Your right, I don’t think America is ready for a German surnamed President. Germans are way too ethnic with their crazy sounding names like Busch and Hoover. Thats probably why Eisenhower lost to Stevenson in 52.
I think the Dems would have been overjoyed. I know I would have been. What the hell was there apologize for?
I’m not sure exactly what I said that Max objects to. That the Pubs would like to crush HRC in an election or that they think she’s a bitch. Can anyone seriously deny either one of those things?
Ok, maybe not all Pubs would call her a bitch, but an awful lot of them do…at least as many as the Dems who call Bush a chimp.
I would compare the Pubs desire for Hillary to run to the brief feeling of elation that Dems got when it looked like Pat Buchanan might get the nomination in '96. It was a dream opponent. A perfect, ideological boogeyman for the left and for moderates.
Hillary is not actually as liberal as her reputation but that doesn’t matter. She has been successfully painted for years as a cross between Gloria Steinem and Josef Stalin. She’s exactly the target the right would want. They would even put a woman on their own ticket (though probably not at the top) in order to try to neutralize her appeal as a potential maker of history.
I just can’t see the DNC being dumb enough to nominate the candidate that the enemy most wants to face.
I think you are stuck in the last century. Given a black candidate with the right positions, conservatives even in the South would vote for him/her in a heartbeat over, say, Hillary.
I would agree with this sentiment, with certain caveats. The Republican party has been enormously effective at getting their message across and defusing negatives. Couple that with their constituents ability to accept and internalize the messages, and I believe they could run a Gay Black Athiest Female with the “right positions” and win the south over Hillary. It would be a neat trick, but with their talent, I think they could do it.
Well, they’re not going to vote for Hillary, that’s for sure. But there is a small fraction of them who would stay home. It would also be a prime opportunity for Roy Moore or some such nutbar to go third party.
Note that when I say small fraction, I mean very small, probably not enough to matter in most elections. But given how close recent elections have been, it may be a block of votes they can’t afford to give up.
Condi Rice is not just a black woman–she’s never been married, which for a woman her age many people automatically equate with “gay”. (Just ask Dan Mongiardo, the surgeon who nearly upset Jim Bunning in Kentucky. It didn’t really come out in the media, but that was the chatter.) She’s also pro-choice, or has at least been lukewarm on the subject. She’s also a classic eggheaded “policy wonk”–just the sort of person I’d like to be President, but not someone who’s going to play well with certain crowds. She might overcome one or even two of these black marks, but put them all together and she’s a non-starter.
Nothing. I was just trying to point out that your statement wasn’t particularly partisan.
Maybe the “bitch” part, but I think you summed it up pretty acurately. I just don’t think you’re right about Hillary not planning to run, or that it’s only the Pubs that want her to. She’s on the top of the list in every poll of Dems when asked who they want to run in '08. Granted, that may change when the real contest gets going, but right now she’s the pick.
If the people want her, what are they going to do?
I think you overestimate people. I don’t limit my comments to people in the south or just republicans. There are many, many people of all colors, shapes, and sizes that would not vote for a non-white man. They certainly won’t admit it, but it is true. If what you are saying is true, the republicans would have/should have run Colin Powell for president in 2000. He polled higher than most anybody on either side. The problem is that both sides know he would never be elected over a reasonable talented white guy. It’s not that a black guy wouldn’t get votes, it’s that many people would stay home, or a conservative independent would come in and take their base away from them. Both sides know this, if you can’t see that then ask yourself why there has only been 3 black senators since reconstruction. One of whom, (Barack Obama) wouldn’t have been elected without his opponents flaking out. There have been plenty of chances for major parties to run black candidates. They don’t because they know it would be like giving away the election. I, more than anyone, would love to see this change. However, pretending like a large percentage of people wouldn’t have a problem with it is absurd.
Sorry to hijack.
Another problem (to me, at least) was that, despite his book and media exposure, nobody had a clue about the content of his politics, if any. (But then, that wasn’t a problem for Eisenhower – should have been, but wasn’t.)
… and that wasn’t a problem for GWB in 1998/1999? Politics today in less about your actually stance on issues as it is about how you are perceived by the public (with a few exceptions). The public opinion of blacks (esp. black males) is not too positive. That’s Powell main problem, and that’s something that cannot be overcome by political spin.
I think you’ve forgotten - they tried like hell to get Colin Powell, but Powell chose not to run. There was talk for quite a long time about how the nomination would be Powell’s in a walk if he just chose to run.
Perhaps … but ISTM this is a statement of faith that you’re putting beyond the reach of any possible disproof.
Does anyone know if there are any data on the reliability of polls in regards black candidates?
I think the vetting process of Black politicians in the Republican party is pretty tough, and if you make as far as Powel or Rice have, you’ve pretty much proven yourself to be solidly Republican. Not that either of them has been elected, but they’ve still make it high up the ranks of unelected office. I wouldn’t see a White racist problem for candidates like them. They’d most likely gain far more Black/minority votes than they’d lose from Whites.
