DNC and the RNC: the good, the bad, the ugly

Griff Wigley posted on Aug 29 2008 at 06:29

dnc-banner
rnc-banner

The DNC is history. The RNC begins on Monday.

What’s to like and dislike (speeches, spectacle, etc. ) about them both?

This entry was written by Griff Wigley, posted on at 6:29 am, filed under Elections, Politics. Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

445 Comments

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] Show All

  • 401
    Peter Millin
    Posted November 11, 2008 at 11:31 am | Permalink

    So far all the extra votes went in favor of Franken, maybe that’s a better way to say it.

    I don’t question the sincerity of the election officials. I am more concerned about the lack of clear procedures and ballot safety.

    It clearly states on the ballots to fill in the circle. IMHO if that is not done correctly the vote should not count.
    If we leave any other marks to the interpretation of “voter intend” we open ourselves up for these kind of situations.
    Which does nothing more then question the whole system.

  • 402
    Jerry Friedman
    Posted November 11, 2008 at 11:42 am | Permalink

    Peter: Carol already corrected your false statement, that “all the extra votes went in favor of Franken”. Some went to Coleman. It looks like you aren’t reading her responses to you.

    Again, voting is a fundamental right in a democracy. If someone votes incorrectly, but their intent is obvious, such as circling the name of the candidate rather than filling in the bubble, then you are advocating that we disenfranchise voters. Again, voting is not an academic exam and it should not be treated as such.

    Your proposal, to reject all non-conforming votes even when the voter’s intent is clear, means that you would deny people the vote with vision, reading, or comprehension problems.

    You say that you favor a clearly stated rules, such as the clearly stated rules of how to fill out a ballot. Why then do you disfavor the clearly stated rules of an automatic recount if the tally is less than 0.5%? Why are you selective about which rules you like?

    Are you happy with the Florida 2000 election results? The official recount was stopped by the U.S. Supreme Court even though the Court’s own rules are to stay out of state sovereignty, which applied in this case. The unofficial recount sponsored by Florida newspapers claimed that Gore should have won Florida. Do you think, therefore, that it was right for the Court to stop the recount, or should every vote have been counted even if Gore won the 2000 election?

  • 403
    Peter Millin
    Posted November 11, 2008 at 3:02 pm | Permalink

    Jerold,
    Who is against a recount? Certainly not me. I do disagree that “under votes” or “wrongly marked” votes should be counted.
    Their are clear instructions on how to fill out voting sheets.
    Why do we have rules and don’t behold to them, especially if it’s convenient for once political gains?

    Do we want o be know as a state of morons that doesn’t know how to fill out a basic ballot ??

  • 404
    Peter Millin
    Posted November 11, 2008 at 3:03 pm | Permalink

    http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gMpTmr96V5hKIfyHT4Av4jsVQgrQD94AE8P80

    OOPs almost forgot.

  • 405
    Peter Millin
    Posted November 11, 2008 at 3:23 pm | Permalink

    http://www.startribune.com/politics/state/34200269.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aULPQL7PQLanchO7DiUX

    Franken comes up with more “Frankenvotes”. Luckily common sense is still with us in St.Paul.

  • 406
    Peter Millin
    Posted November 11, 2008 at 3:24 pm | Permalink

    Jerold,

    All the extra votes in the Iron Range went for Franken……100 to be sure, which in itself is to equal of a number.

  • 407
    Jane Moline
    Posted November 11, 2008 at 5:18 pm | Permalink

    Peter: What you are saying is that people who are unable to understand the directions should not be allowed to have their vote counted. Voting is not an intelligence test or comprehension test or even an English test–it is a vote. Our rules do not say that someone must complete the ballot as instructed–only that they are allowed to vote. In most elections, these ballots that are not completed to the instructions are ignored as the other ballots make it obvious who the winner is–but in the case where the margin of vote is less than one-half of one percent, we automatically look to all ballots to count those that would otherwise be ignored due to to using a machine to count ballots–and if they can be hand counted they are counted–the law does not say that they must be marked to be counted by machine only—a valid vote is a valid vote. This is not a test. If you want to change the law, you should lobby for that law change, but I doubt many people will agree with you. Most Minnesotans are content with our voting and recount process.

    If someone did not vote for any candidate, they will not have a vote in the Senate race. If they just marked an “x” next to a name, circled the name, or only partially filled in the oval, the vote will be counted. If they voted for more than one, their vote will not count.

