Nyani Ngabu
Platinum Member
- May 15, 2006
- 97,151
- 137,140
Dude...just look at her...the only thing she got going is her body...but the face..mmhhh....she's what we call buttaface....everything look good...but her face....bwahahahahahahahaha
US Election Coverage 2008
US Election Coverage 2008
- Thread starter Game Theory
- Start date
Dude...just look at her...the only thing she got going is her body...but the face..mmhhh....she's what we call buttaface....everything look good...but her face....bwahahahahahahahaha
...dalili za kukata tamaa,subirini tsunami nyingine Virginia!
Nyani Ngabu
Platinum Member
- May 15, 2006
- 97,151
- 137,140
Oh come on playa...you know she ain't all that....
Icadon
JF-Expert Member
- Mar 21, 2007
- 3,581
- 196
Sasa kama Michelle mbovu then former 1st lady wetu sijui tutamweka kwenye kundi gani? Anyways hatujadili muonekano wa wagombea wake/waume zao.
"Rangi ya paka sio muhimu cha muhimu ni uwezo wake wa kukamata panya"
Icadon
JF-Expert Member
- Mar 21, 2007
- 3,581
- 196
February 11, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist
Obama's Path to Victory
By WILLIAM KRISTOL
Last summer, George W. Bush told The Washington Examiner's Bill Sammon that Hillary Clinton would probably be the 2008 Democratic nominee. "She's got a national presence and this is becoming a national primary," he said. "And therefore the person with the national presence who has got the ability to raise enough money to sustain an effort in a multiplicity of sites has got a good chance to be nominated."
This seemed a reasonable judgment at the time. It may still turn out to be right. But today Barack Obama is neck-and-neck with Clinton in the national polls - and he's shown a greater ability to raise money. After his strong showing over the weekend, it is Obama who now has the clearer path to his party's nomination.
I'll avoid a false precision in the numbers that follow. There are minor differences among news organizations in projecting delegate allocations in states that have already voted, and in counting preferences among the 796 elected officials and party leaders - the "superdelegates" - who vote according to their choice, not voters' instruction.
Obama leads Clinton by roughly 70 delegates among about 2,000 chosen so far in primaries and caucuses. (There are still about 1,200 delegates outstanding.) Among the superdelegates, Clinton is ahead by about 100 superdelegates among the 300 who have declared a preference (though any of them can change their mind, so a count of them now is in large measure premature). All in all, Clinton seems to be slightly ahead.
She won't be for long. On Tuesday Obama is expected to prevail in Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia. So around 9 p.m. Tuesday night, television networks probably will be announcing, for the first time, that Barack Obama holds an unambiguous delegate lead.
His lead in votes - which is already in the neighborhood of 200,000 - will probably have widened. And Obama should be able to increase those delegate and popular vote totals on Feb. 19, when Wisconsin and Hawaii go to the polls.
Next comes March 4, when Ohio, Texas, Vermont and Rhode Island vote. Clinton's campaign believes Ohio and Texas will constitute her firewall. Will it hold?
I suspect not. Obama will have momentum. He will likely have more money than Clinton for advertising. His ballot performance among Hispanics and working-class whites has generally been improving as the primary season has gone on. He intends to push a more robust economic message that could help him further narrow the gap among lower-income voters. And an interesting regression analysis at the Daily Kos Web site (poblano.dailykos.com) of the determinants of the Democratic vote so far, applied to the demographics of the Ohio electorate, suggests that Obama has a better chance than is generally realized in Ohio.
As for Texas, look for a couple of possible endorsements to help Obama there. If John Edwards campaigns for Obama in East Texas, and Bill Richardson defies the pleas of Bill Clinton and travels across the border from New Mexico to help out, Obama could prevail.
If Obama wins Ohio and Texas - or even wins one - he'll be in good shape. He should take Wyoming on March 8 and Mississippi on March 11. Then there's over a month until the next contest, in Pennsylvania on April 22. That stretch of time could be key. It could be the moment for many of the uncommitted superdelegates to begin ratifying the choice of Democratic primary voters, and to start moving en masse to Obama.
