Super (stupid?) Tuesday aftermath

[Amethyst Hunter]

I'm still rather undecided at this point, but after recent weeks' reading and observation, I think that a Clinton/Obama ticket would be the best bet. I personally lean towards Obama because I like him (he's smart and has his shit together, and isn't jaded enough to have been a career politician), but several folks I know have made compelling cases for having Clinton as well, and aside from a few beefs I have with some of her thoughts, she generally fits my mold as well. Pragmatism and experience combined with idealism and fresh energy, you get the best of both worlds there.

I DO NOT WANT a Republican. Period. I won't even consider them, because hey - look what having them in the past decade, past several decades, has gotten us: war, ideology masquerading as morality, abuse of religion, poverty, rollback of human rights (especially women's)... The entire Republican party is shot to hell with corruption of the very worst sort that's been going on for decades. The Dems may have their own problems, but at least as a general rule they acknowledge there's something seriously wrong and some of them genuinely are trying to fix that.

McCain's recent surge terrifies me, for reasons not the least of which is that rumors of his jumping into bed with the Religious Reich in order to score are flying fast and hard, and Huckabee's is the top name being bandied as possible vice-prez should (God forbid) McCain get in. And with McCain's health iffy (a very plausible scenario IMO), even more horrifying would be the possibility of Suckwitbee getting to the top. If that were to happen we can pretty much kiss our asses goodbye:

Suckwit is a *huge* proponent of dominionism (look it up and be afraid, be VERY afraid), doesn't believe in evolution or scientifically sound evidence versus ideological unproven belief, helped free a convicted rapist/murderer, and wants to eliminate all birth control and abortion rights (say what you will about the latter, but don't you DARE fuck with my BC). And (as if all that wasn't horrifying enough), need I remind you that we have an awful lot of Big Red Buttons lying around, and Suckwit is firmly in the camp of apocalyptic dominionism that thinks we have to literally destroy the world in order to 'save' it?

So yeah. If we're to have any hope whatsoever of salvaging this country I think Clinton and Obama are likely our best bets, regardless of who takes the top crown.

[AFPheonix]

I do really like Clinton, but I don't think she should get the nomination. The right hates her so bad they'll come out in droves just to make sure she doesn't get elected, regardless of who gets their nomination.
Personally, an Obama/Richardson or Obama/Biden ticket would be a dream team for me. Personality and charm combined with someone who's an absolute policy wonk with mileage both domestic and international would be like political masturbation for me.


I personally don't have a huge problem with Mccain. I think he's kind of had to play the game in his party to retain any credibility with them and reap any benefits, and that unfortunately means having to hob nob with idiots like Pat Robertson and his ilk. I do think that at his core he's a pragmatic and honorable man.

[Boozy]

I don't think Clinton should get the nomination either, although I would support her over Obama. Clinton is too polarizing; if the Republicans go for McCain, he'll pick up most of the swing voters instead of Hilary. And the GOP can throw things at her that they can't at Obama, like "Why did you vote for the war in Iraq and then change your mind?"

The flip side is that the Clinton/Obama platforms appear to be nearly identical, right down to the numbers. I just feel like Obama is this empty shell of a candidate - all flash and no substance. I believe he's been pressured into running too early.

Huckabee is a frightening prospect indeed. If you want a Democrat in the White House, root for him to nail down the nomination. There are many Republicans who distrust dominionists too, and they have been disappointed that their party has been catering to these nuts. A Huckabee/Obama match could possibly swing the secular Republicans into voting Democrat.

[rahmota]

Yeah thigns are getting ugly in this race. No real candidates. I was for Obama but the more he talkls the less I like him. Its like he got a hold of Clinton's campaign book and changed a few words at times and then he just looks hollywood to me. Like hes playing a role hes not quite ready for. Not to mention that the further we go along the smarmier he gets.

I'll agree the Clinton hatred of the right is so irrational and strong that you could put himmler, stalin or Hitler himself up on the republican
side and they'd vote for him just to keep her out of the white house.

I was a fan of Edwards but he apparently wasnt popular enough or a strong enough playah of the game to last.

McCain is probably my favorite republican as he has the experience, he has the guts and skills. He know what war is like so he might be a bit mre reserved about just throwing soldiers into the fire like used up pieces in a game of risk.

Huckabee just scares me. For th aforementioned reasons by others. Having him anywhere near a position of power is not a good idea.

