Page 1 of 1

What up Obama and Hillary???

Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2008 3:00 pm
by kusch
The ND Democrat-NPL convention is this weekend in Grand Forks. Obama is the scheduled keynote speaker on Friday at 5:30PM and now they just announce Hillary will also show up and speak at 8PM.

Ah, the caucus that was held on the 5th of March gave Obama a 2 to 1 win over Hillary. I don't think my state will tip the scales one way or the other either in the nomination process nor the election. Why would either one "waste" time coming here? Oh, good for us and the Democrats here in ND, but I still wonder, what up?

SSS, feel free to give this post a new "header" if you wish. :D

Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2008 3:12 pm
by gsabc
Got superdelegates? Will speechify.

Poor superdelegates. Now that they actually have a role in deciding the nominee, and won't just be showing up at the convention to drink, shmooze and make deals for their own re-election, they're panicking and calling for one of the candidates to throw in the towel. Ghu forbid they alienate one part or another of their constituency through an actual and traceable decision using what brainpower they possess.

Shut up and pick who you feel is the most electable. Ain't that the idea? Then go home and justify your decision to the supporters of the other one. If you can't do that, then you don't deserve the office you hold and SHOULD be defeated at the next opportunity.

Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2008 4:55 pm
by TheConfessor
I may have to rethink everything that has happened so far in the campaign. I'm watching the NBC Nightly News right now, and they just showed a video of Obama bowling somewhere, maybe in Pennsylvania. They showed him rolling a gutter ball, then the reporter said that he bowled a 37 and acknowledged that bowling isn't his game.

A THIRTY-SEVEN???!!! Wow, that certainly sucks for any able-bodied adult human! I remember when I was about 8 or 9 and my grandmother took me bowling for the first time and my first game was a 50, which seemed pretty mediocre at the time, even for a little kid.

Most people would probably not let a candidate's bowling score affect their vote, but still, I've got to question Obama's judgment in this case. If he knew he was that bad a bowler, he shouldn't be showcasing his deficiencies on national TV. If he didn't know how disastrous his performance would be, he should have hired better bowling advisers who could have given him a more realistic projection of the likely outcome. And if he kept rolling gutter balls, he should have tried a different technique and strategy, not just continue to stay the course.

Regardless of what one thinks of Hillary, I bet she could bowl higher than a 37.

If it turns out the NBC reporter got it wrong, then never mind.

Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2008 5:38 pm
by TheConfessor
UPDATE

Now they're saying Obama's score was 37 through 7 frames. That's a little more believable. He still had a chance to roll 127 if he learned from his past mistakes.

As I suspected, the first reporter got the story wrong.

Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2008 5:48 pm
by mellytu74
Confessor --

From what I have been reading, Obama is getting good response on this tour. There was lots of good interaction with the folks at the bowling alley.

Except for the 22,000-person rally at Penn State, it's been lots of retail politics.

Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2008 6:37 pm
by PlacentiaSoccerMom
TheConfessor wrote:UPDATE

Now they're saying Obama's score was 37 through 7 frames. That's a little more believable. He still had a chance to roll 127 if he learned from his past mistakes.

As I suspected, the first reporter got the story wrong.
He could also get gutter balls for the next three frames, too.

Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2008 6:40 pm
by PlacentiaSoccerMom
TheConfessor wrote:
Regardless of what one thinks of Hillary, I bet she could bowl higher than a 37.
I'm sure she could as well.

I won't tell you which of my kids sucks at bowling, but even she could score better than a 37 in 7 frames, without the gutters.

Does Obama have limp wrists or something?

Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2008 6:55 pm
by Beebs52
PlacentiaSoccerMom wrote:
TheConfessor wrote:
Regardless of what one thinks of Hillary, I bet she could bowl higher than a 37.
I'm sure she could as well.

I won't tell you which of my kids sucks at bowling, but even she could score better than a 37 in 7 frames, without the gutters.