Many of these superdelegates are elected officials. They tend to care about winning in November. The polls suggest Obama matches up better with John McCain. And the polls are merely echoing the judgment of almost every Democratic elected official from a competitive district or a swing state with whom I've spoken. They would virtually all prefer Obama at the top of the ticket.
All of this will move the superdelegates to Obama - perhaps as early as just after March 4, or perhaps not until April 22, or perhaps not even until the last match-up on June 7. But the superdelegates will want to avoid a situation in which they could be in the position of seeming to override the popular vote, or of resolving a bitter battle over whether and how to count votes from Florida and Michigan, at the convention.
And there are, as a final resort, two super-superdelegates (so to speak) who would have the clout to help Democrats achieve closure: Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi.
If they stepped forward at the right time, they would earn the gratitude of their party. And they might also enjoy contemplating a derivative effect of their good deed - the fall of the house of Clinton.
Op-Ed Columnist
Obama's Path to Victory
By WILLIAM KRISTOL
Last summer, George W. Bush told The Washington Examiner's Bill Sammon that Hillary Clinton would probably be the 2008 Democratic nominee. "She's got a national presence and this is becoming a national primary," he said. "And therefore the person with the national presence who has got the ability to raise enough money to sustain an effort in a multiplicity of sites has got a good chance to be nominated."
This seemed a reasonable judgment at the time. It may still turn out to be right. But today Barack Obama is neck-and-neck with Clinton in the national polls - and he's shown a greater ability to raise money. After his strong showing over the weekend, it is Obama who now has the clearer path to his party's nomination.
I'll avoid a false precision in the numbers that follow. There are minor differences among news organizations in projecting delegate allocations in states that have already voted, and in counting preferences among the 796 elected officials and party leaders - the "superdelegates" - who vote according to their choice, not voters' instruction.
Obama leads Clinton by roughly 70 delegates among about 2,000 chosen so far in primaries and caucuses. (There are still about 1,200 delegates outstanding.) Among the superdelegates, Clinton is ahead by about 100 superdelegates among the 300 who have declared a preference (though any of them can change their mind, so a count of them now is in large measure premature). All in all, Clinton seems to be slightly ahead.
She won't be for long. On Tuesday Obama is expected to prevail in Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia. So around 9 p.m. Tuesday night, television networks probably will be announcing, for the first time, that Barack Obama holds an unambiguous delegate lead.
His lead in votes - which is already in the neighborhood of 200,000 - will probably have widened. And Obama should be able to increase those delegate and popular vote totals on Feb. 19, when Wisconsin and Hawaii go to the polls.
Next comes March 4, when Ohio, Texas, Vermont and Rhode Island vote. Clinton's campaign believes Ohio and Texas will constitute her firewall. Will it hold?
I suspect not. Obama will have momentum. He will likely have more money than Clinton for advertising. His ballot performance among Hispanics and working-class whites has generally been improving as the primary season has gone on. He intends to push a more robust economic message that could help him further narrow the gap among lower-income voters. And an interesting regression analysis at the Daily Kos Web site (poblano.dailykos.com) of the determinants of the Democratic vote so far, applied to the demographics of the Ohio electorate, suggests that Obama has a better chance than is generally realized in Ohio.
As for Texas, look for a couple of possible endorsements to help Obama there. If John Edwards campaigns for Obama in East Texas, and Bill Richardson defies the pleas of Bill Clinton and travels across the border from New Mexico to help out, Obama could prevail.
If Obama wins Ohio and Texas - or even wins one - he'll be in good shape. He should take Wyoming on March 8 and Mississippi on March 11. Then there's over a month until the next contest, in Pennsylvania on April 22. That stretch of time could be key. It could be the moment for many of the uncommitted superdelegates to begin ratifying the choice of Democratic primary voters, and to start moving en masse to Obama.
Many of these superdelegates are elected officials. They tend to care about winning in November. The polls suggest Obama matches up better with John McCain. And the polls are merely echoing the judgment of almost every Democratic elected official from a competitive district or a swing state with whom I've spoken. They would virtually all prefer Obama at the top of the ticket.