And i just saw on the news that Romney has dropped out of the race as well. Not that mr perfect would have been a great president he at least had the looks. Made me think back to the reagon years with him. And we at least survived that (barely) so if I had to have a republican then he would have been the least unpleasant.

Thats whats really sad about american politics.People are not lookin for who the best candidate is but the least unpleasant one in manny ways.

[Greenday]

Well, all of the Republicans are completely against abortion and stem cell research, health care can kiss their asses, and they don't know a thing about education. None of them will get my vote.

Obama and Clinton are pretty much the same on every issue. Obama places a special emphasis on math and sciences for education, which is good for me as a chem major. Clinton is a pretty smart individual and is level-headed. Obama isn't an old geezer and as such, will at least aim high for the things he wants and will try to get them done.

Net result: Go Edwards!

[rahmota]

Net result: Go Edwards!

Yeah too bad he dropped out. Or did he decide to jump back into the ring? I swear all you hear about on the news is obama clinton clinton obama. Its almost getting to the point where it sounds like their the only ones really running.

[Greenday]

Yeah too bad he dropped out. Or did he decide to jump back into the ring? I swear all you hear about on the news is obama clinton clinton obama. Its almost getting to the point where it sounds like their the only ones really running.

Who gives a crap about some white guy running for president? It wouldn't be the first time a white guy won.

[Amethyst Hunter]

McCain is probably my favorite republican as he has the experience, he has the guts and skills. He know what war is like so he might be a bit mre reserved about just throwing soldiers into the fire like used up pieces in a game of risk.

And i just saw on the news that Romney has dropped out of the race as well. Not that mr perfect would have been a great president he at least had the looks.

I don't trust McCain. I lost all respect I ever had for him (which wasn't much to begin with) when he made that crack about bombing Iran at a fundraiser some time ago. Who's to say that he wouldn't do it if he had the power to, regardless if it was merited or not? No thank you, we've fucked up the Middle East quite enough.

I also don't think McCain has a spine worth speaking of, given that he's caved to the Shrubictator so often on many things, even after those assholes smeared him shamelessly in the 2000 elections. I don't think he's nearly the honorable and trustworthy type he makes himself out to be.

Romney reminds me of a used-car snake-oil salesman. I didn't think he'd get terribly far. There was that, and the plain 'ol fact that if you're anything other than "Xtian" America won't vote for you, period. Sucks, but that's the way it currently stands. Hell, I'd vote for a gay black transgendered multipierced atheist if I thought they could do the job worth a damn...

[AFPheonix]

Hell, I'd vote for a gay black transgendered multipierced atheist if I thought they could do the job worth a damn...

Pretty much. I don't really care if a candidate has boobs or a handle, what color he/she is or whether they like it in the pooper, as long as they're useful, who cares?

[Amethyst Hunter]

as long as they're useful, who cares?

And that they don't sink us into economic chaos or get us all killed - which I firmly believe Huckabee WOULD do, and worse, he'd do it with a sick sort of glee, if he was allowed anywhere near any semblance of power.

[Rapscallion]

I don't really care if a candidate has boobs or a handle,

Can I vote with boobs, please? Just on general principles.

Rapscallion

[Seshat]

I'm just pleased you've got a black candidate and - what, two female candidates?

(I'd almost like to see one of the female candidates get it, just to watch your press try to decide what to call her husband. First Lord?)

Anyway: congratulations on getting that far. Even just having them seriously in the running should be a matter of pride.

[Amethyst Hunter]

Anyway: congratulations on getting that far. Even just having them seriously in the running should be a matter of pride.

And it only took us what, over 200 years to get to that point? Sheesh, other countries supposedly less 'advanced' than we purport to be have had female/black/other leaders long before... :cool: I blame our stupid Puritan Protestant streak.

Although we have had one or two women run for President in the past...I think Geraldine Ferraro ran once in the 1980s...it's just that no one has gotten this far enough to be considered a serious contender.

On the one hand, I can kind of see why it's such a big deal (and I agree; watching the media stumble all over themselves trying to figure out if they should call the guy the 'First Husband' or something else would be highly amusing). On the other hand, it shouldn't matter whether the candidate is male or female or black or white or whatever. But, this is how the current climate stands, so we have to work with what we've got. :/

[Greenday]

Pretty much. I don't really care if a candidate has boobs or a handle, what color he/she is or whether they like it in the pooper, as long as they're useful, who cares?