    The Iron Range total that changed was from a precinct that incorrectly reported 24 votes instead of 124 votes for Al Franken–it was a clerical input error, not any mysterous jump of 100. That is why the votes are not certified until the counties have completed their review or audits–in this case, they caught their error the next day. Voting totals change like this in every election–it is difficult to report accurately 100% of the time on a late night after a long day. That is why votes are not certified immediately.

    Minnesotans are proud of our long tradition of voting turnout. Part of that is same day registration. This apparently bothered you because you were questioned at the poll–but you were allowed to vote–(even though you are a Republican who blogs on a left -leaning blog)–and the delay was not unreasonable and you found out later that it was due to your name having been misspelled –a clerical error. However, you mentioned it on election day as if it was either a conspiracy against you or a sign that it was too easy to vote in Minnesota.

    Unfortunately, the Republicans are setting up for a legal challenge to this particular race–and raising issues that do not exist. I would hope that both parties will abide by the recount–which I know could go either way.

    The Republicans are circulating bizarre theories about why the margin is shrinking–continuing the mudslinging that was their mainstay during the campaign. If you are so darn worried, volunteer to be an observer.

  • 408
    Peter Millin
    Posted November 12, 2008 at 11:18 am | Permalink

    I think my kids have learned “filling in the dot” in Pre-K.
    If you lazy or stupid or just plain ignorant to execute a simple task as “filling in a dot”…then maybe you are not capable of even comprehending the election process.
    Gimme a break. How hard is it?

    My nephew who has “down syndrome” knows how to fill in a dot……how far are we willing to dumb down the simplest tasks to support stupidity ???

  • 409
    Jerry Friedman
    Posted November 12, 2008 at 12:58 pm | Permalink

    Peter: When someone has a right, the government has the duty to honor that right. I am delighted that your children can follow test instructions, but they do not have a Constitutional right to take tests. Trivial obstacles are no excuse to deny someone a right.

    Your characterization of some citizens as “lazy, stupid, [or] ignorant” overlooks the people who may not follow directions for any number of reasons. It overlooks the possibility of bugs in voting computers. It overlooks the occasional reversal of outcomes that happen after recounts. Your position would deny voters of the democratic process by not counting their votes if something went wrong.

    And again, I must point out that if you embrace the rules on ballot, to be consistent, you should also embrace the rules of the recount. Between the two, the administrative rules on the ballot are more arbitrary than the Constitutional rules of a recount.

  • 410
    Jane Moline
    Posted November 12, 2008 at 1:48 pm | Permalink

    Peter: Luckily, you are not in charge nor make the rules. The rules have already been made. If you don’t like them, get elected and change it or move to a state where they don’t protect voters rights–like Ohio or Alabama or Texas. (You will not likely be elected in Minnesota on the basis that you want to stop people from voting.)

  • 411
    Peter Millin
    Posted November 12, 2008 at 3:06 pm | Permalink

    Geez my communication skills are worse than I thought.

    Let me try again.

    I have never argued against a recount.
    I do support every bodies right to vote.
    I do believe voters should be protected.
    I do believe every correctly filled out ballot has to be counted.

    What I not support is:
    Falsely filled out ballot be counted. Unless it’s an equipment error.

    Interpreting voter intend. I.e. Somebody voted for Obama but for nobody else so we give the vote by default to Franken?????

    I personally would be embarassed if I couldn’t muster enough brains to fill out a circle.

    Holly…where did I say that I want to prevent people from voting????

  • 412
    john george
    Posted November 12, 2008 at 3:51 pm | Permalink

    Peter- On this one point, I agree with you, “…Interpreting voter intend. I.e. Somebody voted for Obama but for nobody else so we give the vote by default to Franken…” I was very happy that supposedly 300,000 people who voted for Obama did NOT vote for Franken. If these votes were to be infered, as you suggest, I think that would be questionable. I don’t think the recount laws would be interpreted in this way.

    As far as people’s right to vote, there are still some very sharp people around who never learned to read or write, especially in the older generations where formal schooling was not even available for them. I dare say some of these poeple have more wisdom than some educated people I have met, but then that is just my opinion. I’m not sure that being able to read or write necessarily qualifies a person to vote.

