Obama Vs. Clinton. Greaves Vs. The world. And then there's John Mcain.

[Morpheus]

[quote name='Godot']saying "I think the republicans are right and thats my view", is quite a bit different than saying "GOD DAMN AMERICA!, ITS IN THE BIBLE...!", i agree that it would be childish to disassociate yourself from someone because of certain opinions like "i think government should be reduced and that we should have the individual do more", however when people say things like GOD DAMN AMERICA! ITS IN THE BIBLE! its different

what would you do if you went to a church like that? would you stay even after hearing retoric like that? please tell me

if you answer is that you would leave, well why? i think your answer will explain why so many people are concerned over obama's association with wright[/QUOTE]
No I would not leave, because I can see where he's coming from and I respect his opinion. I could vehemently disagree with what he is saying, but I'd see no reason to not go if the man was my friend and I enjoyed hearing him speak.

You're really going to have to come up with something better than "This guy he is friends with said something I don't like."

My first question to someone that said some of the things that Wright has said would be "Could you explain these quotes to me?", not completely shun the man for having opinions.

[Raiha]

[quote name='Morpheus']My first question to someone that said some of the things that Wright has said would be "Could you explain these quotes to me?", not completely shun the man for having opinions.[/QUOTE]

[COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]See, it's all well and good to have opinions, but when they're blatantly anti-America, anti-white, anti-anybody who has ever earned money in their lifetime through honest work, it's really REALLY hard to cough up any sort of ability to like him.

Let's see, among his more interesting "opinions":

*White people created the AIDS virus to kill black people.

We'll just overlook the millions people of all colors that AIDS has killed.

*If you're white, you hate black people.

So he's racist against white people because clearly all white people are racist. That's so sweet.

Sure, it's just a great big laugh. That whacky Reverend Wright! He says the darndest things. As I recall Obama tried to call him the "crazy uncle" but that implies that he can't get rid of him. I mean you can pick your friends, but not your uncles. Too bad for Obama. Perhaps he should've picked better. But now he's got the Reverend Otis Moss. Who has upgraded from "God Damn America" to "God F--- America."

What an improvement.[/FONT][/COLOR]

[Sabrina]

[FONT="Tahoma"][quote name='Morpheus]You mean he knows this guy that has strong opinions, and somehow that reflects on [I]him[/I]?[/QUOTE]Since when did people form an opinion and ignore what's being said by others? Lets do away with the media! Opinions aren't needed! *gasp*[QUOTE=Morpheus]Anyone basing their vote on anything Reverend Wright has said must not be able to actually think for themselves, because that is what they would be assuming about obama.[/QUOTE]Anyone thinking that other opinions don't factor in must not be able to actually think for themselves, because taking it into account and deciding if it should matter or not is part of getting to the core of what someone is about.[QUOTE=Morpheus]Any support for this? Especially the last part.[/QUOTE]Since when did forming an opinion require support? You make no sense, opinions are just that opinions and not fact and therefore do not require support when they are not being presented as facts.[QUOTE=Morpheus]No. No. A million times NO. I have many conservative friends, does that make me conservative in the slightest? Of course not[/QUOTE]It does make you someone who is friends with conservatives... and anyone who doesn't know you personally is going to look at those you associate with to form an initial impression as to what you [I]might[/I] be like. [QUOTE=Morpheus]Not trying to hate, but would Obama saying "Middle Class Americans" somewhere in a speech make your vote a deadlock?[/QUOTE]You're arguing semantics instead of the sentiment behind what the post was saying, saying the term doesn't equal a solid opinion in that direction. [QUOTE=Morpheus]Disassociating yourself from an individual just because you don't have the same political opinions or that person makes statements that you don't agree with is rather childish.[/QUOTE]No, it's one's right to not associate with someone, whatever the reason may be.[QUOTE=Morpheus]People debate in a politics thread. This isn't a new thing.[/QUOTE]No, you're nitpicking and arguing under the guise of claiming that you're debating, commonly known as [I]trolling[/I] I believe.[QUOTE=Morpheus']You're really going to have to come up with something better than "This guy he is friends with said something I don't like." [/quote]No they don't have to come up with a [I]better[/I] reason. I or anyone could chose to not vote for someone because of hair color. [I]Seriously. [/I] [/FONT]

[Godot]

[quote name='Morpheus']No I would not leave, because I can see where he's coming from and I respect his opinion. I could vehemently disagree with what he is saying, but I'd see no reason to not go if the man was my friend and I enjoyed hearing him speak.