All of this will move the superdelegates to Obama - perhaps as early as just after March 4, or perhaps not until April 22, or perhaps not even until the last match-up on June 7. But the superdelegates will want to avoid a situation in which they could be in the position of seeming to override the popular vote, or of resolving a bitter battle over whether and how to count votes from Florida and Michigan, at the convention.
And there are, as a final resort, two super-superdelegates (so to speak) who would have the clout to help Democrats achieve closure: Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi.
If they stepped forward at the right time, they would earn the gratitude of their party. And they might also enjoy contemplating a derivative effect of their good deed - the fall of the house of Clinton.
Prediction markets now see Obama defeating Clinton Mon Feb 11, 12:54 PM ET
Traders wagering on the outcome of the U.S. presidential vote were overwhelmingly betting on Monday that Illinois Sen. Barack Obama will defeat former first lady Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination and ultimately win the presidency.
Obama, whose campaign swept four state Democratic presidential contests against Clinton over the weekend, was trading at about 70 on Monday on the Dublin, Ireland-based Intrade predictions market, meaning traders gave him a 70 percent chance of being the Democrats' presidential candidate in the November election.
Clinton, who replaced her campaign manager in a staff shake-up, was selling at about 30, meaning traders gave her a 30 percent chance of winning the Democratic nomination, data on the Intrade web site showed.
Traders on the Iowa Electronic Markets, a nonprofit exchange run by researchers at the University of Iowa, had similar expectations, giving Obama a 70 percent chance of winning the nomination and Clinton about a 27 percent chance.
Researchers who study political forecasting markets say their predictive power is comparable to opinion polls. Contracts are generally structured so prices can be read as the percentage likelihood of a candidate winning the race.
Arizona Sen. John McCain was the overwhelming favorite to win the Republican presidential nomination, with Intrade traders giving him nearly a 95 percent chance of winning.
His rival Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor, was given only about a 2.5 percent chance of winning, despite winning two of three state contests over the weekend. The two Republican candidates were given similar chances by traders on the Iowa exchange.
Intrade traders gave Obama a 46 percent chance of winning the presidency, versus 33 percent for McCain and 20 percent for Clinton.
As recently as January 1 traders were giving Clinton about a 70 percent chance of winning the Democratic nomination. But expectations about Clinton's candidacy tumbled after the first of the year, dropping below 30 percent after she lost the Iowa presidential contest to Obama.
Her New Hampshire victory surprised the forecasting markets and she recovered to trade between 55 and 70 until the days after February 5, when nearly half the U.S. states chose presidential candidates. Since then expectations have been falling and Clinton has lost several state contests to Obama.
(Editing by David Wiessler)
Traders wagering on the outcome of the U.S. presidential vote were overwhelmingly betting on Monday that Illinois Sen. Barack Obama will defeat former first lady Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination and ultimately win the presidency.
Obama, whose campaign swept four state Democratic presidential contests against Clinton over the weekend, was trading at about 70 on Monday on the Dublin, Ireland-based Intrade predictions market, meaning traders gave him a 70 percent chance of being the Democrats' presidential candidate in the November election.
Clinton, who replaced her campaign manager in a staff shake-up, was selling at about 30, meaning traders gave her a 30 percent chance of winning the Democratic nomination, data on the Intrade web site showed.
Traders on the Iowa Electronic Markets, a nonprofit exchange run by researchers at the University of Iowa, had similar expectations, giving Obama a 70 percent chance of winning the nomination and Clinton about a 27 percent chance.
Researchers who study political forecasting markets say their predictive power is comparable to opinion polls. Contracts are generally structured so prices can be read as the percentage likelihood of a candidate winning the race.
Arizona Sen. John McCain was the overwhelming favorite to win the Republican presidential nomination, with Intrade traders giving him nearly a 95 percent chance of winning.
