Eh?
? Actually it was his “fault”. He had his four opponents stricken from the ballot. Nothing like organizing voter registration and then not giving them a choice. Had Palin done this she would be a manipulative right-wing witch. Whereas Obama is just being shrewd.
So you’re wrong. He was opposed.
And if the Florida and Michigan delegates aren’t seated, the Obama backlash will ruin his chances in the general election!
(what, I’m not allowed to go back in time, too?)
He had nobody stricken from the ticket.
Actually, George Washington held appointed offices from the age of sixteen, and first was elected to the House of Burgesses in his mid-twenties. His whole life was political.
And while for most posters I would just point out a mistake, for you I will note that you tend to post first and check facts later. It is a particularly longstanding bad habit of yours.
Well, yes, if we brush aside his involvement in things military.
No thanks. I’m sure you’re capable of stumbling over the truth if you feel like being honest.
More to the point, I’m going to ask again, why are we still arguing about this? Palin lost. The point is now moot.
What do you mean by this?
What the fuck is the House of Burgess?
So you’re saying he was never elected to jack shit except whatever the “House of Burgess” is. I stand corrected. He had apparently been elected to somebody’s house one time…
:::Googling:::
Ok, the wiki says the House of Burgess was a lower house in the Virginia colonial legislative assembly – basically he was the equivalent of a state representative, execpt with less responsibility and power. So Washington had fewer political qualifications than either Obama or Palin. Still, I said his political experience was nothing when it was actually next to nothing. A very important and and devastating distinction. I thank you for the correction.
They wore funny-looking clothes too.
At least the googling made you look marginally less foolish.
Well done avoiding the issue. Why bother with facts or actual cites when you can just insult someone and avoid the real issue alltogether. Obama had an undistinguished career as a Illinois State Senator. For someone who ran on the mantra of change etc. he didn’t even attempt any such thing in the Illinois legislator.
We’re not debating the merits of Palin v. Obama per se but more the interpretation of his political career versus hers. So no, it’s not moot.
Usually I’m on your side, but I find it hard to believe that anyone who has any knowledge of colonial history doesn’t know what the Virginia House of Burgesses was. Half of the major moments of the pre-Revolutionary period that didn’t happen in Boston or Philadelphia happened in the HoB. “Give me liberty or give me death!” “If this be treason, make the most of it!”
No, instead he used Daley’s petition busters to have the petitions of four of his potential opponents deemed invalid so that they could no appear on the ticket.
Again, that really meshs well with his voter registration drive. Register to vote except not when I’m involved as we wouldn’t want to burden you with choice.
I’m not surprised that he did it nor do I begrudge him for it. However, it Palin did something similar she would be judged a lot more harshly then you appear to be willing to judge Obama.
You said Washington’s whole life was political.
That since he was appointed Major Washington at the age of 20, up till the time he became President, his primary importance was as a military person, not a political operative. Indeed, his status as a prosperous landownder virtually guaranteed him some political involvement, but the case could be made that between the French and Indian Wars and the Revolution, his primary interest was his planation and other holdings.
Heck, just do a search for posts by Shayna anytime before the 2008 presidential election, and you’ll find plenty of information about this.
For example, post #42 in this thread:
And if you’re feeling adventurous:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4578207
<< Insert disclaimer about lefty site and shielding protocols here >>
:: pays royalty fees to elucidator ::
He didn’t “use” anything. He challenged the petitions because they didn’t have enough signatures. They, in fact, did NOT have enough signatures. They, in fact, were NOT valid. There was no “machine” in play, no “petetion busting,” just the stark fact (a fact beyond Obama’s control), that no would-be opponent was able to get enough signatures to be on the ballot. Obama did not “have them stricken.” They just never met the requirements to be on it.
Do you contend that any of those people actually did get the requisite number of signatures and that Obama or “Daley’s petition busters” or anyone else did anything to alter the petitions?
Is it your contention that they should have been allowed to stay on the ballot without the requisite number of petitions? You’re saying that Obama “had” the petitions “deemed invalid.” Is it your position that they were NOT invalid? What exactly are you alleging that Obama did that was unethical, underhanded, illegal or even especially political?
Who did he try to stop from registering to vote? What are you talking about?
What exactly are you alleging that he did?
Oh, come now, Dio, we really can’t get away with pretending not to recognize the ruthless power of the ACORN-Soros Axis.
There’s a Sarah Palin joke in there somewhere. Did the House of Burgesses pen the Pledge of Allegiance?
There’s also a people-in-big-cities-are-smarter joke in there somewhere too.
I havn’t studied that much colonial history. I was always more interested in ancient and medieval history. I read Johnny Tremain in 8th grade. Does that count for anything. I also watched that John Adams thing on HBO.