talking about Bush's Campeigning and first few months of his Presidency. Back then he was seen as a moderate middle of the road person who wanted to bridge gaps in Congress, cut back on the size of Government, and stop nation building.

After 9/11 his Administration changed drastically, from being a really no name President following the downhill slide of the .Com Bubble and with little Congressional Support. To a War Time President.

Thank you for proving my point. YOU would say that, when in truth, you have absolutely no proof.

Okay name me a President that had only 2 years of Corperate, Military, or National Government experience before running?

Not that that's your fault - you'd need the complete comparative resumes of not just every U.S. President in history, but also those of every President of every presidential nation of the world to date. Once you have all of those, then you can tell me who's most qualified to do what. Until then, I'm afraid you're no more credible a source of presidential qualification than I am.

You're the one that threw out there were others. In reality there isn't, Presidential Cannidates always had years upon years either in the Military, as Govenors, running Corperations, or in National Service in Congress or Vice President. In the 1800s Cannidates would have to be successful lawyers or people of high statue, something Obama is not. And from the 1900s onward all Presidential Cannidates, especially in recent memory, have had more experience than Obama.

Remember Obama started campeigning with only 2 years of Senate Experience. That is incredibly, incredibly small.

Anyway working backwards on those elected President:

George W Bush: 5 years as Govenor of Texas
Bill Clinton: 14 years as Govenor of Arkansas
George H. W. Bush: Ambassador to UN, Envoy to China, Director of CIA, etc etc
Ronald Reagan: 8 years as Govenor of California
Jimmy Carter: 4 years as Govenor of Georgia
Gerald Ford: 8 years in House of Representatives
Richard Nixon: 6 years in House/Senate, Vice President
Lyndon B. Johnson: Senator for 10+ years
John F. Kennedy: 6 years in House, 8 years in Senate
Dwight D. Eisenhower: Supreme Allied Commander during WW2, as well as other high up Military positions.
Harry S. Truman: 10 years as US Senator
Franklin D. Roosevelt: 4 years as Govenor of New York, 2 Years in Senate, 7 years as Assistant Secretary of the Navy
Herbert Hoover: 7 years as United States Secretary of Commerce
Calvin Coolidge: 2 years as Governor, 2 years as Vice President
Warren G. Harding: 4 years as Senator
Woodrow Wilson: 8 years as President of Princeton, 2 years as Governor
William Howard Taft: Various Governors as well as Secretary of War for 4 years.
Theodore Roosevelt: 1 year as Vice President, 2 years as Govenor
------ 1800s ------
William McKinley: 4 years as Governor
Grover Cleveland: 2 years as Governor, Several years as top Lawyer in New York during Civil War
Benjamin Harrison: 6 years as Senator
Chester A. Arthur: 1 year as Vice President, quartermaster general of the state during Civil War
James Garfield: 12 years in House
Rutherford B. Hayes: 5 years as Governor
Ulysses S. Grant: Major Commander during the Civil War
Andrew Johnson: 4 years as US Senator, Governor before that
Abraham Lincoln: 2 years as US Senator, 23 year Legal Career
James Buchanan: US Senator for 10 years, Secretary of State for 4 years
Franklin Pierce: US Senator for 5 years, Commander in Mexican War
Millard Fillmore: 10 years in Congress and Vice President
Zachary Taylor: Military Commander during War of 1812, and other wars
James K. Polk: House/Speaker of the House for 14 years
John Tyler: Governor for 2 years, Senator for 9 years
William H. Harrison: Governor for 12 years, Senator for 3
Martin Van Buren: Secretary of State, Governor, Senator, various others
Andrew Jackson: Governor of Florida, US Senator, Member of the House
John Quincy Adams: US Ambassador, Member of House, Secretary of State
James Monroe: Various Governors, Secretary of State
James Madison: Secretary of State for 8 years, Famous Political Writer
----- 1700s -----
Thomas Jefferson: Deligate to Congressional Congress, Ambassador to France, Secretary of State
John Adams: Famous Lawyer, Ambassador to various countries, Vice President
George Washington: Commander in Chief of US Army for 8 years, Famous Commander.

[Heald]

May I?