Unfortunately, not every has at least an average IQ like you. There are a lot of people who will vote, or not vote, for someone because of their race/sex.

[protege]

It's not helped by the media making such a big deal over it. We have CNBC on all day at work--yes, I know it sucks--but the coverage is *heavily* tilted towards Clinton and Obama. They did the same thing over Tiger Woods and Danica Patrick...and now you don't hear those names as often :rolleyes:

Anyway, I don't have any respect for Hillary. I think she's still tainted from her husband's various "Zippergate" scandals. Also, I think she's rather stuffy. As for Obama, I don't think he has enough experience.

[AFPheonix]

Clinton was a one term governor before he ran for president.
Lincoln was a freshman Senator before he threw his hat into the ring.

Mileage is important, but so is just overall common sense and ability to delegate well and to appropriate people.

Raps, how do you vote with boobs? I'd have a hard time getting mine to hold a pencil to mark in my choices ;)
(yay mail in ballots)

[Greenday]

Anyway, I don't have any respect for Hillary. I think she's still tainted from her husband's various "Zippergate" scandals. Also, I think she's rather stuffy. As for Obama, I don't think he has enough experience.

Just a couple musings:

I've just been dieing to ask this question and now I'm finally going to ask it. How does Bill Clinton having sex in the oval office make him a bad president? That's a personal issue, not a national issue. He still kicked ass as a president. One of the best we've had in a long time. And how does that affect Hillary's ability to run the country?

As for Obama not having experience, Bush had plenty of experience and still managed to suck. A lot of other politicians suck despite being politicians for God knows how many years. At this point, not having tons of experience could be a good thing.

[AFPheonix]

Bush had no experience at all. He was a 1 term Governor, a draft dodger, and ran a company that his father gave him into the ground.
He's a ne'erdowell Of the highest magnitude.

Clinton's sexual stuff in the White House didn't even come close to a lot of other president's misdeeds. LDR got busy a lot, Johnson was all over the place. JFK was legendary in his conquests.
The difference this time around was 24 hour media who like to obsess about stupid shit. It didn't help that we were having a period of peace and prosperity, either, so there really wasn't anything else to talk about.

[Rapscallion]

Raps, how do you vote with boobs?

For, young lady. I'd vote for.

Rapscallion

[Greenday]

For, young lady. I'd vote for.

Rapscallion

Boobs ftw!

[protege]

I've just been dieing to ask this question and now I'm finally going to ask it. How does Bill Clinton having sex in the oval office make him a bad president?

Uh, where did I say he was a bad president? What I was hinting at, is some people might not vote for her simply because she tolerated her husband's misdeeds.

[AFPheonix]

You didn't, but there are a lot of people who point to that as a reason to why he was apparently a bad president, although I'd consider him to be the best one we've had in probably 30 years or more.
Some of that is he lucked out and got to preside over a period of peace and prosperity, but he didn't fuck it up, either.

[protege]

The only things I can really fault him for...was the Balanced Budget Act and not going after bin Laden after our African embassies were blown up. The BBA, in theory wasn't a bad idea. However, it did cause some hospitals to run into problems--many of them got government subsidies, and once those were discontinued, they suddenly found themselves in the red, and having to cut costs from 1998-99.

As for bin Laden, he should have been hunted down after the embassies were destroyed. IIRC, bin Laden got upset over the US sending troops into Somalia to help stop the violence...and retaliated by sending truck bombs to the embassies. Maybe it would have prevented 9/11, maybe it wouldn't.

[AFPheonix]

I'm sure he was stuck between a rock and a hard place. He probably would have been trashed all over the place by Gingrich and his crew for going after a perceived non-existent threat if he had. He was already getting accused of wagging the dog going after terrorist targets in Sudan and Afghanistan while Star and his scum were twittering over fingering in the Oval Office :rolleyes:


Why is it that the people who say that they're all for protecting family values and conservative principles are the ones who savor and obsess over the most salacious acts? Honestly, discussing cum stains on a dress in fucking Congress? It still makes me angry.

[Amethyst Hunter]

Why is it that the people who say that they're all for protecting family values and conservative principles are the ones who savor and obsess over the most salacious acts?