His rival Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor, was given only about a 2.5 percent chance of winning, despite winning two of three state contests over the weekend. The two Republican candidates were given similar chances by traders on the Iowa exchange.
Intrade traders gave Obama a 46 percent chance of winning the presidency, versus 33 percent for McCain and 20 percent for Clinton.
As recently as January 1 traders were giving Clinton about a 70 percent chance of winning the Democratic nomination. But expectations about Clinton's candidacy tumbled after the first of the year, dropping below 30 percent after she lost the Iowa presidential contest to Obama.
Her New Hampshire victory surprised the forecasting markets and she recovered to trade between 55 and 70 until the days after February 5, when nearly half the U.S. states chose presidential candidates. Since then expectations have been falling and Clinton has lost several state contests to Obama.
(Editing by David Wiessler)
Icadon
JF-Expert Member
- Mar 21, 2007
- 3,581
- 196
Democratic Party Voters Befuddle the Pollsters: Albert R. Hunt
Commentary by Albert R. Hunt
Feb. 11 (Bloomberg) -- Even in a shaky market, there may be a fairly safe way to make money: Look at the polls on the Democratic primaries for the American presidential election and bet the other way.
It has worked remarkably well during the last five weeks. An online trader who placed a $100 bet on Hillary Clinton on the day of the New Hampshire primary got a payoff as high as $10,000 after the polls were proved wrong and she won a surprise victory.
Likewise, anyone who bet on Barack Obama winning a much larger-than-expected victory in South Carolina would have done very well. And last Tuesday, a bettor with access to the notoriously unreliable Super Tuesday exit polls, widely leaked before the voting was complete, could have given points and gotten rich.
This is a commentary on the state of polling in America today. Even more, it reflects a dynamic Democratic Party electorate.
``It always is difficult to poll primary voters, particularly in an environment like this with a huge turnout among women, blacks and young voters,'' says Linda DiVall, president of American Viewpoint in Alexandria, Virginia, and a longtime Republican poll taker. ``All the models are totally skewed.''
Iowa, site of the first caucuses, is illustrative. One of the few pollsters to get it right was Ann Selzer for the Des Moines Register, who forecast a big Obama victory. This was predicated on a huge turnout, something the other polls and most every politician in the state dismissed.
Double the Turnout
On Jan. 3, 240,000 Democrats came out on a cold night to caucus, almost double the turnout of four years before, and, as Selzer forecast, Obama won a decisive victory.
The pollsters botched it again five days later when all predicted a big Obama wave in New Hampshire. This time it was an outpouring of women for Clinton that produced an upset and lots of red-faced pollsters.
It hasn't gotten better. Last Monday, John Zogby, in a poll for C-Span, the public service cable-television network, and Reuters, projected that Obama would carry California by 13 points; Clinton won it by 10 the next day.
SurveyUSA had Clinton winning Missouri by 11 points; Obama carried it by a point. The same survey projected an even race in Alabama, where the Illinois senator won by almost 15 points.
Swing Voters
Much of any explanation has to do with the unique American primary system: Americans are generally less moored to political parties than are Europeans, and primary voters are especially unpredictable. Most British or French polls focus on general elections, and the outcome is usually determined by a small minority of swing voters. In U.S. primaries, often large numbers of voters swing back and forth between candidates.
There are, to be sure, problems with polling. New Hampshire occurred only five days after Iowa, and the surveying for the second contest was halted too soon.
With Obama, some experts speculate there may be some closet racism, with respondents unwilling to admit they wouldn't vote for an African-American. Yet his showing in most states undercuts that case.
There are dubious methodologies. SurveyUSA does automatic robot calls, where you push a button to respond. ``Your dog could answer the call,'' says DiVall.
Every poll, good and bad, is featured daily on fabulous (for political junkies) Web sites such as RealClearPolitics.com and Pollster.com. Averages include all of them, sometimes producing a Gresham's Law of polling, with the bad ones driving out the good.
Forgotten Cell Phones
There's also the issue of cell phones. By this Election Day, more than 20 percent of American voters may not have landline phones, yet the standard telephone-dialing systems used by most pollsters include very few cell phones.
