lord_casek Posted March 2, 2008 Share Posted March 2, 2008 1) I support him and I understand him pretty well. 2) I think our current president reinforces the importance of reaching people, speaking, and forming relationships. This point has been made before. 3) Don't equate your ignorance on the candidates as the absence of substance. Search out his voting records or his web site or even some posts here...well, those where we aren't battling ridiculous conspiracies i have a question for you specifically: what do you think obama will change? be honest. no talking points from obama's campaign. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theo Huxtable. Posted March 2, 2008 Share Posted March 2, 2008 I predict for Tuesday an Obama knockout-blow to Clinton in Texas, and I'll go ahead and place that bet on Ohio too. Obama will take Rhode Island and Vermont too. Obama will either sweep, or at worst win 3 out of 4 (with Clinton taking Ohio). So we should go ahead and get ready for Obama v. McCain after this one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stereotype V.0002 Posted March 2, 2008 Share Posted March 2, 2008 as the absence of substance. Search out his voting records or his web site or even some posts here...well, those where we aren't battling ridiculous conspiracies What voting record? He was a senator for about a year and a half, and has since spent all of his time campaigning. He has missed 40% of his votes. http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/o000167/ Also if you think he would have voted agaist the iraq war and made himself a pariah, you are kidding yourself. He is just as scumbaggy every other politician, he has lobbyists running his campaign just like all of the other major candidates. 2) I think our current president reinforces the importance of reaching people, speaking, and forming relationships. This point has been made before. Not trying to be a dick but did you read the editorial? Because that is a major point in it. He is going to meet with people, great, but what is he going to accomplish in these meetings? Simply sitting down with a foreign govt is going to accomplish absolutely nothing on its own, and he has been very vague (if he has mentioned them at all, which in most cases he hasn’t) about what positions he is going to take on various foreign policy issues. Like what was mentioned in the article, he says he is going to meet with assad, but does that mean he is going to allow his govt to continue to fuck with Lebanon in exchange for assistance against terrorists? Or is he just going to sit down for a photo op and accomplish nothing? Even though the Iranians have not and will never be receptive, are we really going to again piss off the Saudis by trying to get on iran’s good side? Take a hard line against genocide in darfur, we further alienate the muslim world and give the Chinese a serious case of the ass. Withdraw from iraq and then launch air strikes against al qaeda, which we would have zero intelligence for if there is no military presence there, and we are going to kill hundreds of Iraqi civilians just like what happened in 03 when we had to rely on outside intelligence when we were trying to “strike” saddam....not to mention the sectarian violence that would come back strong when we leave. Are we going to placate Russia, turn a blind eye to human rights abuses/assassinations, maybe concede georgia and give up the icbm shield? The point is the world’s grievances with the US aren’t going to go away because he has an upbeat message of hope and change and looking to the future blah blah blah, nor will they because he isn’t george bush. 3) Don't equate your ignorance on the candidates If he has given concrete positions on any of the above, please shine the golden light of obama onto my dark shadows of ignorance! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stereotype V.0002 Posted March 2, 2008 Share Posted March 2, 2008 The recent federal election in australia had every man and his dog talking about who was the better leader and when asked for justification for a choice 90% of people would just have a glazed over look. it's really frustrating when idiots with no idea try to act politically aware but fortunately it fades away after election season. This is exactly like everyone who describes themselves as "politically aware" in the US. And many of them, who are already a minority, still dont vote. Another mind bogglingly retarded phenomenon we have is how everyone's politics is determined by what region they are from...everyone votes the same and thinks the same as everyone else in their city or state. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The optick one Posted March 2, 2008 Share Posted March 2, 2008 you clones will at least be chipped and drugged and dumbed down more no matter who you fools think yall are putting in power... Stupid sheeps with out a shepard.... Oops, yall ready to elect a shepard. LOL! dumb clones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILOTSMYBRAIN Posted March 2, 2008 Share Posted March 2, 2008 That last article on Obama was quite on point. The "Kumbaya campaign" had me laughing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WORDISM45 Posted March 2, 2008 Share Posted March 2, 2008 you clones will at least be chipped and drugged and dumbed down more no matter who you fools think yall are putting in power... Stupid sheeps with out a shepard.... Oops, yall ready to elect a shepard. LOL! dumb clones. I bet you live a life outside the grid ready to lead the human resistance against the machines right john connor? :rolleyes: 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LIVERWURST* Posted March 3, 2008 Author Share Posted March 3, 2008 No one really cares what most of you think because you are all so self congratulatory and over the top. You can see that there is plenty of people who support him, many of whom are long term members and mods here but they choose not to talk to you because you're all so crazy. I imagine most of us can't waste the energy. In fact I can't. Here are some posts for you to see where he stands; otherwise I'm not too worried about you... From the NY Times: A good article: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/17/politics/main2369157.shtml "Obama was known in the Illinois Capitol as a consistently liberal senator who reflected the views of voters in his Chicago district. He helped reform the state death penalty system and create tax breaks for the poor while developing a reputation as someone who would work with critics to build consensus." "He had a 100 percent rating from the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council for his support of abortion rights, family planning services and health insurance coverage for female contraceptives. " "Such hot-button issues were the exception in a legislative career that focused more on building consensus to improve the justice system and aid the poor. Gibbs noted Obama's leadership on legislation requiring police to videotape interrogations in murder cases. It started out as a controversial idea but ended up passing the Senate unanimously. Allies and opponents alike say he listened to those who disagreed, cooperated with Republicans and incorporated other people's suggestions for improving legislation." "Obama regularly supported gun-control measures, including a ban on semiautomatic "assault weapons" and a limit on handgun purchases to one a month. He also opposed letting people use a self-defense argument if charged with violating local handgun bans by using weapons in their homes. The bill was a reaction to a Chicago-area man who, after shooting an intruder, was charged with a handgun violation. " ...and there is a lot more from the article. Give it a read, it's pretty insightful. and read here: http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490 Some other night I might debate you, but more and more your points of view become a cloud of stuff I don’t have time for. Vote for Nader, it might make you feel like you did something. Casek, I'll answer your question when I'm on 12oz sober. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stereotype V.0002 Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 Insulting people is always an effective way to get your point across. So your response is that nobody cares what I think, and I am also crazy, and then you copy paste an image of his record as a STATE senator? Are you going to post his record as a member of the student council too? And then an article with absolutely NO mention of any foreign policy positions? I am willing to bet you (like most people in this country) have not heard of or know very little about any of the major foreign policy issues I asked about and thus they arent important to you. But choosing between the future and the past is pretty important. This is why hes popular, if he talked about anything of substance he would be boring. Also, no offense to the almighty 12oz gods, but being a moderator on a graffiti website doesn’t give you some special insight into presidential candidate selection. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stereotype V.0002 Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 Also mad props for posting this link http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490 and helping me make my point. Now that is a lot of NVs!! Here are some of the votes he didnt think were important enough - 07/26/2007 Implementing the 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act NV 04/18/2005 Future Military Funding for Iraq Amendment NV 02/26/2008 Indigenous Health Bill NV 02/07/2008 Economic Stimulus Plan NV 01/22/2008 Defense Authorizations Bill NV 12/18/2007 Inclusion of Iraq and Afghanistan Military Operations Funding with the Consolidated Appropriations NV 11/01/2007 Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007 (CHIP) NV 02/12/2008 FISA Amendments Act of 2007 NV 05/07/2007 FDA Drug Import Certification Amendment NV 07/19/2007 Sense of the Senate on Guantanamo Bay Detainees NV 10/16/2007 Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2008 NV 09/20/2007 Expressing Support for General Petraeus and All Members of the Armed Forces NV 02/26/2008 