  • 413
    William Siemers
    Posted November 12, 2008 at 4:11 pm | Permalink

    Peter…If someone did not mark their ballot for a senatorial candidate then the ballot will not count. If they voted for two or three of the candidates then that ballot will not count.

    If someone circled a name, underlined a name, made a check mark or an ‘x’ next to a name, then that ballot should be allowed. If someone writes an ampersand, question mark, dollar sign or any other ‘mark’ in or over the oval then that vote should be allowed. If one pencil point mark exists within the oval, then that ballot should be counted. If someone brings in an ink pad and marks the ballot with a thumb print, that ballot should be allowed. If I decided to mark my ballot in blood that should be allowed. The idea of a democracy is for the vote to count…not to be disallowed.

  • 414
    Peter Millin
    Posted November 12, 2008 at 4:23 pm | Permalink

    William,

    Your example are beyond common sense and reality and I respectfully disagree with MOST of you example.

    Unless you (not you William) are an complete idiot there is no need for ANYBODY not to fill out a ballot completley,

    Everything else is childish an immature.

    Many great Americans have given their lives so we can vote freely. The least we can do to honor them, is to respect our right to vote and do it in normal, respectful and professional manner.

    The rest is just showboating.

  • 415
    Peter Millin
    Posted November 12, 2008 at 4:37 pm | Permalink

    http://www.kpsplocal2.com/global/video/flash/popupplayer.asp?vt1=v&clipFormat=flv&clipId1=3115942&at1=News&h1=Prop%208%20Rally%20Turns%20Violent%20-%20Live%20Report&rnd=70882418

    Funny (or not) that those who ask for tolerance and acceptance are so hostile and narrow minded.

  • 416
    john george
    Posted November 12, 2008 at 4:53 pm | Permalink

    Peter- Your opinion, “…Unless you (not you William) are an complete idiot there is no need for ANYBODY not to fill out a ballot completley…” doesn’t quite hold water. My wife, a BA with honors graduate of ISU, will not vote for anyone or anything she does not have any knowlege of, especially soil conservation candidates or judges. I think we have a choice in this country to vote or not for whomever we desire. I think the 300,000 people who voted for Obama but did not vote for either Coleman or Franken probably decided they would not choose the lesser of two evils. They simply did not vote for either, and that is their free choice.

  • 417
    Bright Spencer
    Posted November 12, 2008 at 4:59 pm | Permalink

    Test

  • 418
    Jerry Friedman
    Posted November 12, 2008 at 6:18 pm | Permalink

    Peter: If you object to Franken getting votes simply because the person voted for Obama, I agree with you. However, I haven’t heard of this practice ever being done.

    Otherwise, I would re-state what William said. If there is a mark on a ballot that a person wanted to vote for a candidate, that vote should be counted for that candidate.

    John G.’s point is also extremely important. If someone has comprehension problems for any reason, and that person votes but doesn’t follow directions, that person’s vote should count.

    The U.S. is not supposed to be a nation where people are disenfranchised because they don’t comprehend voting instructions.

  • 419
    Peter Millin
    Posted November 12, 2008 at 7:01 pm | Permalink

    John,

    I should have said “correctly”…not “completely”. And yes that includes not voting for all of the people on the ballot.

  • 420
    Patrick Enders
    Posted November 13, 2008 at 7:35 am | Permalink

    Jerry wrote,

    The U.S. is not supposed to be a nation where people are disenfranchised because they don’t comprehend voting instructions.

    But we used to have a pop quiz before voting, if you were a person of a certain color.

    A bit of googling brought up this gem from our racist past: a sample Alabama “literacy test” selectively given to African Americans, for which they were excluded from voting if they didn’t get all questions right:

    Quick, see if you can answer these:

    - If a person charged with treason denies his guilt, how many persons must testify against him before he can be convicted?
    - At what time of day on January 20 each four years does the term of the president of the United States end?
    - If the president does not wish to sign a bill, how many days is he allowed in which to return it to Congress for reconsideration?
    - In what year did the Congress gain the right to prohibit the migration of persons to the states?
    - The president is forbidden to exercise his authority of pardon in cases of _______.

    http://www.crmvet.org/info/litques.pdf
    http://www.crmvet.org/info/litques.htm

    Mercifully, those laws were long ago declared unconstitutional. A side effect of striking down those racist policies of the past is that challenging people’s intelligence (even by so apparently simple an act as requiring them to perfectly fill out a little circle) is not legal. Because, among other things, it would disproportionately impair the voting rights of some populations - in this case, including the visually impaired and those with unsteady hands.

