LMAO!!! you guys have no idea how funny this thread has turned. I came home to read follow up only to find the topic has shifted once again to my gender. I don't know if I want to actually answer the gender question at all cause it seems to be too high on the priority list for some in here and I am not sure feeding the trolls is a job I want to take on at this time of my life. LMAO!!!! For the life of me, I do not understand why anyone who does not even know me should be so focused on deciding what gender I be, insecurities I presume.

I mean does figuring out what gender I am change anything of my argument or point?

panalyst:



Kobo, this is what apparently happened according to CNN (anderson cooper. the best political team in the world.lol.) Basically, Keneddy was unsure of who to support. He is the patriach of the democratic party so his opinion is widely respected especially among core democrats. He initially planned to remain neutral till the end of the primaries. Clintons had solicited him for his support and when he told them he was not sure, they begged him to remain neutral. After the whole South Carolina debacle, He got really mad about Bill Clinton's involvement and the whole racial issues coming into it. As a democrat leader, he didnt want the race to go that way and so he called Clinton, The story according to one of Andeersoon Cooper's political analyst on CNN was that kennedy ended the conversation angrier than he was when he made the call. Apparently Clinton had been justifiying his position. With that, he realised Hilary would be too divisive and would not be able to win with the republicans,

I am so glad you at least have seen that I am not the only one who reasons this way on this issue @Pan

From watching that interview and the many others I have been able to get my hands on so far, I see a man who made a decision to switch more out of anger for the other side than for support for the views and ideals of the side he switched to. I considered that that may not be the case but since from what I hear myself, this was the conclusion I came to, I decided to get other angles based on the same information. Hence the reason why I felt it was worth debating.



P.S @nuzo ,  Who is a NAFDAC woman

I-man:

Let's put it this way,if Sen Kennedy ran for the Democratic nomination,he won't get elected.An extremely unpopular Jimmy Carter thoroughly thumped him in 79/80.If the man himself,with all the Kennedys behind him, doesn't enjoy that level of support within his party,his impact will on Obama's popularity will be minimal at best.

Its not that his endorsement means nothing its just that we shouldn't exaggerate its implications.Even JFK himself barely squeaked through a victory winning by a 0.2% margin that could have gone either way if Nixon asked for a recount.I have never subscribed to the Kennedy myth.

@I-man,
You either missed or deliberately tried to confuse several crucial points:

1. Tiger Wood's coach may not win as many tournaments as Tiger himself - here goes your endorser-endorsee dilemma. One wonders if any of those who have endorsed Hillary Clinton, can do as well as any of the Democratic contenders.

2. You under-estimate the effect of the 1969 Chappaquiddick incident on Sen Ted Kennedy's presidential ambitions. In 1972 and 1976, despite many appeals from the Democratic base, he decided not to run for president. In 1980, the 1979 Iran hostage crisis only made Jimmy Carter a more formidable (incumbent) candidate in the 1980 Democratic presidential primaries.

3. On the 0.2% margin of victory of JFK over Nixon, that measure though accurate is potentially misleading to those unfamiliar with US politics. The more important measure is electoral votes gathered: JFK got 303 electoral votes while Nixon got 219 electoral votes. In addition, a comparison of the 1960 elections (JFK vs Nixon) and the 2000 election (Bush vs Gore), Bush, your main man, lost the popular vote by a 0.5% margin, but still won the electoral votes 271 to Gore's 266. Furthermore, JFK's win was even more stunning given the fact that he, like Obama today, had to fight against deep-seated stereotypes - he was Catholic. Then, mainstream America was WASP (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant) and Catholics still faced a lot of uphill battles in some spheres of American life.

4. Your assertion that Jimmy Carter was extremely unpopular is unfounded. Firstly, he won the 1976 Democratic nomination by getting the most delegates (2,239 delegates representing about 75% of the total delegates). At the national stage, against Republican Gerald Ford in 1976, he won both the popular votes by 2.1% (recall that Bush lost this in 2000 by 0.5% and Kennedy won this in 1960 by 0.2%) and the electoral votes by 297-240 (recall that Bush in 2000 won 271-266 and Kennedy in 1960 won 303-219). I wonder how an "extremely unpopular" Jimmy Carter could pulled off these numbers. However, I concede that by the 1980 Democratic primaries, his popularity had plummeted, only to rise again after the Iranian hostage crisis.

I-man:

Mr McChivalry,lets see whether Kobo will accept but I doubt he/she is a woman. I never believe anything Richy says I used to think Kobo was a woman until Richy made the same claim,now I can't tell.

No problem, I hear you. The earth rotates about its axis once every day. Now, I made that comment, I hope you start doubting this. Yeye man.

On a more serious note, Kobojunkie is a woman.

In public forums where gender can be specified:
1. Of those who don't specify their gender, about 80-90% are women.
2. Of those who indicate "Male", about 1-2% are actually women.
3. Of those who indicate "Female", about 2-4% are actually men, this percentage is much higher (about 8-10%) on dating sites.