You're really going to have to come up with something better than "This guy he is friends with said something I don't like."

My first question to someone that said some of the things that Wright has said would be "Could you explain these quotes to me?", not completely shun the man for having opinions.[/QUOTE]

im not completely condemning wright, i acknowledge that he has done a lot for his community and thats good, but that doesnt transcend what he says.

so your saying you would go to a church that aggresively infuses politics and religion, so your saying you would attend a church for 20 years like that? just because you see where their coming from. I see where wright is coming from, im not questioning that the african-american race (and probrably wright) had hardships, but to go to a church for 20 years with that radical retoric like that just because you see where he is coming from and you respect his opinion doesnt make sense, when you say you enjoy what you hear him say do you mean your amused by his radical and anti-american opinions? That is not means to attend a church for 20 years, in fact it makes the person who attended that church very suspect (im not saying that you believe in those views at all, im just saying).

[Morpheus]

[quote name='Sabrina'][FONT="Tahoma"]Since when did people form an opinion and ignore what's being said by others? Lets do away with the media! Opinions aren't needed! *gasp*

Anyone thinking that other opinions don't factor in must not be able to actually think for themselves, because taking it into account and deciding if it should matter or not is part of getting to the core of what someone is about.

Since when did forming an opinion require support? You make no sense, opinions are just that opinions and not fact and therefore do not require support when they are not being presented as facts.

It does make you someone who is friends with conservatives... and anyone who doesn't know you personally is going to look at those you associate with to form an initial impression as to what you [I]might[/I] be like.

You're arguing semantics instead of the sentiment behind what the post was saying, saying the term doesn't equal a solid opinion in that direction.

No, it's one's right to not associate with someone, whatever the reason may be.

No, you're nitpicking and arguing under the guise of claiming that you're debating, commonly known as [I]trolling[/I] I believe.

No they don't have to come up with a [I]better[/I] reason. I or anyone could chose to not vote for someone because of hair color. [I]Seriously. [/I] [/FONT][/QUOTE]
1. I never said that he ignored him. People are going off of the assumption that Obama believes what wright says when every other bit of evidence points to the contrary.
2. Again, assumptions that he agrees with him.
3. Opinions don't require support. Intelligent people support their opinions with facts. A baseless opinion isn't something to be proud of.
4. And then, with my entire life open to media scrutiny, they'd readjust their opinion to how I truly am.
5. it's pretty pointless to argue a point and then end it with "That other guy won't even talk about me!" Which obama does.
6. I didn't say it wasn't their right, I was just commenting on the immaturity present in someone that only associates with people they agree with and shuns others.
7. Bringing up legitimate fallacies in statements is not trolling.
8. I'm saying in the context of this debate, having a baseless opinion isn't going to get you anywhere. By all means have these opinions, but don't expect them to hold up to any form of scrutiny.

[Nerdsy]

[quote name='Sabrina'][FONT="Tahoma"] No, it's one's right to not associate with someone, whatever the reason may be. [/FONT][/QUOTE]

[color=deeppink]Whether or not it's a right has nothing to do with how childish something is.

Don't get me wrong, it's far from a childish decision. Dishonest to do so only after everybody else knows about the guy, yes. Childish, no.[/color]

[quote]You're really going to have to come up with something better than "This guy he is friends with said something I don't like." [/quote]

[color=deeppink]Here's something better: "This guy who is his [b][u]spritual leader[/b][/u] said something I don't like."

Reread Allamorph's last post. He summed it up nicely.[/color]

[Horendithas]

[COLOR="Indigo"][quote name='Morpheus']1. I never said that he ignored him. People are going off of the assumption that Obama believes what wright says when every other bit of evidence points to the contrary.
2. Again, assumptions that he agrees with him.
3. Opinions don't require support. Intelligent people support their opinions with facts. A baseless opinion isn't something to be proud of.
4. And then, with my entire life open to media scrutiny, they'd readjust their opinion to how I truly am.
5. it's pretty pointless to argue a point and then end it with "That other guy won't even talk about me!" Which obama does.
6. I didn't say it wasn't their right, I was just commenting on the immaturity present in someone that only associates with people they agree with and shuns others.
7. Bringing up legitimate fallacies in statements is not trolling.
8. I'm saying in the context of this debate, having a baseless opinion isn't going to get you anywhere. By all means have these opinions, but don't expect them to hold up to any form of scrutiny.[/QUOTE]1. People still have the right to form assumptions and whether or not you agree with the method is irrelevant.
2. Opinions do not require fact to back them and not doing so does not say anything about their intelligence or lack of.
4. Not associating with others based on political beliefs has nothing to do with maturity, it's a personal preference and some prefer to associate with people who have similar views.
5. People don't need you to point out what [I]you think[/I] is an illogical fallacy in their statements.
6. This thread is not meant to be taken as a person requires in depth statements as to [I]why[/I] they are choosing to vote a certain way.

