Jump to content

Barack Obama Elected President!


Max

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 8.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

Both states lost their delegates, and I guess since they would be counted, he didn't see the point of placing his name on the ballot. Which is why it wasn't a big deal when she won both states because he never really campaigned in either one.

Now, she wants them to count. I hear now they may have a revote in both states just to see who would win, and then if they count, so be it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

That is what I think should happen...even if it is expensive for a revote, do it for the sake of counting many people's votes. It is a very sacred right in this country to vote...to take it away from people due to stripped delegates is unfair and wrong. Now, of course, they could vote in the primaries but what use is the vote if the state does not count? I consider it disenfranchisement.

Adam, good call on Clinton/Obama ticket...that is how it should be since the beginning of the race. They will attract the right voters (women, white men, black community, latinos, independents, some Republicans). They are unstoppable if yo ask me.

About taking the name off the ballot...I put that fault on Obama for not realizing that there might be a way in which the votes might still count. There is a possibility that the votes can count (if the DNC allows it) in a last minute scenario...Hillary realized this and kept her name on the ballot. But they all, thankfully, kept their promise to not campaign in either Michigan or Florida. Putting your name on a ballot and campaigning are both separate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think he would be a good VP because I find the guy has been a breath of fresh air for the Democrats in the past couple of years. Sure he is a lot of talk but his ideas are rather good, with a desire to put us on the right track. I am not just saying to have him be VP with Hillary as president...but I just feel that, because she is offering specifics along with some more experience (I do count her years as First Lady as experience. She transformed the role of First Lady and was heavily involved in world affairs) than he does, he should be the second in command. After eight years as her VP, he can be the president.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

As a Michigan resident, if there is a revote, the DNC needs to pay for it. We spent $10 million on a worthless contest.

Candidates turned their backs on the state that has the highest unemployment and biggest financial troubles....

I am not even sure why people in MI would wnat to vote for people who turned their backs on us, but if they do, the DNC needs to pay for it because they are the ones who caused the mess....and all the other messes with the elections this year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Given the way that this campaign has gone, I would have a hard time accepting a Clinton/Obama ticket. Why in the world would I vote for a Clinton/Obama ticket, especially with the way she has criticized him. Wouldn't that mean he isn't a good choice?

And why "should" there have been a Clinton/Obama ticket in the first place? No one ever expected him to make it this far. Before he even won a contest, all you heard about was how it was going to be Clinton vs. Guiliani in November. Well they were wrong. Obama did FAR better than most in the media expected and wasn't until AFTER he won his contest in Iowa that they truly began to consider him a true opponent for her.

I originally supported Hillary Clinton. I liked Barrack Obama, but wasn't sure whether or not he would be a good choice as president. However the more the man spoke, the more I liked about him. Elections are a popularity contest. Candidates make promises of what they'll do, their "four point plans" and all that other stuff....does it mean they'll follow through with it? No.

Hillary is just more polished when it comes to making promises to the people. The fact that she can lie on the fly isn't necessarily a good thing. Because he says "um" apparently that shows he's not "prepared"? GMAFB. I'm venting a bit right now. This isn't directed at anyone in particular. The conservative talk show I listen to every morning (who considers himself independent yet talks republican) has been praising Hilary's wins as the wins that will change the election. Yet whenever Barrack won a contest, he downplayed it, saying it didn't really man anything. He wants Hilary to win the nomination because he feels she is VERY beatable by McCain.

For the first time since I've been an adult, there was a candidate who made me feel like I was important. That my vote meant a lot. I am sick and tired of being last on the list of priorities when it comes to elections. Kerry didn't come after my vote until what...2 months before the election? After you've appealed to all the people who you feel to be "important," that's when you want to come to the youths? Whatever.

IMO Obama did that. He appealed to young voters, he came after our vote. That's all I really wanted. It wasn't until Obama won Iowa did Hilary seem to begin appealing to the young vote. Maybe it's my agenda, I dunno. But that's the way I feel.

