majik

I have no problem with the concept of a woman president, given the proper person.
I have no problem with a black/hispanic president, given the proper person.

But in our current situation, having both a woman and minority running for the democratic party, and we're being shown how obvious it is that our country isn't ready for it. The biggest proof? It's all over the media. That's all the media can talk about, and both of their campaigns are talking about it. Obama's people keeps referring to Martin Luther King Jr. and civil rights, and trying to show Clinton as being unsympathetic to minorities.

On the other side, you have Clinton in one interview stating how she wants this political race to be about individuals not minorities (women & race). In the same interview she'll talk about how it's a huge breakthrough for women, to see how close they are to having a woman president.

The candidates and the media both are playing Race and Gender as the major reason to either Vote or Not Vote for the respective candidate. Get over it! It's not the 1950's anymore. I don't care if Obama is
black/puerto rican/latino/mexican/spanish/hungarian/mongolian/cuban/chilean/polish/kaiser/kosher/tofu or whatever. It has nothing to do with his/her ability to run a country. It has nothing to do with the issues they support.

This election is making me wish we did have a legitimate minority candidate to vote for; one that didn't put all of these superficial layers on the campaign. One that talked about real issues, not their gender or race, or the lack of consideration the other candidate gives to a certain gender or race. Leave it out of the discussions! Don't bring up Martin Luther King Jr. in your debates or commercials... he's not here and all you're doing is using his life/mission as a way to promote yourself or bash your opposition! That was 40+ years ago and he's not here to give his support to one candidate over another. Times have changed, and neither candidate even knew Dr. King.


Is anyone else ready to hear about the issues and not how one candidate can "relate" to a group of people better than the other? I just found this article, and even though the NY Times is largely understood as being very liberal, seems to agree with me.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/opinion/...amp;oref=slogin

supercow

I agree. I've been talking about it to a few friends and don't see how the democrats can win with obama or clinton. There's simply too much prejudice out there and all the media is getting to us is oh crap look, a woman and a black guy running for president.

At the beginning of the campaigns I told someone that given history it's going to be nearly impossible for the republicans to win unless the democrats really screw it up. It's always flopped back and forth. Sure there are exceptions but generally the public gets upset with the party in the presidential seat and goes to the party in the election booths.

I don't see clinton or obama getting to the elections for the simple fact that the democrats aren't going to risk the "gimme" presidency. If there's a good candidate for the democrats on voting day he will win. If it's clinton or obama the republicans will win.

Right now people want iraq over, gas prices down, etc. and they know that democrats will do that but most people aren't willing to vote for a woman or non caucasian just yet. Plus most people just don't like Hillary. If she'd kicked old bill to the curb a few years back I'd have a lot more respect for her.

Visionz

I think if either Obama or Hilary does end up in office, there will probably be assasination attempts, soley due to the fact that there are still way too many extremists and closed minded people out there that dont want a minority leader in office. Its a sad thing to think about in todays day and age, but America just isnt ready to follow the same path that other countries have taken, when it comes down to putting someone of a female gender or non-caucasian gender as President.

majik

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Supercow @ Jan 16 2008, 12:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Right now people want iraq over, gas prices down, etc. and they know that democrats will do that but most people aren't willing to vote for a woman or non caucasian just yet. Plus most people just don't like Hillary. If she'd kicked old bill to the curb a few years back I'd have a lot more respect for her.</div>
I keep hearing people say that. Hillary supports a long term military presence in Iraq. She's said it a few times; I'm sure I could find quotes for you if I looked (ontheissues.org)

okay, I looked it up on 'ontheissues.org' for info on Hillary
------------------------------------------------
Q: Why did you vote for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment which calls upon the president to structure our military forces in Iraq with regard to the capability of Iran?
A: I am against a rush to war. I was the first person on this stage and one of the very first in the Congress to go to the floor of the Senate back in February & say Bush had no authority to take any military action in Iran. Secondly, I am not in favor of this rush for war, but I'm also not in favor of doing nothing. Iran is seeking nuclear weapons. And the Iranian Revolutionary Guard is in the forefront of that, as they are in the sponsorship of terrorism. So some may want a false choice between rushing to war, which is the way the Republicans sound--it's not even a question of whether, it's a question of when and what weapons to use--and doing nothing. I prefer vigorous diplomacy. And I happen to think economic sanctions are part of vigorous diplomacy. We used them with respect to North Korea. We used them with respect to Libya.
Source: 2007 Democratic debate at Drexel University Oct 30, 2007
------------------------------------------------
I may be misinterpreting this, but it seems that she's saying she voted to "structure our military forces in Iraq" so that we can make plans to go to war with Iran if necessary. Only one month before making that statement, she said the following:
------------------------------------------------
Q: In 2006, Democrats were elected to the majority in the House and Senate, and many believed that was a signal to end the war. You have said that will not pledge to have all troops out by the end of your first term, 2013. Why not?
A: It is my goal to have all troops out by the end of my first term. But it is very difficult to know what we're going to be inheriting. We do not know, walking into the White House in January 2009, what we're going to find. What is the state of planning for withdrawal? That's why last spring I began pressing the Pentagon to be very clear about whether or not they were planning to bring our troops out. And what I found was that they weren't doing the kind of planning that is necessary, and we've been pushing them very hard to do so. You know, though, about the Democrats taking control of the Congress, I think the Democrats have pushed extremely hard to change this president's course in Iraq. The Democrats keep voting for what we believe would be a better course.

Source: 2007 Democratic primary debate at Dartmouth College Sep 26, 2007
------------------------------------------------
More Hillary Info:
On June 22, 2006 - Voted NO on redeploying troops out of Iraq by July 2007.
On March 15, 2007 - Voted YES on redeploying US troops out of Iraq by March 2008.