[B]Finally: [/B] You[I] are[/I] trolling, so kindly knock it off please. I'd rather NOT close this thread when you've been around long enough to know better. [/COLOR]

[DeathKnight]

[color=crimson]I already have voted for Barack Obama twice (Texas two-step) and will vote for him in November.

The Republican Party, with John McCain, do not offer any sort of benefitive plan for an America that is experiencing a profound downturn in our status both domestically and internationally.

America does not need hawkish, aggressive foreign policy positions when, because of that mindset, thousands of lives, billions of dollars, and opportunities have been lost in Iraq and, increasingly, in Afghanistan. The Republican Party has NOT executed, by any means, any sort of a strengthening of America in the world stage or increase our nations security by their policies. How much have we spent in Iraq and the War on Terror? How is does that tie into the Republican Party's dribble about "cutting government spending"? Do ill-advised Wars fall into that? I guess not!

America does not need the hypocritical "family values" ******** of the Republican Party. Jesus Christ did not accumulate wealth, Jesus Christ did not support warfare, Jesus Christ did not forget the poor and forsaken of Israel, Jesus Christ did not preach of ostracizing and punishing, through human means, individuals who did not listen to his teachings. None of that has anything in the least to do with Christianity, but rather with the bastardized, warped form of religion that the delusional majority of Americas follow.

America does not need Republican naivety over health care or social security. America does not need another Republican round of deficit increases due to their idiotic dedication to tax cuts while continually assuring a gullible Republican voter base that, oh, trust me, we'll cut some spending here and everything will be alright.

Barack Obama is a politician, has problems with Reverend Wright in the popular media, and is an imperfect man - but [b]ideologically[/b] the Democratic Party does not have its head as far up its *** as the Republican Party does.[/color]

[Retribution]

[quote name='Drizzt Do'urden']WHO I ask you WHOhas had anything good to say about the middle class? I'm going to go with....John Mcain? Only candidate to acknowledge anyone other than just the upper and lower classes.[/QUOTE]
[font=Arial]Both Clinton and Obama have said good things about the middle class, so you might suffer from selective hearing.

That aside, Wright's comments [i]did indeed[/i] have a large degree of truth to them. I'm not saying that everything he said was right, but I am saying that I'm slightly disappointed that everyone was willing to write him off (no pun intended, ha) as crazy and anti-American.

Sure, take into account all bits of information of candidates. It makes sense. It's logical. I guess the entire mess disturbs me because Clinton is willing to say Obama can no longer bring in the white vote. Her entire pitch for the Presidency has gone from being "I can stand up to attacks" to "I have a delegate lead" to "I have the superdelegate lead" to "C'mon people, I'm white!"

I wish Obama all the best in the conclusion of the Democratic primary and (hopefully) the General Election.[/font]

[Rachmaninoff]

I intend to vote Democratic in the elections for similar reasons as explained here:[quote name='DeathKnight'][color=crimson]America does not need the hypocritical "family values" ******** of the Republican Party. Jesus Christ did not accumulate wealth, Jesus Christ did not support warfare, Jesus Christ did not forget the poor and forsaken of Israel, Jesus Christ did not preach of ostracizing and punishing, through human means, individuals who did not listen to his teachings. None of that has anything in the least to do with Christianity, but rather with the bastardized, warped form of religion that the delusional majority of Americas follow.

America does not need Republican naivety over health care or social security. America does not need another Republican round of deficit increases due to their idiotic dedication to tax cuts while continually assuring a gullible Republican voter base that, oh, trust me, we'll cut some spending here and everything will be alright.