Barack Obama: 8 years as Illinois State Senator, 3 years as Senator. 8 + 3 = 11, and 11 > 10, and 10 = 2 x 5, and 5 is the number of years making up Dubya's political experience.

Of course, most of Obama's political experience was as a lowly State Senator, which, compared to the almighty Governor, which Dubya was, is peanuts. I mean, they don't just let anyone with no political experience, or in fact any actual qualification to be involved in politics whatsoever become a Governor, do they?

[Roy Karrde]

Barack Obama: 8 years as Illinois State Senator, 3 years as Senator. 8 + 3 = 11, and 11 > 10, and 10 = 2 x 5, and 5 is the number of years making up Dubya's political experience.

State Senator does not count, when looking for a President you look for either a high state figure ( Major lawyer in the 1700s to early 1800s or Govenor), or some one who has had National Political or Military experience. State Senator is a very very low position on the political totem pole.

As for 3 years as Senator, I should remind you that one of those years he was out campeigning so he wasn't really there to do his Senator duties.

Of course, most of Obama's political experience was as a lowly State Senator, which, compared to the almighty Governor, which Dubya was, is peanuts. I mean, they don't just let anyone with no political experience, or in fact any actual qualification to be involved in politics whatsoever become a Governor, do they?

Mind you Arnold was elected Governor becuase of special circumstances. But a Governor gives you experience actually running a state Government. Being a State Senator is pretty much nothing, especially when it comes to national experience.

[Heald]

I really would have to disagree. Obama has 11 years inside the political game, he actually knows what he is doing. George W. Bush walked into Texas one cloudy day and tripped and fell into the Governor's office. If his dad wasn't the President, Bush wouldn't have stood a snowball's chance of being elected. Not that it matters, because all he did was push pens, play golf and kiss babies. Some political experience.

Plus, it isn't like Obama is going to parachute into the White House if by some chance he actually wins and start pressing red buttons and such, believe it or not, he will have thousands of people at his disposal to help him out.

Besides, if State Senator doesn't cut it, Governor is hardly any better. You cannot compare being the Governor of Texas to being the President of the United States, it is a step so gargantuan that can only be measured in light-years. Once you're President, you're more or less the most important man in the world: the global media record everything you do and say, you have the most powerful military at your disposal, your economy has a direct effect on the global economy and your country is the most influential voice in the international community.

Governor of Texas? Keep all the gun-toting members happy, go to church to appease the fundamentalists, be pro-life, keep the electric chair running and keep an eye on those Mexicans (they'll getcha!).

Oh yeah, and make up a holiday called Jesus Day, because Christmas and Easter just don't cut it.

[Roy Karrde]

I really would have to disagree. Obama has 11 years inside the political game, he actually knows what he is doing. George W. Bush walked into Texas one cloudy day and tripped and fell into the Governor's office. If his dad wasn't the President, Bush wouldn't have stood a snowball's chance of being elected. Not that it matters, because all he did was push pens, play golf and kiss babies. Some political experience.

I really wouldn't say he had a snow ball's chance since the man had some experience before hand, mainly running the Texas Rangers. And I will get to Obama's 11 Years of Experience. In a minute.

Plus, it isn't like Obama is going to parachute into the White House if by some chance he actually wins and start pressing red buttons and such, believe it or not, he will have thousands of people at his disposal to help him out.

The same goes with Bush, the thing is being Governor actually gives you experience as being a head of state. It gives you management experience. Being a National Senator gives you experience to make inroads to Congress that helps you later on. Being a State Senator gives you neither inroads nor management experience. Which is why it doesn't count.

Besides, if State Senator doesn't cut it, Governor is hardly any better.

Governor = Management Experience
State Senator = One of Many people in one state, passing bills with people who will most likely never help you nationally.

You cannot compare being the Governor of Texas to being the President of the United States, it is a step so gargantuan that can only be measured in light-years. Once you're President, you're more or less the most important man in the world: the global media record everything you do and say, you have the most powerful military at your disposal, your economy has a direct effect on the global economy and your country is the most influential voice in the international community.

You cannot compare any job with being President of the United States. But atleast as a Governor you are dealing with a State Senate and Congress, allowing you to get experience on what the national level will be like.