  • 421
    Patrick Enders
    Posted November 13, 2008 at 7:49 am | Permalink

    Here’s an interesting bit of news:
    Alaska is still counting absentee and early ballots.
    With about 45,000 ballots left to count, Mark Begich has now taken a narow lead over Ted Stevens.

    http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/
    http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/begich-leads-by-814-going-into-thursday.html

  • 422
    Peter Millin
    Posted November 13, 2008 at 8:50 am | Permalink

    Expecting from someone to put a pencil dot in to the right place hardly qualifies for “challenging or testing” someones intelligence.
    You are really stretching here Patrick.

    And for those that have a physical or mental conditions we already have help in place.

  • 423
    Peter Millin
    Posted November 13, 2008 at 8:53 am | Permalink

    There is still hope that the Democrats get the 60 vote filibuster proof majority in the senate.
    This is great news…no more whining and no more excuses.

  • 424
    Patrick Enders
    Posted November 13, 2008 at 9:04 am | Permalink

    Peter,
    You may think that I am stretching things, but the law does not agree with your point of view.

  • 425
    Patrick Enders
    Posted November 13, 2008 at 9:24 am | Permalink

    Peter,
    For your conveniece, I have posted selections from Minnesota law regarding the assessment of ballots:

    204C.22 DETERMINING VOTER’S INTENT.
    Subdivision 1.Ballot valid if intent determinable.
    A ballot shall not be rejected for a technical error that does not make it impossible to determine the voter’s intent. In determining intent the principles contained in this section apply.

    Subd. 2.From face of ballot only.
    Intent shall be ascertained only from the face of the ballot.

    Subd. 3.Votes for too many candidates.
    If a voter places a mark (X) beside the names of more candidates for an office than are to be elected or nominated, the ballot is defective with respect only to that office. No vote shall be counted…

    Subd. 6.Mark out of place.
    If a mark (X) is made out of its proper place, but so near a name or space as to indicate clearly the voter’s intent, the vote shall be counted.

    Subd. 9.Votes for only some offices or questions determined.
    If the voter’s choice for only some of the offices or questions can be determined from a ballot, the ballot shall be counted for those offices or questions only.

    Subd. 10.Different marks.
    If a voter uniformly uses a mark other than (X) which clearly indicates an intent to mark a name or to mark yes or no on a question, and the voter does not use (X) anywhere else on the ballot, a vote shall be counted for each candidate or response to a question marked. If a voter uses two or more distinct marks, such as (X) and some other mark, a vote shall be counted for each candidate or response to a question marked, unless the ballot is marked by distinguishing characteristics that make the entire ballot defective as provided in subdivision 13.

    Subd. 11.Attempted erasures.
    If the names of two candidates have been marked, and an attempt has been made to erase or obliterate one of the marks, a vote shall be counted for the remaining marked candidate….

    Subd. 15.Blank ballot for one or more offices valid.
    If no name or response to a question is marked and no name is written in, the ballot is blank with respect to that office or question.

    The full Minnesota law on the matter of “Determining Voter’s Intent” is at this link:
    https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/statutes/?id=204C.22

  • 426
    Peter Millin
    Posted November 13, 2008 at 11:02 am | Permalink

    IMHO stupidity should not be excused by law. The fact that we have to have these laws for such a simple task, doesn’t hold well for us.

  • 427
    Jerry Friedman
    Posted November 13, 2008 at 11:05 am | Permalink

    Patrick: I didn’t see you post the law that says, “If one votes for president but fails to vote for a senator, the senator who belongs to the president’s political party will be given the vote.” Is that law missing from your post or did Peter just make it up?

    I highly recommend “Freedom Song” by Danny Glover, a film about the drive to get Mississippi black voters the right to vote in the 1960s. While the film is fictionalized, it covers the issues you’re describing. It depicts blacks being denied the vote for failing to pass a literacy test, and after they were coached on how to pass the test, the registrar asked them additional questions, like “How many suds can you get from a bar of soap?” It’s difficult to see the movie and believe that these things really happened.

  • 428
    Patrick Enders
    Posted November 13, 2008 at 11:43 am | Permalink

    Jerry,
    You are correct: there is no such provision. The relevant portion that addresses this is:

    Subd. 15.Blank ballot for one or more offices valid.
    If no name or response to a question is marked and no name is written in, the ballot is blank with respect to that office or question.

