To: cdnerds
It’s hard to believe that the Democrats might actually nominate someone whose background consists of only two years in the Senate.
To: Always Right
It’s hard to believe that the Democrats might actually nominate someone whose background consists of only two years in the Senate. And he wasn't even in Viet Nam...
32 posted on
05/25/2007 12:00:09 PM PDT by
okie01
(The Mainstream Media: IGNORANCE ON PARADE)
To: Always Right
It’s hard to believe that the Democrats might actually nominate someone whose background consists of only two years in the Senate.Well last time they put up a 1 term (unable to be reelected) senator as VP.
37 posted on
05/25/2007 12:01:02 PM PDT by
w1andsodidwe
(Jimmy Carter allowed radical Islam to get a foothold in Iran.)
To: Always Right
"It’s hard to believe that the Democrats might actually nominate someone whose background consists of only two years in the Senate." I'm by no means an Obama fan, but the Republicans once nominated a guy who's only Federal experience was one term in the house...
39 posted on
05/25/2007 12:02:36 PM PDT by
Joe 6-pack
(Que me amat, amet et canem meum.)
To: Always Right
What difference does it make to a democrat? Time in the senate is less important than party affiliation.
47 posted on
05/25/2007 12:09:48 PM PDT by
353FMG
(Liberalism is a satanic cult.)
To: Always Right
Heck...Caligula put a horse into the Roman Senate simply to demonstrate the facts of political life under his rule.
For a modern political machine to put Senator with only two years experience into the White House wouldn’t very much different.
To: Always Right
Your statement is only true because Obama never did anything before the Senate, either.
But I don’t believe that a requisite goverment experience is required to run.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson