Despite low polling, Bill Richardson has a strong resume that makes him eminently qualified for the presidency. If by some miracle he was nominated, I think most Democrats would have no problem supporting him in the general election.
It is usually skipped over, but America has never had a black or female president. To simply state it is not a problem now might be naive. It still must be proven that it is possible for us to escape the rich white presidents we have been electing. Especially since money is such a huge part of the equation. The rich want one of their own in.
To be fair, America will always have never had a black or female president until we have one.
This race certainly goes a long way toward making it not unusual anymore- which is a big step.
Only if one of them actually win. Other countries have had women leaders for many years. We are way behind and may still not be ready. We will probably elect a rich white guy again.
While is certainly is nifty keen to “go a long way toward” electing a minority (females included in that since it’s politics) president, I’m not interested in warm and fuzzy “kumbiya” moments. I’m interested in the Dems winning the White House. Right now, we are doomed to another 4 years of Pubbiness because the Dems insist on shooting themselves in the foot with Hillary and Barrack as the only possible nominees.
There will come a minority candidate that is not hobbled by inexperience or an insurmountable amount of baseless fanatical hatred. THAT will be the time to nominate that candidate for president. It could happen anytime, but it is not happening in this Dem primary race. (Most likely, it will occur first with a Republican nominee.)
Pragmatism. Even if it means being accused of racism, sexism, bla-bla-bla-ism, it gets the job done.
Let’s all sing “We Shall Overcome” as one more rich, white, male Republican is inaugurated in 2009.
Who’s your white guy then? Kerry? whoops. Kucinich? Gore won’t run and is hated besides. Dodd?
I like Dodd, I guess. But he’s polling at 1%. Must be Edwards. I like him too. Will be voting for him or Obama.
It seems to me that most of the people who back Hillary do it out of pragmatism (!), not some misguided sense that they are sticking something in the White Man’s ass.
Wait, who’s Gore hated by? Aside from the obvious conservatives?
Bill Clinton was only moderately rich and new-money at that, but it didn’t stop him. Hillary should have no more trouble on that score, at least.
How in the world is choosing Obama “shooting themselves in the foot”? Aside from the “experience” angle, there’s really nothing they can really sink their teeth into. The fact remains that, as more people get to know him, the more traction he gets. He’s not the end-all be-all, but there is absolutely no Democrat who has a better chance of bridging the Red State/Blue State divide, particularly against a group that is as polarizing as the top GOP wannabes.
Hilary, though, is an accident waiting to happen. The continous gaffes among her staff (Obama & muslims, Obama & drugs) demonstrate the tenor of her campaign. As much as she might want to separate herself from their actions, it’s not wrong to associate that type of old school politicking with her. Obama, thus far, has represented the best antidote to that type of political theater–on both sides of the aisle (McCain’s a distant second). It’s embarrassing how much sniping is going back & forth between Giuliani, Romney & Huckabee, and Obama is the perfect person to draw in conservatives who are increasingly dissatisfied with the pro-torture, pro-cronyism, pro-sanctimony insularity that is jeopardizing the Republicans.
Here’s an interesting poll: Which of the leading presidential candidates would you most want to prevent from becoming president? Hilary is a whopping 40%. Note this isn’t simply, “For whom would you not vote?” It’s worse than that. For the Democrats to nominate someone who has no chance of reaching 4 out of 10 Americans, under any circumstance, is cutting their margins way too thin. (Note that Obama is only 1 out of 10).
Yes, in head-to-head comparisons, Hilary is slightly ahead of her various GOP counterparts, but Obama, on average, has twice the lead she does over G/R/H. And there’s certainly enough baggage (some earned, some not) that she brings into the race to virtually guarantee that any victory on her part would lead to a level of paralysis from the Oval Office that would nullify any “win” the Democrats get.
It’s not enough that she can get there. She needs to be able to actually get things done once she does. There’s enough vitriol against her and her husband among the right to make me doubt she could accomplish what needs to happen (and that’s even if she doesn’t have a single misstep–truly wishful thinking when it comes to that dynasty).
I called it here on the board a few months ago, but I honestly think Obama will win the whole thing. I think Edwards would make a strong running mate, and I can only hope that the Dems aren’t so infatuated with Bill to see how unviable his wife is as a national candidate.
Yep- the poster I was responding to listed “fanatical hatred” (presumably from the right) as a knock on Hillary, I think there is at least as much fanatical hatred for Gore.
Regardless, I wish Gore would run, more than ever.
People, what makes me nervous is really this:
Let’s say Hill and Obama team up, they run as P & VP.
(Doesn’t matter who takes what role.)
I think that the Republicans could get Dan Quayle
and John Mark Karr (Benet Ramsey’s supposed killer),
put those two shmucks on their ticket…
and win by over 80%.