Barack Obama is a politician, has problems with Reverend Wright in the popular media, and is an imperfect man - but [b]ideologically[/b] the Democratic Party does not have its head as far up its *** as the Republican Party does.[/color][/QUOTE]I don't have solid examples to give since I haven't followed along as closely as I could have. It's hard to feel any desire to even bother when you're in a state that just about always ends up going Republican, making you feel like your vote was wasted. I'll still show up and vote, but meh.

[SunfallE]

[COLOR="RoyalBlue"][FONT="Lucida Sans Unicode"][quote name='Drizzt Do'urden']I just want to see where everyone stands, what they like/dislike about the candidates/potential candidates. And who they've be voting for at this point.[/QUOTE]Where I really stand is wishing we had better candidates to choose from. Maybe I'm getting jaded as I get older, but I dislike all of them for different reasons [[SIZE="1"]I'm not going to get into that here[/SIZE]]

In the end I'm most likely vote Democratic for the simple reason that most of the time their political agendas better match what I want to see. I do occasionally vote for Republican leaders, but not very often.

But like Rach just said, Utah is so Republican that it makes being a Democrat a waste of time and getting into debates over why you don't go with the majority is more headache than it's worth.

So, no detailed explanation behind why I intend to vote the way I do. It's really not necessary and I'm not in here to debate, merely answer the question that was presented at the beginning of this thread.[/FONT][/COLOR]

[Shy]

[quote name='Retribution'][font=Arial]Sure, take into account all bits of information of candidates. It makes sense. It's logical. I guess the entire mess disturbs me because Clinton is willing to say Obama can no longer bring in the white vote. Her entire pitch for the Presidency has gone from being "I can stand up to attacks" to "I have a delegate lead" to "I have the superdelegate lead" to "C'mon people, I'm white!"[/font][/QUOTE][size=1]That's not correct.

The Clinton argument is that Hillary's main voting block (white middle-class voters) are probably going to be the ones who will decide the general election. Whereas Obama has won more overall votes, he has done so in states that are [i]already[/i] guaranteed Democratic states. Hillary's wins are in contested states that could very well decide the election -- this is a key difference here.

The fact of the matter is that blacks and youth vote almost exclusively liberal. While his popularity among those groups is commendable, it's not going to impact the election.

-Shy[/size]

[Morpheus]

[quote name='Shy'][size=1]The Clinton argument is that Hillary's main voting block (white middle-class voters) are probably going to be the ones who will decide the general election. Whereas Obama has won more overall votes, he has done so in states that are [i]already[/i] guaranteed Democratic states. Hillary's wins are in contested states that could very well decide the election -- this is a key difference here.[/size][/QUOTE]
The problem with saying that Hillary wins swing states is that she's winning them against Obama, not Mccain. If we go down this road at all, which we really shouldn't, it's worth pointing out that Obama won Missouri, a state that has sided with the victorious candidate in 25 of the last 26 general elections.

[Retribution]

[font=Arial]Just an interesting read: [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/10/opinion/10herbert.html][i][b]Seeds of Destruction[/b], New York Times[/i][/url][quote name='Shy'][size=1]That's not correct.

The Clinton argument is that Hillary's main voting block (white middle-class voters) are probably going to be the ones who will decide the general election. Whereas Obama has won more overall votes, he has done so in states that are [i]already[/i] guaranteed Democratic states. Hillary's wins are in contested states that could very well decide the election -- this is a key difference here.

The fact of the matter is that blacks and youth vote almost exclusively liberal. While his popularity among those groups is commendable, it's not going to impact the election.

-Shy[/size][/QUOTE]
I'm honestly not sure how you can say this in good conscience -- not only has Obama won "lily-white" states in the past, he continues to do well even without the white vote. In fact, he leads McCain in the General Election, according to the Rasmussen Report for 5/11. Simply because he's not pulling in the majority of the white vote does not bode poorly -- blacks are voting as a singular bloc for him, with the youth turning out in record numbers far in his favor. Feel free to write them off, but they're what got him this far.[/font]

[Drix D'Zanth]

[quote name='Morpheus']... it's worth pointing out that Obama won Missouri, a state that has sided with the victorious candidate in 25 of the last 26 general elections.[/QUOTE]

This is a logically bankrupt argument. [i]One[/i] state as a predictor for the president? It is more likely that Missouri is more succeptible to political swings than being the "swing" state.

Personally, I feel that whoever ends up with the Dem ticket for the General Election will likely win, given the fact that the GOP is now on damage control-- please note the relatively liberal candidate choice in McCain (compared to, say, Romney/Bush/Huckabee). I think Obama seems more electable.

[Shy]

[quote name='Retribution'][font=Arial]Just an interesting read: [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/10/opinion/10herbert.html][i][b]Seeds of Destruction[/b], New York Times[/i][/url]
I'm honestly not sure how you can say this in good conscience -- not only has Obama won "lily-white" states in the past, he continues to do well even without the white vote. In fact, he leads McCain in the General Election, according to the Rasmussen Report for 5/11. Simply because he's not pulling in the majority of the white vote does not bode poorly -- blacks are voting as a singular bloc for him, with the youth turning out in record numbers far in his favor. Feel free to write them off, but they're what got him this far.[/font][/QUOTE][size=1]How is 'Blacks are voting as a singular bloc for Obama' any better an argument than 'The whites like Hillary'? Also, I wasn't neccessarily agreeing with the Clinton argument, I was merely stating it.

Whites are the largest voting group in America and Republican candidates get elected almost exclusively by Whites. Even if every Black person in America registered and voted Democrat it would still impact only a handful of states. Candidates will need all of the Black and youth support they can get, but in most states 'record turnout' for youth and Black voters is basically anything over 10% of the population. That isn't enough to turn over the enormous White voting blocks that have dominated American politics for 200 years.

Clinton has a stronger hold of that voting bloc. To win this election Obama will need to broaden his base appeal beyond young and minority voters. Otherwise McCain will snatch up every single undecided voter who was once a Clinton supporter.

Obama's wins in southern 'lily white' states can be attributed to his popularity among African-Americans. However, in those same states the majority of voters are registered Republicans, so who cares?


-Shy[/size]

[Aaryanna]

[COLOR="DarkGreen"][FONT="Book Antiqua"][quote name='Drizzt Do'urden'] I just want to see where everyone stands, what they like/dislike about the candidates/potential candidates. And who they've be voting for at this point.[/QUOTE]I don't stand anywhere or rather I can't vote. If I could I would be choosing to vote for Obama. My understanding is limited for the simple reason that other than to casually follow things I don't purse what's going on in depth, once I can vote I'll probably start paying more attention, however right now I really don't care.

The only thing I do care about is that from what little I?ve read up on, I don?t care for the Republican Party at all. Everything I read points to a group that favors businesses and the wealthy instead everyone else.

Anyway, next time I?ll get to vote so I?ll be sure to actually pay better attention, but for now? politics just annoy me so I tend to skim and move onto something else. XP[/FONT][/COLOR]

[Retribution]

[quote name='Shy']How is 'Blacks are voting as a singular bloc for Obama' any better an argument than 'The whites like Hillary'?[/QUOTE]
[font=Arial]Honestly I see the whole "Obama can't appeal to white voters" as a farce. He won the majority of the midwest, which to my knowledge is more or less totally absent of black voters. The map can be found [url=http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/demmap/index.html][b]here[/b][/url].

[QUOTE]Whites are the largest voting group in America and Republican candidates get elected almost exclusively by Whites. Even if every Black person in America registered and voted Democrat it would still impact only a handful of states. Candidates will need all of the Black and youth support they can get, but in most states 'record turnout' for youth and Black voters is basically anything over 10% of the population. That isn't enough to turn over the enormous White voting blocks that have dominated American politics for 200 years.[/QUOTE]
I mean, to say nothing of the fact that Obama has consistently been cutting into swaths of the electorate that generally vote Republican or Independent.

I simply don't believe that Clinton can make a valid argument for the General Election when she's barely holding on against a black candidate (and thus has the benefit of any unvoiced racial tensions). Obama's simply been winning more, and has had the wide appeal to court superdelegates at an exponential rate.

[QUOTE]Obama's wins in southern 'lily white' states can be attributed to his popularity among African-Americans. However, in those same states the majority of voters are registered Republicans, so who cares?

-Shy[/QUOTE]
Not all his 'lily white' states are in the south -- he's actually won more states and by larger margins in the midwest than his victories in the south.