  • 429
    Peter Millin
    Posted November 13, 2008 at 3:08 pm | Permalink

    :-)

  • 430
    Peter Millin
    Posted November 13, 2008 at 3:19 pm | Permalink

    http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gMpTmr96V5hKIfyHT4Av4jsVQgrQD94AE8P80

    n Associated Press analysis of votes in the tight, still-to-be decided race for a U.S. Senate seat in Minnesota shows that most ballots lacking a recorded choice in the election were cast in counties won by Democrat Barack Obama.
    The finding could have implications for Republican Sen. Norm Coleman and Democrat Al Franken, who are headed for a recount separated by the thinnest of margins — a couple of hundred votes, or about 0.01 percent.
    About 25,000 ballots statewide carried votes for president but not for the Senate race. Although some voters might have intentionally bypassed the race, others might have mismarked their ballot, or optical scanning machines might have misread them.

  • 431
    Peter Millin
    Posted November 13, 2008 at 5:59 pm | Permalink

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122644940271419147.html

    According to conservative statistician John Lott, Mr. Franken’s gains so far are 2.5 times the corrections made for Barack Obama in the state, and nearly three times the gains for Democrats across Minnesota Congressional races. Mr. Lott notes that Mr. Franken’s “new” votes equal more than all the changes for all the precincts in the entire state for the Presidential, Congressional and statehouse races combined (482 votes).

    This entire process is being overseen by Democratic Secretary of State Mark Ritchie, who isn’t exactly a nonpartisan observer. One of Mr. Ritchie’s financial supporters during his 2006 run for office was a 527 group called the Secretary of State Project, which was co-founded by James Rucker, who came from MoveOn.org. The group says it is devoted to putting Democrats in jobs where they can “protect elections.”

  • 432
    Patrick Enders
    Posted November 13, 2008 at 6:39 pm | Permalink

    The Secretary of State Project was a direct response to the actions of Katherine Harris in 2000, as well as some concerns about Ohio.

  • 433
    Peter Millin
    Posted November 14, 2008 at 8:15 am | Permalink

    Meet Al Franken

    Al Franken’s campaign hit a new low when they tried to argue that they should get all of the personal information connected to rejected absentee ballots in order for them to determine the legitimacy of the rejection. They spun a sad tale of a Bemidji woman whose ballot got rejected because her signature had changed — due to a stroke. This touching tale had everything to pull on the heartstrings … except the truth

    http://www.bemidjipioneer.com/articles/index.cfm?id=19522&section=News

  • 434
    Jerry Friedman
    Posted November 14, 2008 at 10:14 am | Permalink

    Peter: Good article, albeit your summary left out some balance. This comment is key, but omitted in your statement. Sometimes people err, and they dutifully correct the mistake:

    “We are still investigating,” Franken spokesman Andy Barr said Thursday night, adding that while the woman’s absentee ballot was rejected it was not because of her shaky signature as he reported a few hours earlier.

    And how could you miss this jewel?

    And a state administrative law judge Thursday dismissed a Coleman lawsuit over a Franken commercial claiming that a watchdog group listed Coleman as one of the four most corrupt U.S. senators. The judge ruled that the group listed just four senators on its corrupt list, so Coleman would be considered one of its four most corrupt.

    I favor more election oversight. If Franken’s camp helps ensure that elections are honest, I will be the very last person to complain.

  • 435
    Peter Millin
    Posted November 14, 2008 at 11:26 am | Permalink

    Jerry,

    In typical lawyer fashion you deflected from the issue…..nice going…. :-)

    If I ever need one you be the first I call

  • 436
    Patrick Enders
    Posted November 28, 2008 at 5:08 am | Permalink

    For those of you interested in the finer points of the Senate recount, I highly recommend the following sites as being particularly informative:

    At FiveThirtyEight, there is insightful coverage of the recount, and how it is progressing:
    http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/search/label/minnesota
    I especially recommend the following post:
    Minnesota Challenged Ballot Primer http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/minnesota-challenged-ballot-primer.html

    At Star Tribune’s ‘Ballot Challenge’, you can view individual challenged ballots, and personally decide how you think each challenged ballot should be counted:
    http://senaterecount.startribune.com/
    (Don’t forget to reread the rules for determining voter intent, and do be sure to click on the links to view the entire ballot - as, according to the rules, you sometimes need to compare the mark on the Senate section with the kinds of marks that the voter used elsewhere on the ballot.)