Most reliable studies indicate there's little difference between cell phone and landline users on political and ideological questions. Yet a big boost in turnout of young voters, who disproportionately use cell phones, is making the best pollsters a little nervous.
Susan Pinkus, who conducts the Bloomberg/Los Angeles Times poll, says she's exploring a ``multi-modal'' survey that combines landlines and cell phones.
As a result of all the polling controversies, the American Association for Public Opinion Research has commissioned a study to see what went wrong.
Obsolete Models
That may be useful. A much more important story than flawed polls or methodologies, however, is the tremendous turnout in Democratic primaries. This makes obsolete most of the pollsters' models -- in which previous voting behavior is considered a predictive measure of likely voters. As Selzer realized in Iowa, this contest is generating a new universe of voters.
This is true in ``blue'' (Democratic) and ``red'' (Republican) states alike. In reliably Republican South Carolina and Georgia, the Clinton-Obama turnouts were almost double the presidential primaries of four years earlier and larger than the Republican vote. In Alaska, one Democratic caucus venue was shut down by a fire marshal; there were too many people there.
This is because of an unprecedented influx of young voters, African-Americans and women, the data suggests. It's being generated by both camps, though most of the energy resides with Obama. Last Tuesday, 200,000 more Democratic voters turned out in Illinois than in New York, which has a much larger population.
Right on Republicans
In 2000, the polls were wrong in New Hampshire, where a similar outpouring of voters gave John McCain a big win over George W. Bush. This year, the surveys have gotten most of the Republican primaries right, or within the margin of error. That's good news for the pollsters if not for the relatively unenthusiastic Republican constituencies.
Several weeks ago, a Wall Street Journal headline declared: ``In Campaign 2008, Pollsters Are Biggest Losers.'' Try telling that to Rudy Giuliani or Fred Thompson.
(Albert R. Hunt is the executive editor for Washington at Bloomberg News. The opinions expressed are his own.)
To contact the writer of this column: Albert R. Hunt in Washington at ahunt1@bloomberg.net
Last Updated: February 10, 2008 10:30 EST
Commentary by Albert R. Hunt
Feb. 11 (Bloomberg) -- Even in a shaky market, there may be a fairly safe way to make money: Look at the polls on the Democratic primaries for the American presidential election and bet the other way.
It has worked remarkably well during the last five weeks. An online trader who placed a $100 bet on Hillary Clinton on the day of the New Hampshire primary got a payoff as high as $10,000 after the polls were proved wrong and she won a surprise victory.
Likewise, anyone who bet on Barack Obama winning a much larger-than-expected victory in South Carolina would have done very well. And last Tuesday, a bettor with access to the notoriously unreliable Super Tuesday exit polls, widely leaked before the voting was complete, could have given points and gotten rich.
This is a commentary on the state of polling in America today. Even more, it reflects a dynamic Democratic Party electorate.
``It always is difficult to poll primary voters, particularly in an environment like this with a huge turnout among women, blacks and young voters,'' says Linda DiVall, president of American Viewpoint in Alexandria, Virginia, and a longtime Republican poll taker. ``All the models are totally skewed.''
Iowa, site of the first caucuses, is illustrative. One of the few pollsters to get it right was Ann Selzer for the Des Moines Register, who forecast a big Obama victory. This was predicated on a huge turnout, something the other polls and most every politician in the state dismissed.
Double the Turnout
On Jan. 3, 240,000 Democrats came out on a cold night to caucus, almost double the turnout of four years before, and, as Selzer forecast, Obama won a decisive victory.
The pollsters botched it again five days later when all predicted a big Obama wave in New Hampshire. This time it was an outpouring of women for Clinton that produced an upset and lots of red-faced pollsters.
It hasn't gotten better. Last Monday, John Zogby, in a poll for C-Span, the public service cable-television network, and Reuters, projected that Obama would carry California by 13 points; Clinton won it by 10 the next day.
SurveyUSA had Clinton winning Missouri by 11 points; Obama carried it by a point. The same survey projected an even race in Alabama, where the Illinois senator won by almost 15 points.