Governor of Texas? Keep all the gun-toting members happy, go to church to appease the fundamentalists, be pro-life, keep the electric chair running and keep an eye on those Mexicans (they'll getcha!).

As a Texan not only do I find that list utterly stupid, but completely inaccurate.

Oh yeah, and make up a holiday called Jesus Day, because Christmas and Easter just don't cut it.

Mind you other than being a religious figure Jesus was also a figure of Peace equivilant to people like the Dalai Lama. If Bush said to have a holiday called "Dalai Lama Day" in which you did the same thing as Jesus day such as supporting one another and help those in need. Would you have a problem with it?

[Heald]

I really wouldn't say he had a snow ball's chance since the man had some experience before hand, mainly running the Texas Rangers. And I will get to Obama's 11 Years of Experience. In a minute.

I'd hardly call running a baseball team adequate experience for running an entire state, and anyone who voted for him for that experience is an idiot.

The same goes with Bush, the thing is being Governor actually gives you experience as being a head of state. It gives you management experience. Being a National Senator gives you experience to make inroads to Congress that helps you later on. Being a State Senator gives you neither inroads nor management experience. Which is why it doesn't count.

Fine, let's ignore the State Senator aspect, since neither one of us can agree whether it counts, and just focus on the Senator aspect, which, according to your list, does count (so does having military experience, although to be honest I don't see how being able to fire a rifle and bark orders at people with shaved heads actually translates to political experience). You said it was actually 2 years because he pissed away 1 year campaigning. Obama exceeded expectations in his term as Senator. Dubya, on the other hand, was remarkably unspectacular as Governor. 2 years of excellence or 5 years of nothing?

As a Texan not only do I find that list utterly stupid, but completely inaccurate.

This is a list of ways Dubya pandered to his electorate:
Appeasing gun-toters: pledging pro-gun legislation
Appeasing fundamentalist Christians: pledging stupid shit like Jesus Day
Appeasing pro-life: Dubya thinks abortion can give you cancer, and willingly allowed this misinformation to be spread
Appeasing death-penalty lovers: Dubya allowed more people to be killed by capital punishment than any other Governor in the history of Texas

Granted, he didn't do anything about illegal immigrants, but has been dragged over hot coals by his fellow Republicans for not doing so.

Mind you other than being a religious figure Jesus was also a figure of Peace equivilant to people like the Dalai Lama. If Bush said to have a holiday called "Dalai Lama Day" in which you did the same thing as Jesus day such as supporting one another and help those in need. Would you have a problem with it?

This takes it out of context. He either made Jesus Day to pander to Texas' significant Christian population or because he's a complete idiot. Considering the two are not mutually exclusive, I'm guessing both.

[Roy Karrde]

I'd hardly call running a baseball team adequate experience for running an entire state, and anyone who voted for him for that experience is an idiot.

It brought name recognition, mainly local name recognition as to something he did. It also helped people identify with him easier in major districts in the North East Texas.

Fine, let's ignore the State Senator aspect, since neither one of us can agree whether it counts, and just focus on the Senator aspect, which, according to your list, does count (so does having military experience, although to be honest I don't see how being able to fire a rifle and bark orders at people with shaved heads actually translates to political experience). You said it was actually 2 years because he pissed away 1 year campaigning. Obama exceeded expectations in his term as Senator. Dubya, on the other hand, was remarkably unspectacular as Governor. 2 years of excellence or 5 years of nothing?

I do love how Liberals like you know you are losing a argument, you throw up your hands, say we can't agree, and resort to attacking Bush. I believe it is called "Bush Derangement Syndrome"

As for the military aspect, the President is Commander in Chief of the Military, aka the top military officer of the nation. Being a famed Commander that say helped defeat the Nazis, or defeated the South, plays into that part.

As for two years of experience Obama barely had enough time to get to know people in Comitties and make inroads there, he passed no real major legislation in which he can attach his name to, and other than making a big speach at the Democrat National Convention no one would know him.

On the other hand 5 years as Governor gave Bush 5 years of experience on running a state, dealing with a Congress, and dealing internationally by dealing with Mexico. That is a hell of alot more experience than just 2 years as a no body Senator.

This is a list of ways Dubya pandered to his electorate:
Appeasing gun-toters: pledging pro-gun legislation

Texas is already pretty Pro Gun

Appeasing fundamentalist Christians: pledging stupid shit like Jesus Day

A day asking people to help eachother out and be nice is stupid shit?

