waerth Posted February 20, 2008 Report Share Posted February 20, 2008 Probably not many know that one Flashermac ..... Waerth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted February 20, 2008 Report Share Posted February 20, 2008 He'd do well to win either Texas or Ohio, two big states. He's behind in both polls but gaining fast in Texas which is probably his best bet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mentors Posted February 20, 2008 Report Share Posted February 20, 2008 Barack SCHICKELGRUBER Obama??? Jawoll! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mentors Posted February 20, 2008 Report Share Posted February 20, 2008 Just what does his name have to do with anything? Would you say that anyone named Adolph should never be considered for public office no matter their positions simply because they shared a name (not even a relation) with Mr Hitler? Sheesh! What a mou-roon... Regards, SD was just a thought... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zzzz Posted February 20, 2008 Report Share Posted February 20, 2008 It's 10 in a row now -- he's on a roll! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted February 20, 2008 Report Share Posted February 20, 2008 The streak looks likely to end with Ohio and Texas. As far as the polls go I don't see him winning Ohio. Obama's best bet seems to be Texas. If he had more time in Ohio he would probably win. Its been shown that the longer Obama spends in a state it tends to shift in the polls in his favor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bangkoktraveler Posted February 20, 2008 Report Share Posted February 20, 2008 Obama's winning streak seems to be based upon the fact that it appears nobody knows what this guy stands for. He speaks in generalities but has no substance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckwoww Posted February 20, 2008 Report Share Posted February 20, 2008 Obama's winning streak seems to be based upon the fact that it appears nobody knows what this guy stands for. He speaks in generalities but has no substance. I think it's even more simple than that. People are just fed up with politics as usual. They want change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted February 20, 2008 Report Share Posted February 20, 2008 He's been a Senator since 2002 so there are 5 years of voting record that should indicate where he stands on most issues that come before the Senate. Clinton sites 35 years of experience. Her only elected office was in '00, 2 years more than Obama in terms of federal government experience. She must be counting being the wife of a governor and president as experience. Obama has far more elected office experience than her. I am one that doesn't take a lot of stock in the 'experience' argument. All presidents are as good as the congress that is in session and the people they appoint to the various departments. Kennedy was one of the youngest but assembled the 'best and the brightest' around himself. I take a far greater stock in integrity. Even the most seasoned politician has to have policy advisors when he runs for president because of the seemingly infinite number of issues out there. Debates are reduced to prepared or memorized texts on facts and figures on a myriad of subjects that no one can possibly know in detail. I'd even guess that even after 2 full terms no president still has a grasp on a wide range of things/issues that is in this country and it only comes to the forefront when something happens. Again, you're as effective as the people you appoint in the various departments. The wisdom comes in picking the right ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rogueyam Posted February 20, 2008 Report Share Posted February 20, 2008 He's been a Senator since 2002 so there are 5 years of voting record that should indicate where he stands on most issues that come before the Senate. Obama was first elected to the U.S. Senate in Nov. 2004 and he was sworn into office in Jan. 2005. I agree with your argument otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.