Also, her arguments are typically feminine, with the stubbornness and poor logical flow associated with such, trying too hard to overcompensate for a perceived sense of lack of acknowledgment from disrespectful (Naija) men. Always wanting to have the last say, with a morbid fear of losing a debate, and when presented with superior arguments, quick to say things like "that is your way and this is my way, so leave me alone", or "that's why you're where you are and I'm where I am", or "why do you want to force me to agree with you?", as if acquiescing to another's view based on better points and superior logic is akin to coercion.

So, why did you think she is a woman?

nuzo:

In as much as i support that people should view and believe in whatever they want to believe and whichever way they want to view or believe it. Common sense tell us the difference between right and wrong, positive and negative. We have also been taught in schools and at home.

As far as I'm concerned, if Kobojunkie is female; she is exceptional and outstanding.

@nuzo,

Are you implying that the standards used for assessing men and women, as regards intelligence, are different?

RichyBlacK:

@I-man,
You either missed or deliberately tried to confuse several crucial points:

1. Tiger Wood's coach may not win as many tournaments as Tiger himself - here goes your endorser-endorsee dilemma. One wonders if any of those who have endorsed Hillary Clinton, can do as well as any of the Democratic contenders.

You missed the core of the issue.In campaigns,Obama like Clinton,regularly receives endorsements from various political 'heavyweights'.The Kennedy endorsement is hardly Obama's first,the question then is-why is so much fuss being made about this particular endorsement?

In politics unlike golf,an endorsement is only as significant as the endorser-My local councilor's endorsement of Gordon Brown is less significant than my mayor's endorsement of Brown,the latter's endorsement being less so than the endorsement of the ex-PM.

So the issue is,how significant is the Kennedys standing within the Democratic party for this particular endorsement to create so much fuss?Not very much I'm afraid.Just as not much fuss should be made about those who endorsed Clinton,and there are many,we shouldn't make so much fuss about the Kennedys endorsement.

In so far as endorser's are important-Hillary has the backing of the most popular Democrat politician-William J Clinton.

2. You under-estimate the effect of the 1969 Chappaquiddick incident on Sen Ted Kennedy's presidential ambitions. In 1972 and 1976, despite many appeals from the Democratic base, he decided not to run for president. In 1980, the 1979 Iran hostage crisis only made Jimmy Carter a more formidable (incumbent) candidate in the 1980 Democratic presidential primaries.

That is neither here nor there.Has the 1969 incident and all other shenanigans Sen Kennedy has been involved in stopped affecting popular perception of him?

3. On the 0.2% margin of victory of JFK over Nixon, that measure though accurate is potentially misleading to those unfamiliar with US politics. The more important measure is electoral votes gathered: JFK got 303 electoral votes while Nixon got 219 electoral votes. In addition, a comparison of the 1960 elections (JFK vs Nixon) and the 2000 election (Bush vs Gore), Bush, your main man, lost the popular vote by a 0.5% margin, but still won the electoral votes 271 to Gore's 266. Furthermore, JFK's win was even more stunning given the fact that he, like Obama today, had to fight against deep-seated stereotypes - he was Catholic. Then, mainstream America was WASP (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant) and Catholics still faced a lot of uphill battles in some spheres of American life.

You are saying that in a debate about relative popularity,what matters most is not the popular vote but the technicality of the electoral college process.

In the UK,Labour have a commanding majority in Parliament on the basis of 36% of the popular vote.In a debate about popularity,Labour's commanding lead in Parliament tells us little about their popularity generally.

Even then,lets us the electoral college votes as a metric.JFK's total of 303 electoral votes only buttresses my point anyway about the exaggerated perception of JFK's popularity and by extension-the Kennedy family.

So JFK had 303 college votes-Carter(Reagan(489),Bush1(426),Clinton1(370),Clinton2(379).Even the largely irrelevant electoral college metric undermines the myth about the popularity of JFK.

4. Your assertion that Jimmy Carter was extremely unpopular is unfounded. Firstly, he won the 1976 Democratic nomination by getting the most delegates (2,239 delegates representing about 75% of the total delegates). At the national stage, against Republican Gerald Ford in 1976, he won both the popular votes by 2.1% (recall that Bush lost this in 2000 by 0.5% and Kennedy won this in 1960 by 0.2%) and the electoral votes by 297-240 (recall that Bush in 2000 won 271-266 and Kennedy in 1960 won 303-219). I wonder how an "extremely unpopular" Jimmy Carter could pulled off these numbers. However, I concede that by the 1980 Democratic primaries, his popularity had plummeted, only to rise again after the Iranian hostage crisis.

Let me get this straight-I assert that Kennedy lost to Carter in the 79/80 when Carter was extremely unpopular and you purport to counter this by informing me about Carter's successes in 1976 Obviously,Carter wouldn't have won the 76 Presidential elections if he was unpopular,but Kennedy didn't lose to him in 76-he lost in 79/80 when Carter was their for the taking.

RichyBlacK:

So, why did you think she is a woman?

Just a hunch,I wouldn't want to incur Kobo's wrath