Appeasing pro-life: Dubya thinks abortion can give you cancer, and willingly allowed this misinformation to be spread

Proof?

Appeasing death-penalty lovers: Dubya allowed more people to be killed by capital punishment than any other Governor in the history of Texas

Except for the current Governor Rick Perry. And lets not forget that Bush while having the power to stop a execution, did not actually sentence the person nor pulled the lever. He just decided not to execute his power to stop a execution. He was only one in many many people that led to those people being executed.

Granted, he didn't do anything about illegal immigrants, but has been dragged over hot coals by his fellow Republicans for not doing so.

He did that nationally, you are confusing state with national. Mind you George Bush also worked with Mexico when it concerns Illegal Immigrants. Giving him International Experience that only Border states can claim.

This takes it out of context. He either made Jesus Day to pander to Texas' significant Christian population or because he's a complete idiot. Considering the two are not mutually exclusive, I'm guessing both.

The day was in recognition to try and have people to go out and do good things for people. Something Jesus advocated as a peace maker. That is not taking it out of context. So again if he made a day named after another major peace maker would you have a problem with it? Becuase so far you are acting as if you were.

[firepokemon]

Wow an interesting day in this thread.

Anyway I think Obama won big in Oregon which isn't really a surprise considering how well he did in Washington. And this has been the whole reason, why Obama keeps leading, is Clinton could have made an argument if she won every state after Ohio and Texas, but that didn't happen at all. Instead she lost a few by big margins, and while she indeed won a few. They were rather smaller states. Anyway hes the candidate, he just don't have the numbers at this stage.

----

Well looking at what you guys are talking about. I think one can question whether or not Obama is qualified for the the role. What is interesting, is this will be the first time someone has come straight from the senate since Kennedy.

Also I did notice Karrde, that you felt Obama could not win in November. I think such a statement sounds silly as far as I am concerned he could well take the Presidency. Hes likely to take Michigan and Colorado. He could take New Mexico and Ohio could possibly go to him. If he takes Ohio hes probably got it. So I don't think you can say he can't win in November.

Mind you I'm going to be in McCain's camp because well I don't think Obama can deliver on what hes promising, and I'm not sure how he will handle a crisis. To me, there is just too many unknowns linked to Obama.

[Roy Karrde]

Also I did notice Karrde, that you felt Obama could not win in November. I think such a statement sounds silly as far as I am concerned he could well take the Presidency. Hes likely to take Michigan and Colorado. He could take New Mexico and Ohio could possibly go to him. If he takes Ohio hes probably got it. So I don't think you can say he can't win in November.

Well I doubt New Mexico will go for him seeing McCain pretty much has the Hispanic vote locked up. You also forget that the Independents and Moderates will flock to McCain, which means that states like California will be open for the first time since Reagan. Not to mention Obama is going to pretty much get schooled in the upcoming debates, that is unless Obama does a complete 180 in being able to make a point in debates.

Not to mention you have Blue Collars going for McCain, Hillary Voters/Women, and pretty much people that do not want to see a Black in the White House. Which while sad, and still is a small bit of the population they do make up both Democrats and Republicans, and are just large enough to swing a tight race to McCain.

On a unrelated note, expect something large to be started tonight!

[firepokemon]

Well I doubt New Mexico will go for him seeing McCain pretty much has the Hispanic vote locked up.

I dunno. According to FiveThirtyEight.com which like realclearpolitics takes a look at latest polls, Obama is up. So I wouldn't rule it out. And while McCain may pick up hispanics in California, I would still say that is firmly in Obama's camp.

Their most likely scenario at the moment is a 269-269 tie. Though theres just no way that can have as much credibility.

I'm ready for a real one on one and I believe once Clinton is out, the head to head polls will become much more credible.

[mr_pikachu]

I'm ready for a real one on one and I believe once Clinton is out, the head to head polls will become much more credible.

I hadn't thought of that, but you make a good point. When people are asked, "Would you vote for ________ in the general election?" they may persuade themselves against answering affirmatively if they went the other way in the primary. That sort of self-persuasion may dissipate once one candidate or the other makes it to the final contest... we'll see.