Does Obama have limp wrists or something?
I bow to your chutzpah.

Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2008 7:38 pm
by kusch
TheConfessor wrote:I may have to rethink everything that has happened so far in the campaign. I'm watching the NBC Nightly News right now, and they just showed a video of Obama bowling somewhere, maybe in Pennsylvania. They showed him rolling a gutter ball, then the reporter said that he bowled a 37 and acknowledged that bowling isn't his game.

A THIRTY-SEVEN???!!! Wow, that certainly sucks for any able-bodied adult human! I remember when I was about 8 or 9 and my grandmother took me bowling for the first time and my first game was a 50, which seemed pretty mediocre at the time, even for a little kid.

Most people would probably not let a candidate's bowling score affect their vote, but still, I've got to question Obama's judgment in this case. If he knew he was that bad a bowler, he shouldn't be showcasing his deficiencies on national TV. If he didn't know how disastrous his performance would be, he should have hired better bowling advisers who could have given him a more realistic projection of the likely outcome. And if he kept rolling gutter balls, he should have tried a different technique and strategy, not just continue to stay the course.

Regardless of what one thinks of Hillary, I bet she could bowl higher than a 37.

If it turns out the NBC reporter got it wrong, then never mind.
That is a pretty pathetic effort, really. Just start out strike, spare, strike and you have 40 in the 2nd frame. Or strike, strike, strike and you have 60.

Ok, brag time, my high game is 297. Great last ball, the game should have been a 296-- it was dead on the head pin which will usually leaves the 4-6-7-10

Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2008 10:22 pm
by TheCalvinator24
My high game is a 208, but when I was a little kid, I actually bowled a 3.

Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2008 11:19 pm
by Ritterskoop
Maybe some people like knowing they are better bowlers than the famous guy, and he knows that, and does not mind letting them feel good. Maybe it makes him more accessible to some folks.

The same principle is behind Smarter Than a Fifth Grader, I think. You can get behind a campaign that makes you feel smart or talented.

Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2008 11:21 pm
by PlacentiaSoccerMom
Instead of a another debate, it might be fun to see Obama, Hillary, McCain and Nader bowl against each other.

Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2008 11:42 pm
by TheConfessor
Ritterskoop wrote:Maybe some people like knowing they are better bowlers than the famous guy, and he knows that, and does not mind letting them feel good. Maybe it makes him more accessible to some folks.
Or maybe he wanted to show that when he's facing a profligate future of continuing losses in an unfamiliar place, he's willing to declare an end to the fiasco after seven frames instead of stubbornly insisting on bowling until he rolls a perfect game. He's already got basketball shoes, so he can save money on the rental footwear.

Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2008 11:46 pm
by silvercamaro
Ritterskoop wrote:Maybe some people like knowing they are better bowlers than the famous guy, and he knows that, and does not mind letting them feel good. Maybe it makes him more accessible to some folks.

The same principle is behind Smarter Than a Fifth Grader, I think. You can get behind a campaign that makes you feel smart or talented.
But if you feel smart or talented, you're not likely to think the average contestant on Smarter than a Fifth Grader would make a good president.

What Obama's bowling has done is give the audacity of hope to awful bowlers so they might consider turning pro. (There's nothing to stop them, of course, except they shouldn't expect to earn a livelihood through bowling tournaments, nor so much as gain entry to the contestant rosters.)

Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 7:28 am
by Appa23
silvercamaro wrote:
Ritterskoop wrote:Maybe some people like knowing they are better bowlers than the famous guy, and he knows that, and does not mind letting them feel good. Maybe it makes him more accessible to some folks.

The same principle is behind Smarter Than a Fifth Grader, I think. You can get behind a campaign that makes you feel smart or talented.
But if you feel smart or talented, you're not likely to think the average contestant on Smarter than a Fifth Grader would make a good president.

