DC Area Voters

[Frank Gallagher]

Plus, whatever Oprah is for....I'm against.
 
 She's not voting for Obama because he's black (RIIIIIIIIGHT)
 She's voting for him because he's Bwiiiiwent, (whatever bwiiiiwent is)

[Julian, Alleged Computer F**kface]

Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
  Well I guess if we're making experience be the criteria, John McCain is clearly the best choice.

I'm not saying you should vote for the most experienced candidate, just that the candidate needs to be sufficiently experienced. It's a threshold issue. Barack Obama's experience in national politics consists of winning an election he ran unopposed in and having nothing to hang his hat for his 4 years in the Senate.
 
 The Obama contingency keeps dodging the issue: explain to me why Obama is qualified to be President. What relevant experience does he have? If I -- a fastidious liberal -- can point that out, do you think John McCain and the RNC, aren't going to be able to in the general election?

[Charlie Nakatestes, Japanese Golfer]

The Democrats weren't able to point out their opponents complete lack of track record and relevant experience eight years ago.
 
 As far as the experience goes, I think it's more about who you surround yourself with. Obama may not have the experience that Clinton or McCain have, but he's got the integrity, character, and good judgement to surround himself with with right people, instead of pulling a GWB and putting the wrong people in charge.
 
 
 

Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
   

Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
  Well I guess if we're making experience be the criteria, John McCain is clearly the best choice.

I'm not saying you should vote for the most experienced candidate, just that the candidate needs to be sufficiently experienced. It's a threshold issue. Barack Obama's experience in national politics consists of winning an election he ran unopposed in and having nothing to hang his hat for his 4 years in the Senate.
 
 The Obama contingency keeps dodging the issue: explain to me why Obama is qualified to be President. What relevant experience does he have? If I -- a fastidious liberal -- can point that out, do you think John McCain and the RNC, aren't going to be able to in the general election? [/b]

[Frank Gallagher]

Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
  Well I guess if we're making experience be the criteria, John McCain is clearly the best choice.

hmmmm, getting shot down in vietnam, taken pow and put in solitary confiment for 3 years then tortured for 5 more. That's not the kind of experience I'm looking for a leader who has his finger on the old 'button'!
 
 Besides, how is he going to wave at the media when he gets off Air Force 1 when he can't move his upper arms?

[manimtired]

Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
   

Originally posted by manimtired:
  if i posted a fox news "encyclopedia" to flaunt dick cheney's record i can only imagine the responses id get..

This is probably the first time I've ever seen an encyclopedia labeled as being biased. You're right, they're probably making up that he was governor and had leadership roles in several national groups like the Democratic Leadership Council, the National Governor's Association, and the Southern Growth Policies Board. And they probably made up those statistics about Arkansas' educational ranking compared to the national average.
 
 If you're seriously going to question whether Encarta is so biased it can't be cited on educational statistics, matters of public record, and established facts then you're a fucking idiot. The only one you're succeeding in discrediting is yourself for making a statement so laughably divorced from reality. [/b]

i mean white water and the impeachment got an entire paragraph...seems right.

[ggw]

Convicted?
 
 No.  Never convicted.
 
 

Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
  Convicted felon?
 
   

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
  I have never voted.
 
 True story.

[/b]

[Julian, Alleged Computer F**kface]

Originally posted by manimtired:
  i mean white water and the impeachment got an entire paragraph...seems right.

I'm not going to allow you to take us off topic because on topic, you're exposed. Nothing that article had about Clinton's pre-Presidency experience is questionable. Pathetic weaklings try to change the subject every time their ignorance gets exposed badly.

[Charlie Nakatestes, Japanese Golfer]

Maybe he could have his hot wife flash her titties instead.
 
 With McCain or Obama you'll have the most fetching first lady in a long, long time.
 
 Poor Mrs. Huckabee looks like an offensive tackle for the Razorbacks scrimmage squad.
 