[Roy Karrde]

Well Clinton just did something to raise headlines. She brought up the assassination issue, a thinly vailed attack on Obama suggesting that the same event could happen to him, which is why she isnt getting out.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/05232008..._wa_112232.htm

[firepokemon]

This has been part of both Clinton's fault in that they make some wild, stupid or well simply naive positions and statements. And because well they're the Clintons and known for this so called "Clinton Machine" and know for their so-called great strategies etc, even if this is a simple mistake that is taken out of context. Its always going to be looked at as deliberate.

Mr. Pikachu: Yeah I've always felt that with Clinton still in, the head-to-heads shouldn't be that trusted. Particularly as polls haven't been known for their accuracy. Though I think even with Clinton in (and it looks like shes going to be in for ages), these head-to-head polls will be more accurate. As I suspect everyone believes it will be Obama and thus I think these polls from about now onwards can be taken as credible.

[Roy Karrde]

Alright Clinton is expected to step out tonight. Now here comes what may, and I stress MAY happen in the next twenty four hours. Mind you this is a rumor, but it has enough legs that Democrat Strategists are talking about it on Fox News, and it seems to be coming from a variety of sources.

Obama wins the two states tonight and reaches the special number
Clinton steps out tonight.
The RNC releases a tape within 24 hours of Obama getting to that Special Number. The tape has Michelle Obama at the Trinity Church going crazy on "Whities".

Now here is where it gets interesting. The tape is a rumor right now, but a VERY strong one. And it is supposily big enough to bomb shell the Obama campeign, on his first day as the Democrat Nominee. So what happens next? Some people are thinking this tape is so bad that Democrats may be flocking back to Hillary trying to get her back in the race.

Will this happen? The next 24 hours will tell.

[RedStarWarrior]

Clinton will "not concede" tonight according to her staff...

[Roy Karrde]

AP says differently.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/clinton

Now mind you there are different ways of stepping out. She could suspend her campeign, which wouldn't technically be "Conceding"

Now Heald Ickies is saying that the Clinton campeign isn't getting out. But she is expected to have a big speach tonight, so lets just wait and see. Either way the next 24 hours, with either her getting out, and the Michelle Obama Tape, should be very very interesting!

[RedStarWarrior]

Every other news agency says that she will not concede right now. Her campaign staff denied the AP report.

I, on the other hand, feel that she might concede depending on the numbers at the end of the day. I don't think anything is set in stone though.

[mr_pikachu]

I doubt Clinton will concede tonight, considering how adamant she's been thus far. Even if Obama reaches the magic number without superdelegates - I haven't checked the figures lately, so I'm not sure if it's mathematically possible - she could still try to get the delegates restored for the two dropped states, thus changing the magic number and retaining a theoretical chance.

For the sake of argument, however, let's assume she calls it quits right now. The Republican party would be incredibly, incredibly stupid to release whatever bombshell they have immediately. That's the sort of thing you hold until the last couple of weeks in the campaign (unless you desperately need to turn the tide when your candidate's being pummeled).

Right now McCain is way ahead with moderates, but with several months between now and November those feelings could grow lukewarm. A smart campaign would use the bombshell to remind voters of that situation near the home stretch, leaving enough time for voter effect to show but leaving Obama minimal chance to recover.

[Andrew]

Hillary is going to see it out to the very end! Hillary for President of the WORLD!

[firepokemon]

Obama better choose Clinton for VP or I'll go with McCain. Wait my vote does not matter how sad.

Congrats to Obama though you have to admire this Democratic primary, its been historic in every where. Its just a shame that when he had a real chance for a black man or a woman it had to be against each other.

[RedStarWarrior]

Clinton, despite my hatred for her, would make a good running mate for Obama. As President, he could propose the 'Change' he is promising and with Clinton as a Vice President, he would have a strong, experienced backer. Regardless of whether he gives her the nudge for second seat, she should at least be on his staff.

[Roy Karrde]

There is very little chance that he chooses Hillary for VP. Choosing her goes against the whole thing of "Change" he is going for. Not to mention it brings alot of baggage that he probably doesn't want to deal with, as well as the hatred between the two camps.