I think there’s still that fear that if we’re attacked
at all by anyone, A.) It better be a guy in charge,
B.) It better be a republican.
Surprisingly, there still seems to be a lot of support
for this current war, like many Americans think it’s necessary.
Let’s all do the shudder! (Brrrrr…)
Kind of off-topic . . . but I doubt that very much; both HRC and BO are electable in the general. Not shoo-ins – race/gender prejudice still matters – but it’s not an insuperable obstacle like it once was.
Cite?
Sorry, it was off topic, but to get back on,
Hill will take the nom. The dems DO seem to like to try new things,
once every 50 years, maybe, but who has a better chance against
her GOP Grim Reaper? I think it’s more like,
“Okay, we’re Dems, we’re not running, who should run forus?”
For CITE?
Damn, I wish I had one. This comes mainly from co-workers.
I thought I was surrounded by liberals last week,
now it appears that the office I work in is split down the middle
on Iraq.
Republicans can’t afford to make an issue out of Clinton’s gender. They need female voters and if they try to imply a woman is unqualified to be president, they risk a huge backlash.
Your office is what they call a ‘convenience sample,’ and those tend not to be particularly random. It’s also a pretty small sample too, I’d bet.
Try here for a whole bunch of recent Iraq polls. (And some not-so-recent ones too.)
There are three new polls from Iowa, and one from NH. And while Edwards is still a longshot, I’m starting to be guardedly optimistic about his chances.
It’s essentially a 3-way tie in Iowa. I know, it’s been that for awhile, but for a few months, Edwards had been on the low side of the tie. Not so much now - his numbers are on the rise again.
Ditto NH, where he’s still behind, but he’s hit 20% in the L.A. Times poll. Three of the last four non-ARG polls in NH have had him at 18% or higher. If he wins Iowa - still a big ‘if,’ of course - the boost from winning there should boost him into a virtual tie in NH with Hillary and Obama. And if he can win NH too, he’s the frontrunner.
That’s two big ‘ifs.’ Which is the reality of the situation - IA and NH are double-elimination (if that) for Hillary and Obama, with their money, their organizations, and the media’s willingness to cover their campaigns. They’re single-elimination for Edwards: if he loses Iowa, he’s gone. If he wins Iowa but loses NH, then the NH winner, be it Hillary or Obama, will be in far better shape than Edwards in SC and on Super Tuesday.
For quite some time, it’s been hard to see a route to the nomination for Edwards that doesn’t involve winning both Iowa and NH. The difference now is, it’s starting to look like an Iowa win should give him a decent chance, at least, to win NH.
But, many women think that, or so I’ve heard.
OTOH, I know some women who ordinarily take no interest in politics, who plan to vote for HRC just because she’s a woman.
Edwards has a shot, I think. I’m hearing that he has a big organizational advantage in Iowa’s rural precincts.
Iowa is sort of do-or-die for Edwards, I imagine. But if he manages a win there, I can see a bandwagon effect carrying forward.
I am sort of hoping for a third-place finish by Hillary in Iowa, as I think either Obama or Edwards would do better in the general election.
I’ll stick with my prediction of Obama as the nominee, but I would not be particularly surprised (or at all disappointed) to see Edwards emerge.
It’s surprising how few people actually count in an election. First off, you have the people who can’t vote along with the people who don’t vote - so as far as politics are concerned, they literally don’t count. People who vote for third parties don’t matter either - if you’re not voting for a Democrat or Republican, the guy you’re voting for isn’t going to get elected. And the Democrats and the Republicans both have a core - a group of voters who will vote for their party’s nominee regardless of who it is.
So elections in the United States are all decided by the small group of people who are left - the people who will actually make a choice between the Democratic and Republican nominee and vote for one of them. The entire presidential campaign process is mostly devoted to reaching these voters.
Getting back to your post, my guess is that the overwhelming majority of the female voters who believe a woman is unqualified to be president are going to be conservatives. So they won’t vote for Clinton because she’s a woman but they weren’t going to vote for her anyway. And they aren’t going to vote for any other Democratic candidate either. The Democratic party isn’t going to win over these voters so it would be senseless for them to base their nomination on these voters.
You’re leaving out a big group, and probably the biggest–the voters who have a clear preference for one candidate or another, but who aren’t 100% likely to vote. I personally can’t think of anyone I knew in the last Presidential election who was truly undecided between Bush and Kerry, but I can think of a dozen people who clearly preferred one over the other but didn’t vote.
You win the election not just by winning over the undecideds, but by giving the decideds a reason to come out. That was the point of all the anti-gay amendments on the ballots last time. They won’t have that well to go to this time, and dissatisfaction with the war and with the GOP in general should be a big reason for the Dems to get out, so this advantage will probably shift.
I worry that Hillary won’t light any fires in the base, but I don’t see anybody on the GOP side setting theirs aflame, either.