 Quote:
Originally Posted by Gadgetory  Obama's claim about Iraq is easy to say when he wasn't elected at the time. Everyone was lied to when they voted for the war in Iraq. He did however vote against bringing troops home and leaving a smaller force there to help the Iraqi's in 2006. Iraq is not a popular thing now which is why he now claims he doesn't support it. If it was popular he'd be all over the place saying how we need to stay..why are people so easily fooled?? As for NAFTA he also wasn't elected at the time and neither was Hilary was she suppose to run around the country saying she didn't support her husband the President on this issue??? BTW Whilst NAFTA has had a negative effect on states like Ohio its had a positive effect in places like CA. It has balanced itself out.
Exactly what is 'new' about Obama??..other then he has slightly less actual experience then Hilary and has no legislative accomplishments to speak of. | Well, here's a question for you- if Obama is so inexperienced and not a good choice; please explainas to why Hillary and Bad Billy say that they would ask him to be on the ticket with her?
Talk about double-talk! Either he is experienced; or he is not- there is no middle ground. I can offer you the reason why: she cannot win without him; but he can win without her. And Obama isnot just counting on race to help him. Perhaps someone might explain just how the "Black support" that allowed him to win Wyoming? I think you might hard pressed to; as there are very few Blacks in Wyoming.
As for winning "big states"; this is just a pundit phrase. If it really had meaning; how is itthat Obama has neutralized these with the "small states", and still is leading in both the popular and delegate vote?
But I still think that we must wait until the end to find out what's going to happen. Either the superdelegates will be put on the spot;or the Dems will put forth a "brokered ticket". |