Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Minnesota Democrat said that Obama “could have been a better party leader” at an event at the University of Minnesota on Wednesday. “The fact that he wasn’t has put his legacy in jeopardy,” Ellison said.
Wonder how long it will take before he walks this back.
When q Democrat accidentally tells the truth, they always walk it back.
I'm not sure why you're treating this as something special. It's widely agreed - and I, as a Democrat, have certainly read it - that Obama was not rabidly involved with creating a groundswell of support for the Democratic party. Perhaps it's because he was under such a burden of Republican intransigence. Perhaps it's because he clung to some ideal dream of inclusion that would encompass Republicans. Perhaps it's because, when you think of the way people regard the word "politician" with such contempt, he just isn't that kind of "politician."
Contrast this with the despicable Trump tweets about the Georgia election.
I'm not sure why you're treating this as something special. It's widely agreed - and I, as a Democrat, have certainly read it - that Obama was not rabidly involved with creating a groundswell of support for the Democratic party. Perhaps it's because he was under such a burden of Republican intransigence. Perhaps it's because he clung to some ideal dream of inclusion that would encompass Republicans. Perhaps it's because, when you think of the way people regard the word "politician" with such contempt, he just isn't that kind of "politician."
Contrast this with the despicable Trump tweets about the Georgia election.
Contrast this with the fact that our Peace Prize winning President invaded 3 additional countries on his watch and got an additional 2000 plus American service people killed. All while trading Terrorists for Deserters and saving his gun running AG from prosecution.
I'm not sure why you're treating this as something special. It's widely agreed - and I, as a Democrat, have certainly read it - that Obama was not rabidly involved with creating a groundswell of support for the Democratic party. Perhaps it's because he was under such a burden of Republican intransigence. Perhaps it's because he clung to some ideal dream of inclusion that would encompass Republicans. Perhaps it's because, when you think of the way people regard the word "politician" with such contempt, he just isn't that kind of "politician."
Contrast this with the despicable Trump tweets about the Georgia election.
Somebody should tell Hillary that. She's still busy placing all blame on Comey and Russia.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 22 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,550 posts, read 16,539,320 times
Reputation: 6033
Quote:
Originally Posted by LS Jaun
Contrast this with the fact that our Peace Prize winning President invaded 3 additional countries on his watch and got an additional 2000 plus American service people killed. All while trading Terrorists for Deserters and saving his gun running AG from prosecution.
Obama should be giving his peace prize to Trump
Which of those 2000 people died in the 3 countries you claim we invaded ?????
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 22 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,550 posts, read 16,539,320 times
Reputation: 6033
Quote:
Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident
Somebody should tell Hillary that. She's still busy placing all blame on Comey and Russia.
The post you are responding to is about party leadership, not Presidential leadership or even the Presidential race.
If you dont understand, I can walk you thought it.
We Dems have been fighting with each other since Obama took office. Some state parties just suck and dont provide help to the local levels and only worry about state wide races. Some states dont even have a functioning party because there is corruption SDEC, some states have OFA teams still in place that wont share their data with the State party(obama never merged the 2, just like Sanders never gave the DNC his).
So in short, this has nothing to do with Clinton, Comey or Russia. it has to do with the party itself.
The post you are responding to is about party leadership, not Presidential leadership or even the Presidential race.
If you dont understand, I can walk you thought it.
We Dems have been fighting with each other since Obama took office. Some state parties just suck and dont provide help to the local levels and only worry about state wide races. Some states dont even have a functioning party because there is corruption SDEC, some states have OFA teams still in place that wont share their data with the State party(obama never merged the 2, just like Sanders never gave the DNC his).
So in short, this has nothing to do with Clinton, Comey or Russia. it has to do with the party itself.
First off, not the post wasn't about "party leadership" But even if it was, Hillary was just recently the party's standard bearer. Talking about Hillary more than fits with the conversation.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 22 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,550 posts, read 16,539,320 times
Reputation: 6033
Quote:
Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident
First off, not the post wasn't about "party leadership" But even if it was, Hillary was just recently the party's standard bearer. Talking about Hillary more than fits with the conversation.
Hillary Clinton is not mentioned in the article at all, so no, she isnt relevant to this discussion. And yes, it was about party leadership, specifically, president Obama's
Quote:
Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident
Hillary was just recently the party's standard bearer. Talking about Hillary more than fits with the conversation. Moreover, the post I responded to was more than about party leadership. Unless you're referring to the poster I responded to a member of the party leadership.
no, it doesnt as the conversation is about President Obama and his leadership over the party, not Clintons.
And the post was about party leadership in and of itself, specifically Obama's.
I get that you dont like Hillary Clinton, but this particular Democratic party topic isnt about her. there are hundreds of open threads about Clinton, why try to make this one about her ???????
Hillary Clinton is not mentioned in the article at all, so no, she isnt relevant to this discussion. And yes, it was about party leadership, specifically, president Obama's
no, it doesnt as the conversation is about President Obama and his leadership over the party, not Clintons.
And the post was about party leadership in and of itself, specifically Obama's.
I get that you dont like Hillary Clinton, but this particular Democratic party topic isnt about her. there are hundreds of open threads about Clinton, why try to make this one about her ???????
I don't give a rat's behind that Hillary wasn't mentioned in the article. I mentioned Hillary to show an example of one who did not "get it" and who is still intent on placing blame on everyone (seemingly) but herself and Obama. The article is about the election. As I mentioned before, Hillary was the party's standard bearer for the election, which makes my post more than appropriate.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