Swing Voters
Much of any explanation has to do with the unique American primary system: Americans are generally less moored to political parties than are Europeans, and primary voters are especially unpredictable. Most British or French polls focus on general elections, and the outcome is usually determined by a small minority of swing voters. In U.S. primaries, often large numbers of voters swing back and forth between candidates.
There are, to be sure, problems with polling. New Hampshire occurred only five days after Iowa, and the surveying for the second contest was halted too soon.
With Obama, some experts speculate there may be some closet racism, with respondents unwilling to admit they wouldn't vote for an African-American. Yet his showing in most states undercuts that case.
There are dubious methodologies. SurveyUSA does automatic robot calls, where you push a button to respond. ``Your dog could answer the call,'' says DiVall.
Every poll, good and bad, is featured daily on fabulous (for political junkies) Web sites such as RealClearPolitics.com and Pollster.com. Averages include all of them, sometimes producing a Gresham's Law of polling, with the bad ones driving out the good.
Forgotten Cell Phones
There's also the issue of cell phones. By this Election Day, more than 20 percent of American voters may not have landline phones, yet the standard telephone-dialing systems used by most pollsters include very few cell phones.
Most reliable studies indicate there's little difference between cell phone and landline users on political and ideological questions. Yet a big boost in turnout of young voters, who disproportionately use cell phones, is making the best pollsters a little nervous.
Susan Pinkus, who conducts the Bloomberg/Los Angeles Times poll, says she's exploring a ``multi-modal'' survey that combines landlines and cell phones.
As a result of all the polling controversies, the American Association for Public Opinion Research has commissioned a study to see what went wrong.
Obsolete Models
That may be useful. A much more important story than flawed polls or methodologies, however, is the tremendous turnout in Democratic primaries. This makes obsolete most of the pollsters' models -- in which previous voting behavior is considered a predictive measure of likely voters. As Selzer realized in Iowa, this contest is generating a new universe of voters.
This is true in ``blue'' (Democratic) and ``red'' (Republican) states alike. In reliably Republican South Carolina and Georgia, the Clinton-Obama turnouts were almost double the presidential primaries of four years earlier and larger than the Republican vote. In Alaska, one Democratic caucus venue was shut down by a fire marshal; there were too many people there.
This is because of an unprecedented influx of young voters, African-Americans and women, the data suggests. It's being generated by both camps, though most of the energy resides with Obama. Last Tuesday, 200,000 more Democratic voters turned out in Illinois than in New York, which has a much larger population.
Right on Republicans
In 2000, the polls were wrong in New Hampshire, where a similar outpouring of voters gave John McCain a big win over George W. Bush. This year, the surveys have gotten most of the Republican primaries right, or within the margin of error. That's good news for the pollsters if not for the relatively unenthusiastic Republican constituencies.
Several weeks ago, a Wall Street Journal headline declared: ``In Campaign 2008, Pollsters Are Biggest Losers.'' Try telling that to Rudy Giuliani or Fred Thompson.
(Albert R. Hunt is the executive editor for Washington at Bloomberg News. The opinions expressed are his own.)
To contact the writer of this column: Albert R. Hunt in Washington at ahunt1@bloomberg.net
Last Updated: February 10, 2008 10:30 EST
Icadon
JF-Expert Member
- Mar 21, 2007
- 3,581
- 196
Kuna jamaa yangu mmoja wakati Obama anatangaza nia ya kugombea aliponda sana, na nakumbuka wakati nasign up kuvolunteer kwenye Obama Campaign HQ jamaa akaniambia jamaa hatofika July, leo jamaa amegeuka kuwa mpenzi mkubwa wa Obama humwambii kitu.