If this contest goes down to the wire and Clinton has more delegates than Obama. Then I'm fine with her getting the nomination. However if Obama has more delegates....yet the Superdelegates vote for Clinton has the nom, I'll be highly pissed. It'll be like what happened to Al Gore in Florida...winning the popular vote, but the electoral college gives it to someone else.

I don't feel Michigan or Florida should revote. They knew they would be stripped if they held their contests so early. Hilary won the contests that they KNEW would mean nothing. Now that she's behind she wants it to count? I'm sorry, you can't change the rules of the game just because you aren't happy with the way it's going right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

On the flip side, if the DNC does not count the delegates or pay for a revote, what they are doing is not counting the votes of two very important states.

it is not the voters fault that the DNC had to play GOD with the elections and not let the states become more vital in this.

It was wrong for the DNC to even put those rules in place and it was even worse for the candidates to abide by them.

Let the people vote and let their votes count regardless of who they are for.

And we all know darn well that Obama wouold be requesting a revote if he were behind.

It makes sense..this is a Presidential election and all votes should be counted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

That is a very spirited and well written post. When I see you people like myself that inspired and invigorated by politics, I can't disagree. I still would PREFER to see Hillary win the nomination, but I said it a few weeks ago and said it again, Obama is a movement. He is getting you voters INTERESTED in politics.... he is inspiring people. Something no politician has done in a long time. Its very refreshing and such an interesting race. Its went negative, like all political races do, but its been so fun to watch. It means people are passionate about this election and deem it as the most important election of their lives and their children's lives. And it is. This election means a great deal to the outside world as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

It's certainly negative when his supporters aren't given credit for knowing his policies. Inspiration is not the only thing he brings to the table. Talk of his influence on young voters is almost certainly meant to categorize them as too stupid to know any better, but his dominance with college educated voters gets fleeting media mention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Now, I have to say we see that differently. Talk of his grasp on young voters to me means that for the first time in 2 generations, a candidate has come along who has been courting the young vote ever since he decided to run for his first public office in Ill.