Prohibiting the Funds in S 1200 from Being Used for Abortions NV 02/13/2008 Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 NV 12/18/2007 Inclusion of Consolidated Appropriations NV 12/14/2007 Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act of 2007 (Farm Bill) NV 12/13/2007 Energy Act of 2007 NV 12/13/2007 Income Limit for Subsidies to Farmers NV 12/11/2007 Government Sponsored Farm Insurance Policies NV 12/06/2007 Temporary Tax Adjustments Act of 2007 NV 12/06/2007 Temporary Alternative Minimum Tax Adjustment Act of 2007 NV 11/08/2007 Water Resources Development Act of 2007 NV 11/07/2007 Appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies NV 10/30/2007 Amtrak Reauthorization NV 10/25/2007 Amtrak Federal Subsidy Limits NV 10/18/2007 Prohibiting Funds for Groups that Perform Abortions NV 10/16/2007 Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2008 NV 10/03/2007 Border Fence and Customs Appropriations NV 10/01/2007 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 NV 09/10/2007 Bridge Repair Funding NV 09/07/2007 Student Loan Lender Subsidy Cuts and Student Grants NV 07/26/2007 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations NV 07/26/2007 Border Fence and Customs Appropriations NV 07/26/2007 REAL ID Funding NV Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Mamerro Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 Insulting people is always an effective way to get your point across. This is pretty rich coming from you. Unless there is no sarcasm whatsoever involved and you truly believe it, which I'd buy. being a moderator on a graffiti website doesn’t give you some special insight into presidential candidate selection. It totally does. Gore will win in '08. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stereotype V.0002 Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 You may have detected a hint of sarcasm if you have your sarcasm detector turned all the way up. Anyway it might be insulting for some people to get accused of knowing very little about a candidate's (nonexistant) policies, and basic events in the world, and still supporting the obamania, but that goes with the territory in a cult of personality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LIVERWURST* Posted March 3, 2008 Author Share Posted March 3, 2008 Also mad props for posting this link http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490 and helping me make my point. Now that is a lot of NVs!! Here are some of the votes he didnt think were important enough - Had you read my original post of that link, paid attention to the dates, or looked at the other candidates you would see that the no votes correspond with his and the other candidates presidential campaigns. As to his state record, you make my point about you being someone not worth focusing on because you're just looking to argue. Your point was foreign policy based, but essentially said Obama had no substance. I gave you his voting record from 1997 up through now for the positions he held. It gives you a voting record and it captures the actual work he's done to make his beliefs a reality. I am aware of his stances on Iran, but I also feel that he weighs facts and necessity more heavily than our current president. I don't fear conflict; I fear the abuse of power such as that which brought us to Iraq. Hillary voted for Iraq and the patriot act for populous reasons, McCain is a flip flopper, so I feel better about Obama than I do the other candidates on issues of conflict and war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LIVERWURST* Posted March 3, 2008 Author Share Posted March 3, 2008 And Stereotype, you haven't offered anything related to Obama aside from the same old generic criticisms. You didn't need to write a paragraph about the Middle East to try to make your point appear substantive. All of those things exist for any candidate, so your argument could be the same for any mainstream candidate running for president upbeat or not. Further your continuing argument about a "cult" is insulting, albeit a passive aggressive one. At least I have the courtesy to tell you what I think of you directly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stereotype V.0002 Posted March 4, 2008 Share Posted March 4, 2008 or looked at the other candidates you would see that the no votes correspond with his and the other candidates presidential campaigns. The difference is the other candidates HAVE a voting record before they started campaigning. If obama had a record too, he would be forced to go a little easy on “I knew not to vote for the iraq war” stuff. This is exactly what I said a few posts up, Obama has about 1.5 years as a senator. Being a state politician for a relatively short amount of time is not a qualification to be president, maybe he should run for governor. And like you said it offers no insight on any foreign policy issue, which is the main subject I am concerned with. I am aware of his stances on Iran, im not, other than he wants to meet with the iranian gov. He says he will offer cash and diplomatic normalization if they play ball with