  • 437
    Peter Millin
    Posted December 1, 2008 at 11:19 am | Permalink

    Most experts agree that the only way Franken can win is by going to court.
    Looks like he took a page out of Gore’s book.

    http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/senate/35263049.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUnciaec8O7EyUsr

    Priceless !!!!

    I am still hoping Al can pull it off, because that would bring the senate closer to a filibuster proof Democratic majority.
    Which means that the whining about “We can’t get anything done because of the senate” has to stop. It will also establish clear responsibility and accountability for all decisions made as long as the total majority lasts.

    Time to get out the popcorn….this will be better then watching “As the world turns”.

  • 438
    Bright Spencer
    Posted December 1, 2008 at 12:27 pm | Permalink

    Peter, I am afraid you will be waiting along time because the accountable persons and parties will still spin and twist and the press will be hiding, slicing, dicing the truth until it looks like grandma’s mince meat pie.

    I’ll be happy to be wrong on this one.

    The only things that are gonna change are we might end the war in Iraq, which I still maintain was and is the best way to route out terrorist, due to the more educated population and favorable landscape over the mountainous and treacherous lands and seasoned warriors of Afghanstan, (if you had to fight a war anywhere, and once you started, you better end it well). So, you’d end the war, which is set to end sometime anyway, and the second thing that might change is the end of Guantanamo Bay, which is nearing the end anyway with only 80 prisoners left so far and some awaiting trial with actual evidence against them. That is happening, too. SO, so far, Obama looks a lot like Bush to me, and the press is saying nothing…even when Biden referred to Obama as Mr. President today, he was not called on it. Come on, Dems, wait your turn!
    Come on, Press, act like an American institution with a drive and determination to print the truth.

  • 439
    Peter Millin
    Posted December 2, 2008 at 11:12 am | Permalink

    Bright,

    What is even more pretentious is Obamas sign that says ” The office of the president elect”..huh ????

    I didn’t realize that there is such a thing. As always with Dems….symbolics over substance.

  • 440
    Bright Spencer
    Posted December 2, 2008 at 12:51 pm | Permalink

    Peter, regarding creation of the new “office”, we must keep in mind that America is a country just beginning to bloom. We are inexperienced children making things up as we go. That is where both our beauty and our blunders lie.

    So, no office last year?, there’s one now and even if it’s no more than a few chairs with blanket over it, it’s our newest creation! America lives for anything new.

    John Baer, former White House communications man, 1995-97 said yesterday on C-SPAN, what we see in the American news resports about what is happening on Capital Hill is one “pin prick” of what is really going on behind the scenes. And much less than what our European counterparts see and hear.

    I can imagine with all the diversified views of the Obama appointees, there might be a lot more haggling going on than actual progress toward the “there” that we were promised during the campaign.

  • 441
    Peter Millin
    Posted December 2, 2008 at 1:51 pm | Permalink

    http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/franken-may-seek-senates-help-to-win-race-2008-12-01.html

    Who is trying to steal the election now, with a little help from Reid and Pelosi??

  • 442
    Peter Millin
    Posted December 2, 2008 at 1:53 pm | Permalink

    Bright,

    While you might be correct it still speaks to Obama’s character. It’s not about change its about his glory and history.

  • 443
    Bright Spencer
    Posted December 2, 2008 at 3:27 pm | Permalink

    Peter, in #442 you made an interesting comment. Could you expound upon that?
    Did you mean his personal history?

  • 444
    Bright Spencer
    Posted December 2, 2008 at 3:32 pm | Permalink

    I don’t know why the absentee ballots were excluded in the first place, ref 441.

  • 445
    Peter Millin
    Posted December 2, 2008 at 4:11 pm | Permalink

    443

    Obama for better or for worse will make history as the first black POTUS, regardless if he does well or not.

    Currently that fact has gone to his head a bit. How else would you explain his own POTUS elect office and logo. Seems a bit to grandiose for my taste.

    • Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] Show All

Post a Comment

Your email is never published. Locally Grown will only use it to contact you for our purposes (it will not be used for bulk mailings). Required fields are marked *

*
*

Subscribe without commenting