I don't think that makes young voters stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I don't think they're stupid either, but the prevailing idea seems to be that Obama is getting their votes because he targeted them like a shrewd Madison Avenue agency would, as opposed to the demographic getting credit for liking the substance they saw in him once he got their attention. Clinton is always whining about his speeches, painting a picture of gullible sheep who follow baseless rhetoric. That doesn't take into account his wins in some of the country's whitest states. Who would think that he could prevail there? He didn't openly court the white vote, so these people can't all be crazy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • When Anita read Barbara's letter, it started out with the viewers hearing it in Barbara's voice as Anita read silently. And then Anita saying the next portion aloud while Barbara's voice continued simultaneously. And then ending with Anita alone saying the last part aloud. Excerpt from interview  (link to full interview) The rest may be spoilerish -- Only the nonspoiler part here: I love the idea of reading that letter,” shares Tunie. “And at one point in the script, I think it said that my voice joined her, and [Anita] started reciting the letter from memory because [she] memorized this letter. I suggested to Steve Williford, our director, ‘What if it’s like that moment in Hamilton when Hamilton is writing the resignation letter to George Washington, and then he starts saying it too, and then Hamilton’s voice fades away, and then it’s all George. What if we do something like that?’ And he was like, ‘Oh, my God! I just got chills. Let’s do it!’ So, we did it.” I understood that it worked really well, so I’m really happy about that.”  
    • I think MVJ and Guza made a good team in the launching of the soap, and I'm hoping that the rotation of all stories and characters is maintained once he officially departs from the credits. And so far, Ron C's breakdowns have been decent... but they pop only when he's paired with a good script writer like Jazmin.   I hope once Guza leaves officially... that MVJ is able to reign in Ron C and the dread Jamey G.
    • I read that, but my interpretation was that she is uncredited because it is in a non-production capacity.  In others words, she's not secretly producing, or writing, as some had speculated prior to the confirmation. Her likeliest position would be in a post-production consultant capacity. I assume we agree on this?
    • Errol already confirmed she is back at Y&R and in a non-producing role; this alludes to she is not credited for the role she has.
    • I don't think Lisa served a purpose after the serial killer storyline. The writers never gave her anything to do but be Vicky's nemesis. Joanna Going deserved better. Another example of a character taking over the show and then the writers not having a longterm plan for the character.  Exhibit B: Sally Spencer. Such a missed opportunity. It really angers me how they misused her. She could sing and act and they just threw her away in that sexist nonsense storyline. Once the story was over, they wrote her off. The McKinnons should have lasted for years. I will give the show credit for how they introduced Sandra Ferguson as Amanda. I thought it was expertly done. She comes in and she immediately connected to RKK's Sam. She has chemistry with Matthew and she has realistic conversations with MAc and Rachel. That's how it is done. 
    • Great points, and it has not completely vanished. Leslie on Beyond the Gates fits the trope (she's still not over that Ted lovin' two decades later), though I will say there does seem to be an effort to make her more complex.
    • I understand why people speculate, but I have to say it doesn’t sound very plausible that Jill Farren Phelps would be working at Y&R in any uncredited role. CBS daytime shows are tightly bound by union contracts and corporate oversight, and that kind of informal arrangement would be a major liability in 2025. Before the mergers of SAG-AFTRA and the two WGA branches, it may have been easier to hire someone quietly or off the books. But those days are behind us. With digital payroll, tighter pension tracking, and increased scrutiny from legal and compliance departments, it’s just not the kind of thing anyone can get away with anymore. Most union members, especially producers nearing retirement, would not risk their eligibility or benefits to take an uncredited role. The Producers Guild of America is also very clear about crediting. To even receive the PGA mark, a producer has to be verified through a formal review process. According to their credit certification guidelines (source), "only individuals who performed a majority of the producing functions on a motion picture or television production" are eligible for credit, and those credits must be official and recorded. If someone is functioning in that capacity, they are not supposed to be uncredited. Studios that are union signatories, like CBS and Sony, know better than to skirt those rules. If anyone has a legitimate, primary source confirming that CBS is hiring someone like Phelps in an uncredited production role, I’d honestly be curious to read it. But without that, this just feels like rumor—not reality.
    • I keep thinking about the persistent trend of eroticizing mental illness on Guiding Light. Sonni and Annie were never more compelling, or more attractive to the show, than when they were manic. It played into a recurring theme: strong women undone by their unhinged reaction to sex. The writers were likely inspired by Basic Instinct and the broader wave of neo-noir films in the late '80s and early '90s, where female sexuality was often equated with instability. The result was a crude portrayal, not just of mental illness, but of womanhood itself. Both Sonni and Annie were introduced as sharp, capable women, brought in specifically as formidable antagonists to Reva. They were logical and composed, standing in contrast to Reva’s emotional volatility. That difference made them threatening, but not especially “sexy”—until desire became their undoing. In a very male fantasy, their strength unraveled the moment they slept with Joshua. As soon as they got a taste of Lewis lovin’, they spiraled into scheming lunatics, willing to torch everything to hold on to him. It was part of a larger trend in the culture. Fatal Attraction, Single White Female, and The Hand That Rocks the Cradle all traded on the idea that female desire was dangerous, barely held in check, and always teetering on the edge of madness. Looking back, it's a pretty grim trope. And while it's not completely vanished, I'm grateful we don't see it quite as often today.
    • Elements of it were silly, but it was a small price to pay to get Zas back. I should say there's a difference between in town and out of town returns. It's understandable for Roger to skulk around town in a bad wig and clown suit when he's in Springfield and running the risk of bumping in to people he knows.  Taking us out of town to find someone always has a short shelf life. Then it usually becomes about another character knowing X is alive but determined to keep them out of Springfield. Like Alan discovering Amish Reva. I don't know how long it went on, but it was probably twice as long as necessary.
    • Elizabeth Dennehy complained on the Locher Room about how ridiculous so much of the writing was for Roger's return. She laughed at so much of Roger's antics and how it was hard for her to take them seriously. Probably another reason she was fired as she didn't play the game.  
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy