Why vote Obama?
-
@bellwells said:
It's a real shame there were NO third party candidates in the debates. I think if enough people vote third party (Libertarian, in my case) we could pressure the networks into including them.
I agree it's a shame there were only two, but last I counted there were about eight people running for the office of the President (most of whom I never even heard of), and including them all would have been too much. The networks do not determine who is included in the debates, but rather the Commission on Presidential Debates. Amongst their criteria, a candidate must have support from 15% of the national electorate, as indicated by five national polling organizations, such as Ross Perot had in '92.
-
I'd like to see Les included in the debates:
http://mefeedia.com/entry/video-beer-party-on-the-lips-of-voters/11967101
-
@daniel said:
I agree it's a shame there were only two, but last I counted there were about eight people running for the office of the President (most of whom I never even heard of), and including them all would have been too much. The networks do not determine who is included in the debates, but rather the Commission on Presidential Debates. Amongst their criteria, a candidate must have support from 15% of the national electorate, as indicated by five national polling organizations, such as Ross Perot had in '92.
Appreciate the information. I think the percentage should be reduced to 5-10%; 15% is quite a lot and a tough barrier to overcome.
-
LMFAO, they are desperate now.
-
Sooooo, no reaction to Biden's crazy statement,huh? And some of you think the press isn't liberal?? My God!!! It's sickening. I may actually change my vote to McCain just to spite the network nitwits.
Pete, do you really think McCain's campaign had ANYTHING to do with this nutty lady's story? It's as likely that Obama's campaign did this.
-
@bellwells said:
@daniel said:
I agree it's a shame there were only two, but last I counted there were about eight people running for the office of the President (most of whom I never even heard of), and including them all would have been too much. The networks do not determine who is included in the debates, but rather the Commission on Presidential Debates. Amongst their criteria, a candidate must have support from 15% of the national electorate, as indicated by five national polling organizations, such as Ross Perot had in '92.
Appreciate the information. I think the percentage should be reduced to 5-10%; 15% is quite a lot and a tough barrier to overcome.
How is any candidate supposed to get that kind of support without
A: being seen on the national stage via the mainstream media. (a bit of a catch22 there.)
B: being included in the polls conducted by the national polling organizations (no 3rd party candidates are listed on those polls)How about looking at how many ballots they're on? Nader is on 45 of the 50 state ballots despite nearly impossible state laws that make that very difficult.
-
Eric, the system is rigged against third parties. Bastards. We need a revolution.
-
Ron
I agree with you, we need another revolution. The first one got us out from under English tyranny. Now we need to take a look and see how we're gonna get out from under the next one. Do the words..."taxation without representation" ring any bells with anyone? Maybe we need to find another harbor somewhere and have another party....
I've been thinking about a write in campaign for "NONE OF THE ABOVE". Hell, it worked for Richard Prior in Brewsters Millions, why not now?
Does it not bother anyone but me that before coming to the US Senate, Obama had never held a public office outside of his neighborhood? His opponent's VP choice has had more experience than he has, but hey, she's just "a soccer mom". Huh, what could she possibly know about politics? not enough to get her name in the top spot apparently. But, this is a senators race, and she never has been a senator, that disqualifies her automatically.
Considering all that, looks like Nader may get the nod on this one.
-
@bellwells said:
...Sooooo, no reaction to Biden's crazy statement,huh? And some of you think the press isn't liberal?? My God!!! It's sickening...
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/22/earlyshow/main4539871.shtml (1:40 in)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032619/#27328627 (3:55 in)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjeKgDipkYI (2:38 in)
StockExaminer - AI-Powered Stock Chatbot
Discover Stock Examiner, the AI-powered chatbot delivering instant, interactive stock charts, real-time financials, breaking news, stock screeners, and more—all in one seamless experience.
(www.examiner.com)
@bellwells said:
...I may actually change my vote to McCain just to spite the network nitwits...
Gee, I take all this much more seriously...kinda steams me that I took you to be serious too, Ron.
-
I understand your confusion, Tom. The lack of reaction I referred to was from this board. Not surprising, though.
The mainstream liberal press has focused more on Palin's clothing budget that Biden's dangerous and irresponsible statements. They have the nads to call into question Palin's "experience" while completely ignoring that Obama is nothing more than an empty suit with oratory skills. Period. I am sick and tired of the press. They are a dangerous lot.
You can't be as steamed as I am.
-
LOL, the McCain bunch keep falling over themselves.
Meet Joe - the brother
Seems that anger is a family thing.
[flash=425,344:1mj72gr7]http://www.youtube.com/v/_Y6_s3O5Bj0[/flash:1mj72gr7]
-
@baker518 said:
Does it not bother anyone but me that before coming to the US Senate, Obama had never held a public office outside of his neighborhood?
How is this relevant now?
-
LOL, grabbing straws again.
Obama's neighborhood has more citizens than The entire Wassila.
-
Here's another excellent reason to vote for Obama:
They just keep sinking lower and lower.
-
Another example of using parts of a dialogue to strike fear and appeal to the timid voters.
The McCain campaign is sinking fast, this type of rhetoric has plagued them from the start, yet they continue, but in fairness they really do not have anything else. They have no solutions, no winning points just negativity. Republicans are notorious for playing the person and not the issues, they try win by campaigning that their opponent is worse than them and not why they deserve the nod.
Like the guy everyone knows in the office that seeks promotion by discrediting his competition and not by hard and dilligent work. -
The 527's start the negative campaign.
The Neocons start spreading racist crap, swiftboating has begun
-
"...down and down we go..."
-
@tomsdesk said:
Here's another excellent reason to vote for Obama:
They just keep sinking lower and lower.
I think that's a pretty good ad.
-
The difference between the two is simple, one says something (McCain) and the other has something to say (Obama)
-
@unknownuser said:
@baker518 said:
Does it not bother anyone but me that before coming to the US Senate, Obama had never held a public office outside of his neighborhood?
How is this relevant now?
It's every bit as relevant as the media's claptrapping over Palin's experience. In fact, it's MORE relevant since he's running for president.
Advertisement