Do a search sometime and see just how many self-professed "Christian conservatives" (and I use those terms VERY loosely) have been busted for offenses including:

- pedophilia
- adultery
- divorce (some multiple times)
- drunken driving
- animal abuse
- financial fraud

Then do a search and see how many "godless liberals" were busted for the same things.

The results are VERY enlightening.

Family values, my fat fucking ass. *spits* :mad:

[Greenday]

Family values, my fat fucking ass. *spits* :mad:

They've been using lines like that for over 150 years now. No reason for them to stop telling lies now.

And Protege, I didn't mean for it to sound like you were saying he was a bad president, it's just a lot of people do and I figured this was a decent place to ask, especially since his incident was brought up.

[Seshat]

How does Bill Clinton having sex in the oval office make him a bad president?

It's not that he had sex, it's that he either outright lied or dodged the question. "I did not have sex with that woman" is the quote I kept hearing during that media circus. Honesty and integrity are desirable values.

That said, whether Clinton did or did not have consensual sex with an adult who was quite capable of saying no is a trivial thing to lie about. I'm very slightly miffed about a lie of that scale, and considering the conservative attitudes of large parts of his populace, it's an understandable lie/dodging of the truth.

By comparison, the now-so-tangled-you-can't-sort-it-out untruths, outright lies, dodging of truths, spinning of truths around 9/11, Bin Laden, and Hussein vastly, vastly overshadow Clinton's 'misbehaviour'. At least to me.

[AFPheonix]

I'm still trying to figure out why getting a blow job would ever even come up in a congressional hearing under oath. That whole thing was an absolute witch hunt.

[protege]

And Protege, I didn't mean for it to sound like you were saying he was a bad president, it's just a lot of people do and I figured this was a decent place to ask, especially since his incident was brought up.

Eh, it's all good. Sometimes, things don't carry well in print :)

He was already getting accused of wagging the dog going after terrorist targets in Sudan and Afghanistan while Star and his scum were twittering over fingering in the Oval Office

I still find it amusing that Wag the Dog came out right about that time. But seriously, I think the reason people went after Clinton over his misdeeds...was because it wasn't the first time, and he'd lied under oath about it. But, what's odd about that entire thing, was that Lewinsky saved a stained dress. Now why would she do that?

And before we say Bush lied, consider this--Saddam was being shifty about any weapons he may or may not have had. I don't know about you, but many times, people with something to hide act like that. With that said, Bush probably thought he had WMDs, and acted accordingly. However, we can't blame him alone for that--Congress had to give him the authority for the war...so if they didn't check the facts, some of the blame rests there too.

As for 9/11, IIRC, there were reports that "something big" was going to happen as early as the late 1990s. However, those rumors were largely quashed since they were thought "impossible." America simply got blinded by our own complacency...just like in 1941.

[AFPheonix]

If I recall correctly, he was letting the inspectors go in everywhere. Bush did not let the inspectors finish. He decided to go off bad data from M1 instead. I guess it was sexier than doing things right the first time.

As for Clinton and his affairs, well, lots of presidents had multiple misdeeds. I think it was just enough of an opportunity for right wing nuts to seize on it and try and bring him down.

[Greenday]

Ok, wtf is up with Huckabee wanting to base everything the government does on God's word? Church and State stays seperate damnit. Down with Huckabee!

[Saydrah]

I wonder what God's word says about covering up your nephew's animal abuse charges, Governor Huckabee?

[AFPheonix]

Wasn't it his son who had the problem with hanging dogs?

[Melxb]

I voted in Super Tuesday and I'm proud to say that the candidate I voted for won my state--Hillary Clinton.

I just honestly don't trust Barrack Obama. There's something too slick about him for my taste. From the moment he threw his hat into the ring last year I tried to figure out what was behind him, what was in his head---sadly I found nothing. I appreciate the big influence he's had on people to come out and vote, but I still find him lacking.

In most issues, both he and Clinton are identical in their stance. I have this niggling feeling that Obama is hiding large parts of his past. Like most politicians, he has made his personal income tax statements available, but is adamant in not releasing any tax information of any LLC, law partnership, business, investment ventures, or non-profits for which he held significant fiduciary responsibility. He has said that it's "not relevant." In the next breath he attacks Clinton for being on the board of Walmart, her Rose Water Law Firm associations, and for her early non-profit work and how she financially profitted from it (she didn't. She never did).

I'm not here to change anyone's mind about voting for Clinton or Obama, but I'm tired of his rhetoric. I'm tired of the word "change." I'm tired of him.

I tell people to not listen to the candidates, but READ about them. I want people to read about Obama's history and find the gaps. I want people to see that he and Hillary have identical ideas, but Clinton has a long history of getting things done. I want people to educate themselves instead of just going to rally's and listening to the guy with the cool lights & music.

[Boozy]

I just honestly don't trust Barrack Obama.

Me neither.

I can't help but think he's the George W. Bush of the Democrats. Image over substance. His buzzword is "hope" whereas Dubya's was "terrorism", but neither have much experience or knowledge.

Its hard for me to say, because I agree with many of Obama's policies and despise those of Bush.

[Saydrah]

Everyone who says there's no information out there on the substance behind Obama's charisma/ what's in his head HAS read the TWO books he published (one of which, "The Politics of Hope," has been described as a presidential manifesto) and his Blueprint for Change (I think 210 pages?) available free from Barack Obama dot com, right?

I mean, since you tried so HARD to figure out what's behind him, I'm sure you would have read those readily available materials....

Give me the choice between a political novice with 25 years of LIFE experience creating change, who did a job (community organizer) for $13,000 a year that I lasted only three months at when I tried it- he only left because he was accepted to Harvard Law School- and an experienced wheeler and dealer who uses race, gender, and tears unabashedly to garner support, and I'll take the novice, no matter how much Hillary cries on TV and touts her experience.

To be honest, I think she'd be a fine president. But she's simply unlikeable. She would bring the conservatives out of the woodwork to oppose her in droves, where Barack Obama would bring independents and moderates out to SUPPORT him in droves.

[Melxb]

Everyone who says there's no information out there on the substance behind Obama's charisma/ what's in his head HAS read the TWO books he published (one of which, "The Politics of Hope," has been described as a presidential manifesto) and his Blueprint for Change (I think 210 pages?) available free from Barack Obama dot com, right?

I mean, since you tried so HARD to figure out what's behind him, I'm sure you would have read those readily available materials....

I really hope you weren't trying to be insulting, but I think you were. I have read the Blueprint for Change. I have not read his books, but I don't wish to. I will not change my mind that there are huge gaps of his life that we don't know about. Oh, you know, like his financial history and the history he has with Rezko.

I have stated before and I will state again, I am not trying to change anyone's mind. I have hit a sore point with you, and I'm glad I did. Fine. I welcome you to vote for him and I am glad that you will be.

I still don't trust him. Period.

[Saydrah]

It just never ceases to amuse me that the major criticisms offered of his "lack of substance" come consistently from people who haven't made much effort to get to know him as a candidate.

Personally, I don't look for trust in a candidate. I look for trust in a friendship. I look for suitability for public office and agreement with my ideals in a candidate. We already had the "Guy I'd like to have coffee with" president in Bush. Obama- he'd probably drive you nuts with idealism as a friend, but as President, he could get things done.

The "too smooth" criticism annoys me too- so you criticize a candidate for being too GOOD at public speaking? Thank God we have a candidate who can speak in front of a crowd- after Bush's malapropisms and inability to deliver coherent speeches, we so desperately need a skilled speaker to restore our image in the world.

However, the fact is, all the criticism I hear of Obama from Democrats is ad hominem, not about the issues. The Republicans do criticize both candidates on the issues (and lob just as many ad hominems at Hillary) but Democrats seem only able to object to Obama on a personal, rather than political, level.

[Melxb]

I'm happy I amuse you. Really, go ahead and laugh. I am very comfortable in the political choices I've made. :D

You don't look for trust in a candidate, but you like that he's a good speaker? Um, ok.

Politics is, at the end of the day, all about gut feeling. Aside from the rhetoric and speeches public appearances, it's all about who you essentially trust to do a good job representing and running your country. I.DON'T.TRUST.HIM. This is something you will not get me to do unless something drastic happens with him and his campaign.

Like I said, I don't want to change your mind. I cannot change your mind and you cannot change my mind. ;)

[Saydrah]

Yeah, but this is Fratching. We're here to argue, right? :D So I'm arguing.

[Melxb]

I know, I know. :D I think I just get politically too heated. Politics is waaaaay personal for me and I hardly ever talk about it. I keep it all bottled up inside. I do vote every chance I get. I even vote for the little School District Board elections and Water Board Elections and local bonds.

