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.
Not, unfortunately, to banjos young, slobber-mouth democrats.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Britt Reid
But as a candidate, what were Obama's past executive experience at governing, running a business, balancing budgets or dealing with fiscal reforms? Those are the most important you look at when chosing a good candidate.
2. Candidates are chosen by voters. I think one of the decisive factors was that Obama had been right abou Iraq and Clinton was wrong. This is coupled with the fact that she never acknowledged that she had been wrong in supporting Bush's invasion of Iraq, which provided no assurance that she would not make the same mistake in the future.
It's easy to forget now, but the first presidential debates were in the summer of 2007, which was only four years after the invasion of Iraq. Iraq was (as it is now) a mess, and that did tend to drag Hillary down. Every time there was more bad news from Iraq, it was another small reminder of her vote in October 2002.
Couldn't agree more. We unfortunately are an uninformed electorate. The forgoing includes most candidates, from both the Democrat and Republic Party. We pay dearly too, for electing the next shiny thing, election, after election, after election.
We are still in a dead end war, that never should have begun and now has no exit strategy as a result. Costing entirely too much blood, not to mention treasure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian
You apparently buy into the myth of the informed voter. We don't live in a society with informed voters, and haven't at least since the advent of television. In a society of uninformed voters, the coolest cat gets the gig. In 2008, Obama was the coolest cat on the campaign trail. Go watch a video of his debate with Hillary, and especially his 2nd debate with McCain. Cool as a cucumber, unflappable, and head and shoulders cooler than his opponents. Toss in black skin, white guilt and 3 terms of someone named Bush?
Hillary didn't get dissed, she got outplayed. Same for McCain. Same for Romney.
Obama is a gifted campaigner. He sucks mightily at doing the job, but he kicks ass on the galactic scale where interviewing for the job is concerned.
Not, unfortunately, to banjos young, slobber-mouth democrats.
Call 'em what you want. What I saw were young, working Idahoans, and Idaho is not known as a liberal state. There were some young slobber-mouths there, for sure, in the arms of their Moms and Dads.
Will they vote Democratic again in 2016? I dunno. I'm no insider, nor a local party official. I'm just another voter and a geezer to boot; I don't run around with many 30-year-old kids except for my own anymore.
But I do know that if a young voter is committed enough to show up, spouse and babies in tow, that alone is a pretty good indicator of which party represented their values the best, and I'm smack dab in the heart of the most conservative area in Idaho. I was surprised at the Boise turnout, but I was stunned at the turnout here 2 weeks later.
Because we needed a black President to save the country.
And we needed a thread like this to prove that although he had no experience, blacks merely voted for him based soley on his complexion, right? Yeah, how silly. Whites have never done anything so absurd with the last 43 elections, right? Yeah....
It is a question that baffles many. Hillary Clinton was the golden girl of the democrat party in the 2008 election. She had been first lady, she had proposed universal healthcare under her husbands term as president and she was a senator from New York. But with all her alleged experience that she had that would make her president, according to democrats and the media, they decided to throw her under the bus for a inexperienced candidate who had zero executive experience making good policy, balancing budgets or even running a business. What was the true reason Hillary was thrown under the bus for a junior senator with zero executive experience?
Gee, ever heard of civics classes? You might want to go back and review how this country picks it's presidential nominees, as therein you will find the answer to your extremely rhetorical question. And if all of that is too much work, ask Todd Palin--your political analysis go-to guy.
It is a question that baffles many. Hillary Clinton was the golden girl of the democrat party in the 2008 election. She had been first lady, she had proposed universal healthcare under her husbands term as president and she was a senator from New York. But with all her alleged experience that she had that would make her president, according to democrats and the media, they decided to throw her under the bus for a inexperienced candidate who had zero executive experience making good policy, balancing budgets or even running a business. What was the true reason Hillary was thrown under the bus for a junior senator with zero executive experience?
I assume they got rid of her because she could not win. Hillary rubs some people the wrong way, and with B. Clinton's sex life scandals she could never win.
And B. Obama has an exceptional education, and the experience to be president. He majored in political science with a specialty in international relations. He worked for a year at the Business International Corporation, ex.ex..
He went on to Harvard Law School, and he was president of the Harvard Law Review. He was a community organizer in Chicago before earning his law degree, and he worked as a civil rights attorney. He also taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School, ex.ex..
Then Obama served three terms representing the 13th District in the Illinois Senate from 1997 to 2004,
But unforchantly republicans are not impressed with B. Obama's education and experience to be a (law maker.) Republicans want CEO's to be our law makers.
It is a question that baffles many. Hillary Clinton was the golden girl of the democrat party in the 2008 election. She had been first lady, she had proposed universal healthcare under her husbands term as president and she was a senator from New York. But with all her alleged experience that she had that would make her president, according to democrats and the media, they decided to throw her under the bus for a inexperienced candidate who had zero executive experience making good policy, balancing budgets or even running a business. What was the true reason Hillary was thrown under the bus for a junior senator with zero executive experience?
How soon were forget. You have to go back to the state of nation in 2007/2008, Democrats were upset with the Iraq War, and Hillary voted to give GWBush the ability to go to war.
This was a huge issue back then and it really hurt Hillary and John Edwards, and Joe Biden, President Obama who was Senator Obama at the time and who had been against the war didn't have that baggage.
Plus President Obama was a SUPERNOVA political star, far more likable than Hilliary.
I assume they got rid of her because she could not win. Hillary rubs some people the wrong way, and with B. Clinton's sex life scandals she could never win.
And B. Obama has an exceptional education, and the experience to be president. He majored in political science with a specialty in international relations. He worked for a year at the Business International Corporation, ex.ex..
He went on to Harvard Law School, and he was president of the Harvard Law Review. He was a community organizer in Chicago before earning his law degree, and he worked as a civil rights attorney. He also taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School, ex.ex..
Then Obama served three terms representing the 13th District in the Illinois Senate from 1997 to 2004,
But unforchantly republicans are not impressed with B. Obama's education and experience to be a (law maker.) Republicans want CEO's to be our law makers.
Interesting you brought up his college! We have never seen Obama's grades, transcripts or any alleged Harvard law review articles. How did he pay for it? Do we know?
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.