That’s an interesting quotation, BrainGlutton. I disagree with it but that’s besides the point. Is it your own creation?
Yes. A politician, to get anything accomplished in an arena filled with conflicting wills, needs a certain amount of certainty that he/she knows what is best for society – IOW, an extraordinarily high level of pride and self-esteem. For that matter, you need that quality just to win public office. Is it not so?
This is far afield from the OP, but if I read you correctly then in your opinion only egotistical arrogant know-it-alls make politicians, a position I am unwilling to concede without a cite. I don’t know every politician, certainly, but if pressed I could name you several local ones I know personally who don’t have swelled heads.
And, in Powell’s case, was quickly marginalized and ignored during his tenure as Secretary of State. That’s gotta give him a whole lot of confidence in getting the support of the GOP…
Since you seem incapable of following the flow of a discussion, let me explain this one to you. We’re talking about race and political viability here. Powell’s “marginalization” had to do with disagreements over policy, most specifically on Iraq, and had nothing to do with his race.
No, only that a successful and effective politician is likely to be have more pride and self-confidence than the average citizen. Consider Lincoln – a man of deep humility, perhaps, in a spiritual sense, but certain enough of what he believed in, certain enough that he knew what was right for his country and confident enough in his own fitness to lead and to make the right decisions, that he was willing to pour out other men’s blood by the tens of thousands. That’s pride, and that’s what a politician needs.
Hillary Clinton, some are saying, has been running to the center lately. A bit, yeah, but she’s always been slightly conservative. Let’s remember that she does have an election coming up next year, and candidates often do run to the center as an election is drawing near. (Christ—just look at Rick Santorum!) Hillary Clinton hasn’t had much in the way of potential opposition, but she’s smart enough to know that you don’t assume that you’re not going to have any. And just this week former Massachusetts Governor Bill Weld has announced that he’s very interested in running for governor of New York, which just came out of nowhere. There’s no reason some other star carpetbagger (heh) might not arrive on the scene to challenge her. (Alan Keyes? You busy these days? Or is moving to New York to run for office still an “affront to federalism” in your book?)
She probably won’t have much of a challenger next year, but you never know. I agree with Diogenes the Cynic about a possible Hillary Clinton presidential run: it ain’t gonna happen. The Republicans are the ones who are kicking up all the dust about it. Why? Even they’ll admit: she’s the best fundraiser they’ve got. All they need to do is to raise the specter of President Hillary Clinton and their right-wing core breaks out into a cold sweat and opens their checkbooks. They’ll keep talking about Hillary Clinton trying to seize power for as long as she’s alive. It’s the screwiest myth in politics these days.
If you ask a Democrat whom they’d most likely vote for, it’s not surprising that so many of them are saying Hillary Clinton and John Kerry. Why? It’s not that those two are the real frontrunners. The reason is that most people aren’t even paying attention to who else might be thinking about running for the job! To be fair, it’s still spring of 2005; it’s unlikely anyone’s going to declare before January 2007. Political junkies still pore over names like Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, Tom Vilsack, Chris Dodd, Evan Bayh… but most people aren’t even thinking about the next presidential election, much less researching it, be they Democrats or Republicans. After 2000, when people were asked whom they’d most likely vote for, many just repeated the names they’d already heard of: Al Gore, Joe Lieberman and Hillary Clinton regularly topped those polls. And of those three, only one actually ran for president in 2004—Joe Lieberman—and he was one of the first candidates to drop out of the race.
I wouldn’t be surprised to see a wonk like Reich run for office—maybe Congress or for a governor. (Wasn’t he a gubernatorial candidate in Massachusetts in 2002? Or am I way off?) The man’s got potential, but even if we’ll ever find our way to elect another short president (like James Madison,) I doubt Reich will be it.
This may be a slight hijack, but if you think back to the 2004 Senate election in Illinois, there was quite a bit of excitement surrounding Barack Obama. He won the Democratic nomination, taking over 50% of an eight-way primary. His Republican opponent, Jack Ryan, pulled 35% in a seven-way primary. From the beginning, Ryan knew he was facing a tough race, and even if he hadn’t melted down, all the smart money was on Obama, early on. Obama was already very popular in Illinois, and would have cruised to victory over Jack Ryan or Jim Oberweis or whoever else the Republicans threw in his path. Illinois, it bears mentioning, elected a black woman to the Senate back in 1992.
Anyway, credit where credit is due: Barack Obama is a good politician in his own right.
What possible kind of cite could he produce? It’s not a factual statement.
Washington, Jefferson, TR, FDR … all arrogant in different ways.
Lincoln, Wilson, Truman and Reagan may have been personally humble, but they had a very deep conviction that their principles were right
I can’t think of a counter example.