Kwa kifupi hakuna mtu yeyote ndani au nje ya DEMS alitegemea hii race ingefikia hapa nina uhakika ata ukimuuliza Obama mwenye jibu atakalotoa nadhani tunalijua. Watabiri wa siasa na vyombo vya habari ambavyo vinaendeshwa kwa kujali faida vilikuwa vinatabiri mama ameshachukua nomination na kuwa ansubiria muda tu ufike atangazwe, lakini majority ya wananchi wameonyesha njaa ya mabadiliko ndio maana leo hii Jaluo anamkong'ori mama kisawa sawa tena mchana kweupeee.
YNIM
JF-Expert Member
- Aug 29, 2007
- 2,241
- 83
mie tatizo langu kubwa ni "ufalme" wa kutawaliwa na watu wa familia moja, yaani unanikera sana.
wazungu bado wabaguzi, mie binafsi nime-suffer ubaguzi mkubwa sana kama wiki mbili zilizopata ambao hadi hii leo bado sija recover, na umenirudisha nyuma kama miezi tisa!!.......lakini mambo yanabadilika, na hasa hiki kizazi kipya nadhani kinaelewa kwamba " content of the character na sio color.
na jamaa yangu mbongo, ame volunteer in MD, anasema yaani kila nyumba wanayo bisha hodi huko silver springs ni "yes we can."
wazungu bado wabaguzi, mie binafsi nime-suffer ubaguzi mkubwa sana kama wiki mbili zilizopata ambao hadi hii leo bado sija recover, na umenirudisha nyuma kama miezi tisa!!.......lakini mambo yanabadilika, na hasa hiki kizazi kipya nadhani kinaelewa kwamba " content of the character na sio color.
na jamaa yangu mbongo, ame volunteer in MD, anasema yaani kila nyumba wanayo bisha hodi huko silver springs ni "yes we can."
Nyani Ngabu
Platinum Member
- May 15, 2006
- 97,151
- 137,140
Are you talkin' about Anna Mkapa? Dayuuuuum....that's all I can say
Nyani Ngabu
Platinum Member
- May 15, 2006
- 97,151
- 137,140
Ni premature kudhani hivi vi-caucus na primaries kuwa ndio general election. Nawaambia general election is a different ballgame na John McCain will be tough to beat. Subirini muone..
Nyani Ngabu
Platinum Member
- May 15, 2006
- 97,151
- 137,140
DAR si LAMU
JF-Expert Member
- Mar 31, 2007
- 2,928
- 560
..nyani,
..naona umeishiwa points za kutoa hoja brotha! hamna noma si uuchune tu! we mkeo mzuri? au demu wako for that case?
Nyani Ngabu
Platinum Member
- May 15, 2006
- 97,151
- 137,140
Hahahaaaa...demu wangu kifaa wewe...huwezi ukamlinganisha na mke wa Obama. Hata kama nimeishiwa points lakini ninachokisema ni kweli...kama huamini m-google kwenye net ujionee mwenyewe halafu uniambie....eeeeewwwwww
Yote tisa,
Kumi ni Superdelegates ktk Democratic National Convention. Ngoma bado kabisa..Things might turn like in Kenya!
All in All nashindwa kuamini ushindi wa rais kutoka minority group, not this Amerika iliyojaa kina Lou Dobbs - rais wa Marekani mwaka 2008 ni kutoka Republican!..
Ni mawazo yangu tu binafsi.
Kumi ni Superdelegates ktk Democratic National Convention. Ngoma bado kabisa..Things might turn like in Kenya!
All in All nashindwa kuamini ushindi wa rais kutoka minority group, not this Amerika iliyojaa kina Lou Dobbs - rais wa Marekani mwaka 2008 ni kutoka Republican!..
Ni mawazo yangu tu binafsi.
Similar Discussions
-
Kiongozi Mkuu mpya wa Iran ameomba poo, ataka maongezi na Trump- Started by Pdidy
- Replies: 76
-
How a failed meeting in Geneva started a war with Iran- Started by Mwl.RCT
- Replies: 1
-
Inaonekana nchi za kiarabu zimekubali US afunge virago- Started by kimsboy
- Replies: 6
-
-
Trump: Kuongezeka kwa bei ya mafuta duniani ni faida kwa Marekani- Started by Yoda
- Replies: 18