I mean Hillary definitely gave him a run for his money, and she can take this to the convention if she wants, but this race is mathematically over.[/font]

[Nerdsy]

[quote name='Morpheus']The problem with saying that Hillary wins swing states is that she's winning them against Obama, not Mccain. [/QUOTE]

[color=deeppink]That's not a problem, that's exactly the point: finding which Democratic candidate is going to recieve more votes. The one with with the most votes in a contested state is considered the one most capable of beating the opponent.[/color]

[Allamorph]

[quote name='Retribution][font=Arial][QUOTE=Shy][SIZE=1']How is 'Blacks are voting as a singular bloc for Obama' any better an argument than 'The whites like Hillary'?[/SIZE][/quote]
Honestly I see the whole "Obama can't appeal to white voters" as a farce. He won the majority of the midwest, which to my knowledge is more or less totally absent of black voters. The map can be found [url=http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/demmap/index.html][b]here[/b][/url].[/font][/QUOTE]
[FONT=Arial]I'm not sure how your reply there even pertained to what [COLOR="DarkRed"]Shy[/COLOR] said.

For clarification, I'm pretty sure he's saying [I]both are stupid arguments to use[/I].

And I agree.[/FONT]

[Shy]

[quote name='Retribution'][font=Arial]I mean Hillary definitely gave him a run for his money, and she can take this to the convention if she wants, but this race is mathematically over.[/font][/QUOTE][size=1]I agree that the race is over, but this election hasn't been so cut and dry either. Although the pundits have been quick to point out that Hillary can't mathematically win, Obama can't either.

At last count the delegates are 1697 for Clinton, and 1869 for Obama. This isn't an enormous difference, so I understand why she has to drag this out all the way until the convention. Plus, if Michigan and Florida were to have been counted the delegate counts would be even tighter.

Anyway, I've always felt like Obama will have difficulties in a general election. I think he is a very competent candidate, but I prefer Clinton for her stance on the few issues where they actually disagree.

It will be interesting to see who he selects as a running mate. I'm hoping for Bill Richardson because (heaven forbid) he is the most qualified guy for the job.

-Shy[/size]

[Retribution]

[quote name='Shy'][size=1]I agree that the race is over, but this election hasn't been so cut and dry either. Although the pundits have been quick to point out that Hillary can't mathematically win, Obama can't either.

At last count the delegates are 1697 for Clinton, and 1869 for Obama. This isn't an enormous difference, so I understand why she has to drag this out all the way until the convention. Plus, if Michigan and Florida were to have been counted the delegate counts would be even tighter.

Anyway, I've always felt like Obama will have difficulties in a general election. I think he is a very competent candidate, but I prefer Clinton for her stance on the few issues where they actually disagree.

It will be interesting to see who he selects as a running mate. I'm hoping for Bill Richardson because (heaven forbid) he is the most qualified guy for the job.

-Shy[/size][/QUOTE]
[font=Arial]Granted, if Michigan and Florida were counted it would be a very tight race. But the race as-is is more or less concluded. The NYT [url=http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/delegatecalculator/index.html][b]delegate calculator[/b][/url] (<-link) is a good tool to see that although the Clinton/Obama numbers are close, they simply aren't close enough.[/font]

[Morpheus]

[quote name='Nerdsy'][color=deeppink]That's not a problem, that's exactly the point: finding which Democratic candidate is going to recieve more votes. The one with with the most votes in a contested state is considered the one most capable of beating the opponent.[/color][/QUOTE]

The problem is that there is an assumption that supporters of one candidate will shift to mccain from the other, which really isn't likely, especially since most primaries are closed.

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[color=#9933ff][font=comic sans serif]Hey long time no see,

Well let;s see I work a lot and haven't been near a TV in a while- aside from Jay Leno's monolog which BTW doesn't really constitute listening to politics (unless you care that picking on McCain is elder abuse)

I agree with Morpheus saying that no one but Obama is going to be on the ticket for Obama- as far as I know Reverand Wright hasn't been named as his running mate, and why would he be?

It wouldn't be in Wright's best interest for Obama to win the Democratic party's nomination or the presidency because it would prove him wrong about what he's been saying about America which is why Wright has been continuing his rampage and trying to discredit Obama.

As for voting, I really need to go look at the candidates, but I will say if Nader gets in the election again (Or that Ron Paul guy) I'm gonna seriously consider moving to Canada[/color][/font]

[Allamorph]

[quote name='ChibiHorsewoman][color=#9933ff][font=comic sans serif]but I will say if Nader gets in the election again I'm gonna seriously consider moving to Canada[/color'][/font][/quote]
[FONT=Arial]But Nader's an American tradition!!

I mean, didn't he run Independent against Lincoln? :p[/FONT]