no plan of how we will establish that they stopped supporting Hezbollah and dissolve QF (which they wont), and offers basically no consequences if they don’t. Depending on what audience he is speaking in front of, we need to put “more pressure” on iran, or stop george bush from his aggression against iran. All of those things exist for any candidate, so your argument could be the same for any mainstream candidate running for president upbeat or not. Not really, most of the other candidates have some sort of clear foreign policy strategy laid out. Of course obama has this http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/ , but then there is nothing real there. One of the few specifics he gives is he will “secure all loose nuclear materials in the world within 4 years”, which is very funny/scary he apparently believes this enough where he would have a staffer write it on his webstie. I also feel that he weighs facts and necessity more heavily than our current president I feel better about Obama than I do the other candidates on issues of conflict and war. This is my problem, it seems like your beliefs and obama supporters in general are based about how you “feel” about obama instead of any concrete policy he has laid out. You haven’t given me a real example of why you feel these things. He didn't vote for the iraq war, but he didnt vote against it either since he wasnt a senator at that point. They had a meeting of his campaign people volunteering for him on the news, again, and instead of talking politics they were singing and clapping rhythmically. People dont understand this is the presidential election, not american idol. People didnt give a shit when bush couldnt point to various countries on a map during his first campaign for president, and that worked out marvelously. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stereotype V.0002 Posted March 4, 2008 Share Posted March 4, 2008 And Stereotype, you haven't offered anything related to Obama aside from the same old generic criticisms. You didn't need to write a paragraph about the Middle East to try to make your point appear substantive. I guess this response ^ is easier than just answering the questions, and telling me what he plans to do with any of those countries and conflicts. i didn’t ask them as filler and they weren’t rhetorical, and the oped didn’t bring up the same questions for filler. Those are things that are more important to me than heavily armed gay illegal immigrants getting married and having abortions, I actually want to know what he plans to do about it, or if he is even aware of the situations he could atleast acknowledge them other than vague rhetoric about “reaching out to the world” or “george bush’s illegal invasion of iraq” (even if that’s completely unrelated to whatever hes talking about.) And I really haven’t offered a criticism of obama, I don’t need to. His lack of foreign policy experience and more importantly total lack of positions on major situations in the world that the US has an interest in, offers a obvious criticism of him by itself. You insinuate I am ignorant of obama's real policies, so instead of going in circles criticizing my criticisms, prove me wrong and give me some examples of what he specifically plans to do with any of the situations I listed above or that were in the oped, or any major situation in the world that we have interests in. Enlighten my ignorance brother! Remember the word SPECIFIC though, so what he would actually do, not how his hopeful change will audaciously look to the future and reach out to the world while bringing us together. And “cult of personality” has a different meaning than a normal cult, so don’t feel too passively aggressively insulted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LIVERWURST* Posted March 5, 2008 Author Share Posted March 5, 2008 Texas isn't done but: Obama 1,451 Clinton 1,365 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILOTSMYBRAIN Posted March 6, 2008 Share Posted March 6, 2008 Damn I'm hearing rumors of Obama taking a vice presidential position under Hillary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LIVERWURST* Posted March 6, 2008 Author Share Posted March 6, 2008 He's ahead in the count so that would be pretty surprising news. Where'd you hear those "rumors"? And Stereotype, for me to claim that Obama has addressed the tangled web you put forth any more than other candidates I'd be lying. If you'd like to read directly what Obama has said about his plan for action in some of countries you have mentioned here are links for you to read: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/#bring-home http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/ I do welcome any examples you can find which disprove what is written within the links, I know his stance on Iran is a bit more peachy on his website than he has actually offered to pro-Israel groups: http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/281249,CST-NWS-OBAMA03.article With regards to Syria, I feel his commitment to peaceful negotiation and their involvment in managing boarder crossing