   

Originally posted by Brain Walrus:
   

Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
  Well I guess if we're making experience be the criteria, John McCain is clearly the best choice.

hmmmm, getting shot down in vietnam, taken pow and put in solitary confiment for 3 years then tortured for 5 more. That's not the kind of experience I'm looking for a leader who has his finger on the old 'button'!
 
 Besides, how is he going to wave at the media when he gets off Air Force 1 when he can't move his upper arms? [/b]

[manimtired]

Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
   

Originally posted by manimtired:
  i mean white water and the impeachment got an entire paragraph...seems right.

I'm not going to allow you to take us off topic because on topic, you're exposed. Nothing that article had about Clinton's pre-Presidency experience is questionable. Pathetic weaklings try to change the subject every time their ignorance gets exposed badly. [/b]

so the pre-presidency is dead on and the latter part just tries to make a little twist on things?? mmmkay...seems like i was right in questioning the "encyclopedia" entry. lol @ you.

[Julian, Alleged Computer F**kface]

Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
  The Democrats weren't able to point out their opponents complete lack of track record and relevant experience eight years ago.

First, I'd argue anyone who was a governor has executive experience already. Track record is still on the table, but still.
 
 Second, the DNC hasn't run an efficient national campaign since 1992. The RNC, on the other hand, have proven themselves masters of spin and framing the entire election around one issue. Do not underestimate what the full resources of the RNC are going to be able to do against a neophyte like Obama.

[Sage 703]

Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
   

Originally posted by callat703:
  No track record of accomplishing anything?  Come on now.

Feel free to refute my claims with, you know, a list of achievements Barack Obama has accumulated during his political career. [/b]

First, you didn't specify political accomplishments.  You're welcome to look at Wiki if you want a breakdown of some of the political accomplishments.  They do a good job of summarizing his work in Illinois, and providing some pointed examples of work in the 109th and 110th.
 
 But you don't think it is important to note successes outside of the political forum?  Columbia University undergrad and President of the Harvard Law Review?  Work as a community organizer, civil rights attorney, and a professor?
 
 Hate to break it to you, but some of our best presidents have had less experience in government than Barack Obama has had.

[Julian, Alleged Computer F**kface]

Originally posted by manimtired:
  so the pre-presidency is dead on and the latter part just tries to make a little twist on things??

Nothing I mentioned from that article wasn't 100% uncontroverted fact and matters of public record. I can easily establish any of those "accomplishments" through a google search with 5 other sources within 2 minutes.
 
 What's LOL is you continuing to muck up the discussion arguing the specific source of the material when you know the material itself is beyond contestation. On the topic of Clinton's pre-White House experience and accomplishments, you lose this argument badly, so you're trying to change the issue. Not buying it, Sally. Next!

[manimtired]

actually my comment brought up the question that the source you used might possibly be biased...not about what clinton had done pre-presidency.  calm down you clinton fan boy!!!

[Sage 703]

Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
   

Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
  Well I guess if we're making experience be the criteria, John McCain is clearly the best choice.

I'm not saying you should vote for the most experienced candidate, just that the candidate needs to be sufficiently experienced. It's a threshold issue. Barack Obama's experience in national politics consists of winning an election he ran unopposed in and having nothing to hang his hat for his 4 years in the Senate.
 
 The Obama contingency keeps dodging the issue: explain to me why Obama is qualified to be President. What relevant experience does he have? If I -- a fastidious liberal -- can point that out, do you think John McCain and the RNC, aren't going to be able to in the general election? [/b]

And I'll flip it on you - the people making this argument can't make a convincing argument to me that "relevant experience" can only be composed of working in Washington.
 
 If you want a strong argument that points out some of the reasons the "experience" argument is flawed, read this:
 
 http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/02/the-natural.html

[ratioci nation]

Why are we talking about Bill's career, I though we were talking about Hillary and Barack.