[RedStarWarrior]

The problem is that he can't bring about 'Change' unless he fully understands how the system works. He lacks the experience necessary for that...something she has. As I said before, I do NOT like Clinton, but she has expressed interest in being his VP. Tapping her as such would probably help stabalize the viciously divided Democratic Party, though a lot of permanent damage has been done to the will of party loyalists. Either way, Barack has an uphill battle against McCain.

[Roy Karrde]

True she brings alot of experience to the ticket, but remember that Obama has spent so long talking about how Hillary represents the past. Obama has laid his entire campeign on representing the future. It is going to seem like a complete 180 by going and electing some one that represents the past.

Anyway something outside of Hillary, I would suggest looking up Reverend Pflager, it is probably going to be the next big scandle Obama has. Obama's connections with Pflager go far beyond the speech last week. Including nearly 300,000 dollars in earmarks Obama got for Pflager's church.

[Drusilla]

Oh, fuck it... Al Jourgensen for President! Now that would be really interesting... XD

In any case, I'm looking forward to the next few months. I dearly hope that everyone will play nice and just stick to strictly politics rather than "scandals", but it's a vain hope, I know... Oh, well.

[Roy Karrde]

Oh, fuck it... Al Jourgensen for President! Now that would be really interesting... XD

In any case, I'm looking forward to the next few months. I dearly hope that everyone will play nice and just stick to strictly politics rather than "scandals", but it's a vain hope, I know... Oh, well.

Well you can expect McCain and Obama to pretty much stick to politics. The RNC and DNC on the other hand will not. Which is good becuase we really do not know much about Obama's past and he does need to be vetted. Either way there are a few scandals in Obama's past that are related to politics. Such as giving earmarks to Pflager's church.

[The Blue Avenger]

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the concept of an earmark - which is entirely possible, given my admittedly limited knowledge of economics and finances - but how does Obama giving money to a church qualify as a scandal?

(Also, not a slam against you, Roy, but it became remarkably easier to look up the scandal you're talking about when I realized his name is actually Pfleger.)

[Roy Karrde]

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the concept of an earmark - which is entirely possible, given my admittedly limited knowledge of economics and finances - but how does Obama giving money to a church qualify as a scandal?

Well mind you for one it is not Obama giving the money, but Obama securing money for the church by sneaking it into a bill, meaning the finance is not actually voted on individually but rides the bill. The reason why it would be considered a scandal, is becuase the church did alot for Obama's early political career, thus it looks like Obama is stealing state taxes to pay back the preacher for all he did.

Not to mention that at the same time that he was securing the money for Pfleger. The man (Pfleger) was doing sermons about how 9/11 "wasn't just Bin Laden. Bin Laden didn't come from the abstract. He came from somewhere, and if you look where … you'll see America's hand of villany." So not only do the earmarks look like he is supporting the radical comments of this man ( Which mind you he has had a long history of radical comments ). But also using Chicago Tax Payers Money to pay back friends, and to support such a hate filled bastard.

(Also, not a slam against you, Roy, but it became remarkably easier to look up the scandal you're talking about when I realized his name is actually Pfleger.)

Yeah well the man's name is so screwed up it's impossible to spell it right!

[firepokemon]

Where Clinton could be good for Obama is securing more blue collar workers, more rural voters, women and hispanics. That is where theoretically Clinton can give Obama votes. However, women really have no where to go, so either they don't vote Obama or they stay at home. Hispanics though could easily switch to McCain, in which case California could become competitive (thats not to say Obama won't win it, he should and by miles) and well Florida will be lost. Otherwise I don't see the hispanic vote affecting any other state. Where Obama could have problems is in states such as West Virginia, small but long held democratic states. Of course Obama by himself makes states such as New Mexico and Colorado competitive.

I think it may the matter, that there is no choice but to give it to Clinton. But we'll see. I'm interested in what the polls and stuff will start saying now, particularly in some of these swing states. Things should be interesting.

Oh and will we be getting a new thread soon since the primaries are over?

[mr_pikachu]

It is going to seem like a complete 180 by going and electing some one that represents the past.

It's sad how quickly my mind jumped to the "flip-flop dance."

Oh and will we be getting a new thread soon since the primaries are over?

I'm going to hold off until it's made official; that is, after the convention.