I really hope we do agree on one thing though---we really need a Democratic in office, desperately. It pains me to see what the current president has done with our country. It really, really pains me.

[Saydrah]

Well then we agree on two things! I love voting, too. The whole process excites me, even little elections.

Does your state have the caucus system? Mine does, and I love it. It's a total party with a bunch of Democrats talking about issues, getting rowdy, selecting delegates, introducing resolutions... so much better than just elections, but I love those too.

And yes, we DESPERATELY need a Democrat, and I will happily support whichever one is nominated; I just wholeheartedly stand behind Barack Obama and believe he will be President of the United States. I would support Hillary happily as well, as I actually do agree with her on most things- it just bothers me that she is such a divisive figure and really unites people against her.

[Melxb]

No, I'm in California. We don't have caucuses, but I am curious about them. They sound neat.

I'll vote for Obama, should he get the ticket. Right now, it's a war of attrition between Clinton and Obama. This won't be decided until the Democratic convention. I can't wait until then!

I would love to see a Clinton/Obama ticket, but I don't think that will happen. I think both candidates have too much ego to play Vice-President to the other. :rolleyes:

[Saydrah]

MUHAHAHA The DNC is in my state, I get to go! I'm so excited. I wanted to be a delegate, but I can't because I don't live in the same precinct I vote in (I plan on moving again frequently so I'm not changing addresses officially until I settle down- so I just use the parents' address for voting, mail, etc).

[Melxb]

I am officially jelous! I love being part of the political process. I was at Hollywood & Highland for the Democratic debate before Super Tuesday. It was really fun! I was campaigning for Clinton and I was happy to do so.:p

[Saydrah]

So it was YOU in the audience waving that Hillary sign :mad:

LOL, I watched the debate and live blogged about it. We were all joking about what Hillary must be writing on the notepad she kept turning to while she wasn't talking- we decided she was writing her grocery list and seeing how "Mrs. Hillary Obama" would look as a signature :P

(That last being based off the moment in the beginning where they shook hands and Barack is leaning down to make eye contact, being so much taller, and it looked for a second on TV like he was going to kiss her on the cheek)

[Melxb]

That was me waiving the Hillary signs!:D

Seriously, it was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to be there. I was in the rotunda waiving signs and chanting "Hill-A-Ry!!!" It was awesome. It was great to see so many people there for both Clinton, Obama and all the other candidates. I got into a really great conversation with the guy holding the lone Ron Paul sign. It was interesting.

I had one funny exchange with an Obama supporter that really made me roll my eyes. I realize that this one guy DOES NOT represent the majority of intelligent, well-spoken Obama supporters. This guy? An idiot. I was standing behind him when the Obama supporters did their "Fire it up! Ready to go!" chant. It was cool. It was loud. As a Clinton supporter we just chanted them over it with "Fire it up! Hill-A-Ry!" Their "ready to go" part was drowned out. Eh, it was a political rally. After a few times doing this, the Obama-supporter guy laughed at me, "Hey, you guys don't even have a chant! How can you guys come out here without a chant??" Even his fellow supporters/buddies gave him dirty looks. I just kind looked at him, "We're here at a political debate and you're mocking at us because we don't have a chant?? This isn't about a chant! Just vote ok?" I think I was literally the first person that day to talk back to him. For the most part everyone was passionate for their candidate. This guy just didn't get it.

[Saydrah]

What a jerk! Half of political rallies is silly stuff like chants and signs- but when I went to my caucus, despite my waving a huge "YES WE CAN" sign with Obama's picture plastered all over it, I had several intelligent conversations with Hillary supporters and undecideds.

When it gets to the general election, we can mock the opposing candidate's supporters to our respective hearts' content, but in the primaries? We're all Democrats, mmmmkay? Remember that whole "same party" thing?

Though my caucus was quite amusing- it was 27 to 8 in favor of Obama in my precinct, with ONE undecided voter. So the 27 Obama supporters and 8 Hillary supporters were trying to woo the single undecided, who ended up over on the Obama side. She looked very overwhelmed.

[Boozy]

After a few times doing this, the Obama-supporter guy laughed at me, "Hey, you guys don't even have a chant! How can you guys come out here without a chant??"

Obama doesn't have a support-base so much as a fan-base. :rolleyes:

[Saydrah]

Obama has an incredible support base. However, like all popular candidates, he also has idiots who support him. You think JFK didn't have morons voting for him?