militants is better than him threatening them. Bush was a saber rattling asshole which is why he hasn't resolved a single conflict; maybe it's time to try a new approach. That said I can't make claims about the finer points on the smaller diplomatic issues you want answered; I can't about Obama, or really Hillary or McCain. None of them has controlled foreign policy and none that I know of has offered the detailed plan you seem to be seeking. The insults felt by the "Muslim world" or "the Saudis" are perhaps possible outcomes but show me where they are a given. Resolving those concerns is diplomacy, and in those issues all you have portrayed is the complexities of the problems. If one candidate or any person has a perfect answer, I'd like to see it. Feel free to correct me or rebut what I've said, but I doubt I'll be writing many more paragraphs here for a while. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LIVERWURST* Posted March 6, 2008 Author Share Posted March 6, 2008 And oh yeah: Obama 1,520 Clinton 1,424 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theo Huxtable. Posted March 6, 2008 Share Posted March 6, 2008 What's the deal on the Texas caucus votes? Have those finished being counted? Last I checked, Obama was ahead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LIVERWURST* Posted March 6, 2008 Author Share Posted March 6, 2008 Actually CNN called Texas for Clinton, but the reality is that who "wins" doesn't matter because a tiny percentage over or whatever is basically a tie. Hillary needed a real win like she got in Ohio across the board to get up with Obama, but she can't seem to do it. It would seem like Pennsylvania, and the late states will determine the winner. Here is the wiki on Texas' primary system: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Democratic_primary,_2008 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stereotype V.0002 Posted March 6, 2008 Share Posted March 6, 2008 the tangled web you put forth ............. here are links for you to read: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/#bring-home http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/ I posted this link already. There is literally nothing there except the same wishy washy rhetoric that says nothing. And his promise to "secure all loose nuclear material in the world in 4 years" shows how clueless he is. I know his stance on Iran is a bit more peachy on his website than he has actually offered to pro-Israel groups: http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/281249,CST-NWS-OBAMA03.article Again, I also posted this. This is what I was talking about when I said he wants to put "more pressure" on iran when he is angling for votes from the jewish community, and back when he is in front of his target audience he wants to "stop george bush's illegal aggression against iran." With regards to Syria, I feel his commitment to peaceful negotiation and their involvment in managing boarder crossing militants is better than him threatening them. Bush was a saber rattling asshole which is why he hasn't resolved a single conflict; maybe it's time to try a new approach. Assad goes further than simply managing the infil of sunni terrorists into iraq. Bush's "saber rattling" didnt accomplish much I would agree, but what do you think "peaceful negotiation" will accomplish? For that matter, what does that even mean? Does that mean we completely take the military option off the table and allow them to continue to kill Americans? Are we going to offer lebanon to them? Does he think he is going to solve all of our problems with Syria because he has an upbeat message and is more friendly than bush? the smaller diplomatic issues you want answered I can't about Obama, or really Hillary or McCain. None of them has controlled foreign policy and none that I know of has offered the detailed plan you seem to be seeking. I cant tell if you are dismissing what i say because thats easier than answering the questions, but if you actually believe these are "smaller diplomatic issues" that explains why they dont really matter to you. Anyway all of the candidates have the same vague rhetoric....clinton isnt all that much better than obama but she has a real voting record I can look at, as does mccain, and even mccain's policy page on his website offers a few specifics. I think ron paul's policies are pretty clear too. The insults felt by the "Muslim world" or "the Saudis" are perhaps possible outcomes but show me where they are a given. Resolving those concerns is diplomacy, and in those issues all you have portrayed is the complexities of the problems. If one candidate or any person has a perfect answer, I'd like to see it. Really dude? Give me any issue and I'll explain how it will piss off muslims in general or the saudis specifically (while he claims he will bring back the good reputation of america with the muslim world.) Anything the US does in the middle east offends muslims first of all, and any action we take against sudan to stop them from massacring people will also really piss off muslims world wide. So obama can choose