What Obama's bowling has done is give the audacity of hope to awful bowlers so they might consider turning pro. (There's nothing to stop them, of course, except they shouldn't expect to earn a livelihood through bowling tournaments, nor so much as gain entry to the contestant rosters.)
Of course, under President Obama, bad bowlers are declared to be the next classification in need of governmental protection. Obama will set up a new welfare program to pay these terrible pro bowlers, so that they have no incentive to go out and find real jobs. As for gaining entry into tournaments, a certain percentage of slots will be reserved for terrible bowlers under a new affirmative action plan.

Shudder at the sports future of a Democratic presidency.

:lol:

Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 7:31 am
by PlacentiaSoccerMom
TheConfessor wrote:
Ritterskoop wrote:Maybe some people like knowing they are better bowlers than the famous guy, and he knows that, and does not mind letting them feel good. Maybe it makes him more accessible to some folks.
Or maybe he wanted to show that when he's facing a profligate future of continuing losses in an unfamiliar place, he's willing to declare an end to the fiasco after seven frames instead of stubbornly insisting on bowling until he rolls a perfect game. He's already got basketball shoes, so he can save money on the rental footwear.
Very interesting thought!

Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 7:33 am
by Deaf Mini
Bowling For Delegates! That might be the best way to pick a candidate!

Or a great reality show...

Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 7:36 am
by ne1410s
This political contest has been in the gutter for months.

Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 7:49 am
by eyégor
ne1410s wrote:This political contest has been in the gutter for months.

Well, if I hear another Obama-mamma or Obama-poppa tell me the supers HAVE to follow the voting totals of the great unwashed, I may add my lunch to that gutter.



BTW, when did we start adding the popular votes from all the primaries (& caucuses?) together?

Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:07 am
by MarleysGh0st
gsabc wrote: Poor superdelegates. Now that they actually have a role in deciding the nominee, and won't just be showing up at the convention to drink, shmooze and make deals for their own re-election, they're panicking and calling for one of the candidates to throw in the towel. Ghu forbid they alienate one part or another of their constituency through an actual and traceable decision using what brainpower they possess.
That's an interesting observation. The superdelegate system was created to give the party leaders a check on primaries. It does look like those who now find themselves superdelegates would rather not accept the responsibility of exercising that power.

Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:09 am
by PlacentiaSoccerMom
ne1410s wrote:This political contest has been in the gutter for months.
I totally agree!

Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:12 am
by eyégor
MarleysGh0st wrote:
gsabc wrote: Poor superdelegates. Now that they actually have a role in deciding the nominee, and won't just be showing up at the convention to drink, shmooze and make deals for their own re-election, they're panicking and calling for one of the candidates to throw in the towel. Ghu forbid they alienate one part or another of their constituency through an actual and traceable decision using what brainpower they possess.
That's an interesting observation. The superdelegate system was created to give the party leaders a check on primaries. It does look like those who now find themselves superdelegates would rather not accept the responsibility of exercising that power.

I think the best part of this is that Super Delegates exist only because of stalwart Obama supporter, Ted Kennedy.

Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 12:24 pm
by themanintheseersuckersuit
PlacentiaSoccerMom wrote:Instead of a another debate, it might be fun to see Obama, Hillary, McCain and Nader bowl against each other.

http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/april- ... 04-01.html

Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 2:02 pm
by PlacentiaSoccerMom
themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:
PlacentiaSoccerMom wrote:Instead of a another debate, it might be fun to see Obama, Hillary, McCain and Nader bowl against each other.

http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/april- ... 04-01.html
That's cool!

Posted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 4:38 pm
by kusch
My daughter just sent a text from the ND Democrat-NPL Convention. She and a friend had a 90 minute wait to get in but they are "pretty close" to the front and the atmosphere is "electric".

I am sure she will call later with other details. She is an Obama fan as is the friend and were happy to get the opportunity to attend the convention.




I think Obama is giving the keynote address about now and Hillary speaks around 8:30PM.