Comparable backgrounds, comparable results
The Democratic Party and the media are fit to be tied over Alvin Greene's win in the South Carolina primary. He's referred to as an 'illigitimate' candidate and that his victory is somehow 'mysterious'. I don't know. To me it sounds like a deal done straight from the Democratic playbook. Let's see...a young African-American, little know origins, with questionable associations, no known experience, dubious qualifications and no real work history to speak of wins an election. Sound familiar? Think Obama. I don't remember any such outcry when 'The One' won the primary. I think Mr. Greene's campaign cry from now till the general election should be 'I'm the one we've been waiting for'. Anyone got a better idea? If I lived in South Carolina I'd definitely vote for the guy.
Yeah, y'know, this guy comes outta nowhere and wins the Dem. primary despite having no Dem. support and no name recognition...
It is mysterious, but that doesn't mean there's anything fishy about it.
It could be that the guy just resonated with the SC rank-and-file Democrats.
Unless there's some legitimate reason to believe otherwise, (and maybe there is, but I haven't heard about it) the dems should get behind their chosen candidate.
The claim is he paid his own fees (Around $11,000 I believe)... otherwise it would be a crime. How many unemployed people have that kind of money to throw at a run for office?
The real crime however is how expensive it is to file to run for office. This keeps all but the wealth backed elite from making a run. Some would argue it weeds out the unqualified... I wouldn't call money a qualification for office. Sadly it is."The real crime however is how expensive it is to file to run for office. This keeps all but the wealth backed elite from making a run. "
Indeed. Anybody should be able to run for office, and the fees should be only what it costs to file the paperwork and make the photocopies.
Photocopies are cheap.
I do, however, agree that a candidate should have to demonstrate some level of popular support (via signatures of supporters on a petition-like document) to get on the ballot, otherwise the ballots would get too cluttered.
I think it is hysterical, if the man can win the Dems ought to leave him alone. they are just pissy cause they are on the way out and they know it.
Huh... that he won exaplifies the way people feel about the incumbants this year.Comparable backgrounds?????????????????
They are both black - and that's as far as wingnuts can see. Did Greene go to Harvard? Did he attend Collumbia? Well, where did he get his law degree? Previous experience?
I'm not against Greene - and the Democrats may be wrong for questioning his appearance on the political stage. I woould need a lot more information.
But all you wingnuts can see is skin color.I must have missed it. Did I say anything about his winning have to do with his skin color other than to mention he was African-American? Didn't think so. Seems you're the one zeroing in on skin color. Out of the paragraph the only thing you keyed in on was skin color. I was only referring to associations and experience. Seems all YOU wingnuts can see is skin color! Clean up your own garden before you start planting in mine.
Doug raises a legitimate point.
The two men do not have similar backgrounds.
They had different careers, different levels of education, different lives altogether. The only similarities between Greene and Obama are, in fact, that they haven't been in national politics for a long time and that they're both black guys.
To which I say, so the hell what?
The people of S.C. will decide if Greene's background is a qualification or a non-starter when they vote, just like the people of the US did with Obama.
PSST accusing others of racism doesn't sound convincing when you engage in name calling ("WINGNUTS").