between his promise to bring back america's good reputation and reach out to muslims, or stop genocide. Any measures we take to get on Iran's good side, any diplomatic olive branches we offer, any allowances of Iran to further establish themselves in iraq, and we are pissing off the saudis. Iran is a major threat to them and they dont like Iran's growing power and influence, as do many of the gulf states, and they really dont like the prospect of bordering them in a few years and watching their sunni bretheren in iraq get exterminated. Vaguely saying "diplomacy will resolve these concerns" says nothing to me... but I would say that stopping genocide clearly outweighs the repercussions of angering the perpetually angry, and since the Iranians will never be receptive to becoming our friends and stop supporting their terrorist groups maybe we can just tell them to go fuck themselves, and really go after the people who are killing or have been killing americans. And believe it or not I am not intentionally trying to be a douchebag to you and just argue with you, this is interesting to me because I know so many people who support obama and when I bring up any of this stuff they dont know what the fuck Im talking about. jinqui! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILOTSMYBRAIN Posted March 6, 2008 Share Posted March 6, 2008 He's ahead in the count so that would be pretty surprising news. Where'd you hear those "rumors"? I read a few articles off my cellphone, some verizon news thing, can't find it now though, like I said it was only rumors anyway. Which were also named as such in the article I was reading. So who knows, I didn't quite see how that would play out when I read it though, was pretty surprised actually. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarGeneral710 Posted March 7, 2008 Share Posted March 7, 2008 It took to me a long time to endorse someone, I endorse obama, because frankly I love his foreign policy and what he wants to do. I think the perception of the U.S. as being a bully nation is obsolete and everyone sees are weakness. He's willing to talk to nations who are not one of our allies. But, Senator clinton want prerequisites in order to talk to non ally nations. If she's in office, her ego will get us into bad situations that we won't be able to come back from. We can no longer visit other countries and tell them how to run their own government. I think barack knows how vulnerable and weak we are right now and don't want to set up buttons. I think if the U.S talk together with china, iran, cuba, north korea, syria, saudi arabia...we can be a stronger world power and separate nations. HIlary does not want that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theo Huxtable. Posted March 9, 2008 Share Posted March 9, 2008 Actually CNN called Texas for Clinton, but the reality is that who "wins" doesn't matter because a tiny percentage over or whatever is basically a tie. I was referring specifically to the Texas caucus, not the primary (which Clinton won). I just checked, and it's still undecided (41% of votes tallied), with Obama at 56% and Clinton at 44%. It looks like Obama will win the Texas caucus though. Which is huge, since the Texas caucus = 67 delegates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LIVERWURST* Posted March 9, 2008 Author Share Posted March 9, 2008 I must have misunderstood, and that's promising news. The Clintons are trying to startg a conversation about An Obama/Clinton ticket, but not of course saying she would be the vice. I suspect they may be trying to make people think about the possibiity of electing her but feeling okay about it because Obama would still be involved. I don't know, it just seems like a weird thing to be talking about right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thinksmall Posted March 9, 2008 Share Posted March 9, 2008 kerry/bush all over again. electionsz r rigged, guy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theo Huxtable. Posted March 11, 2008 Share Posted March 11, 2008 Well, it's official -- Obama won Texas. Thanks to his win in the Texas Caucus. Clinton won the popular vote, but at a lower differential percentage than Obama's win in the caucus. Clinton won 65 delegates from the popular vote, and 30 delegates from caucuses... 95 delegates total. Obama won 61 delegates from the popular vote, and 38 delegates from caucuses... 99 delegates total. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 I must have misunderstood, and that's promising news. The Clintons are trying to startg a conversation about An Obama/Clinton ticket, but not of course saying she would be the vice. I suspect they may be trying to make people think about the possibiity of electing her but feeling okay about it because Obama would still be involved. I don't know, it just seems like a weird thing to be talking about right now. i was saying it would be like this a long time ago...clinton/obama ticket. it was reported that obama staffers scoff at this prospect, but it's not real scoffing. only pretend. for now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.