REDZMAN

My problem is that Americans want "Change" so much, they are willing to vote for folks with NO EXPERIENCE AT ALL!

Clinton? Experience? Besides the last 5 or so years as a senator (and no international experience), she's got NO experience. Just the experience of being married to a bad president/governor.

She was a First Lady, had nothing to do with policy or running the country, or the state when she was a governors wife, but she says she has experience, so folks vote for her. WTF?

Obama? What's he done? He's been a senator for what, about 10 years, if that, and that's it! He has NO international experience, and when asked the hard questions (remember the 'I'd nuke them' statement and such?) he stumbles and falls.

It's sad, but one of those 2 will probably become the next president, because of the desire for "change" that the Media has drilled into everyone's heads.

What's even more sad, I can almost guarantee whichever one gets elected, will be assassinated, or there will be attempts. Too many men are not ready for this, too many people in general are not ready for a black president either.

I could care less about race, religion, or sex, but not everyone is like me.

majik

I wasn't going to post anything else about it, but I just opened up iGoogle and on my home page, one of the top news headlines was "Clinton Addresses Race on BET" ... WHY?!

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01...es-race-on-bet/

January 16, 2008, 11:43 am


Clinton Addresses Race on BET
By Ariel Alexovich

Hillary Rodham Clinton answered a few tough questions about race on MSNBC last night, and if you had switched your TV over to BET, you could have seen her respond to a second batch of hard questions on the topic.

Mrs. Clinton was in the hot seat last night on a half-hour BET news program called "What's in it for us? Hillary Clinton and the Black vote. BET's Jeff Johnson grilled the New York senator about why she thinks she's the best hope for African-Americans.

Some of what she said on the program echoed what she was saying live during the debate with her rivals John Edwards and Barack Obama last night. She was even wearing a near-identical outfit - black pantsuit, bright pink blouse, thick silver necklace - on both shows.

In both venues, Mrs. Clinton pushed the fact that neither she nor Mr. Obama would have made it this far in the Democratic race had it not been for the civil rights leaders of yesterday, but added that she hopes race and gender don't become the defining issues of the campaign.

Mrs. Clinton/s campaign recently has had to deal with criticism of comments one of her supporters, Robert L. Johnson, made that some people interpret as a slur on Mr. Obama.

Mr. Johnson, who is the founder of BET, was brought up by name by debate moderator Brian Williams, but the topic was not broached during the BET special (nor was it discussed during Mrs. Clinton/s other appeal to the black community, an appearance on Tyra Banks's talk show earlier this week).

Jeff Johnson, the interviewer, noted that Mrs. Clinton entered the presidential race with "instant street cred" among black voters because of her connection to Bill Clinton. But Mr. Johnson asked her whether talk of President Clinton being labeled the ?first black president? should be considered offensive to African-Americans.

<blockquote>"Oh, I don/t think I'd be offended,? she said. ?I think it was, you know, meant in a good sense that Bill has, you know, such deep and lasting ties with the African-American community. I look forward to seeing an African American president, and I know that people in the African-American community are faced with a very difficult choice. And I respect that, because isn/t it a wonderful chance that we have to have such extraordinary candidates running on the Democratic side."</blockquote>That was as close as Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Johnson got to mentioning Mr. Obama by name.

Mr. Johnson also asked the candidate why it was the Republican party - not the Democrats - that installed the first black secretary of state and national security adviser.

Mrs. Clinton grew animated as she indirectly answered the question:

<blockquote>Well, I'm going to reach out and have a tremendously qualified Cabinet and government and White House that will be part of a team that's going to change America, and it will represent America. And that is something that I believe in totally because I want to be sure that I get the best talent and the best motivated and the most energized people in America. </blockquote><blockquote>And you know, for me it is somewhat intriguing that Colin Powell and Condi Rice have these jobs while African-American incomes went down, disparities between the rich and the poor grew wider, while we had more and more uninsured people disproportionately people of color, schools were put under this tremendous, unfunded mandate of No Child Left Behind and the dropout rate went up, so it shouldn't be either or. </blockquote><blockquote>It shouldn't be, Oh, hey, we've got tremendously qualified talented people that can be on TV and who have been very successful themselves." That's part of it. But what are we doing to lift up the hopes and aspirations and deliver to the vast majority of people in our country? The Bush administration failed at that. And they failed around the world. </blockquote><blockquote>I think that for me, it's combining that. It's saying, "Look, I'm blessed to have such deep and broad African American support from all walks of life and all kinds of expertise. But it's not going to do me any good if they come in and just keep the status quo.</blockquote>Mrs. Clinton said some of her policy priorities would specifically help the black community, including universal pre-kindergarten to help close the gap between black and white children. She also pledged to reform mandatory minimum prison sentencing.

Mr. Johnson threw the senator a softball for the last question: Does she dance to hip hop? If so, which artist does she like?

<blockquote>"You know what, I haven't had a lot of time to dance lately," she admitted. "But I will say that, you know, there are a lot of people who I'm not as much of a fan as my daughter is. She gave - in fact, she thought Bill and I were so deficient in our appreciation of hip hop, that three Christmases ago she gave us about 25 CDs, and we're working our way through them. But I have a lot of friends in the hip hop world, so I'm gonna, I'm gonna just not pick a favorite right now."</blockquote>

javageek

Hillary Clinton does have experience. She has experience in scandal. I am very surprised I have not heard anything about the Rose Law Firm yet in the debates. As a military member I am hoping someone comes into office that incorporates a scheduled withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan. Almost everyone I have talked to that are military members feel the same way. Plain and simple the majority of the troops are tired. Yes, it is a total volunteer force, but "You WILL be deployed for 3/4 of your career!" is not a phrase the recruiters are using as of yet. I know people that have been in 6 years and have deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan 8 times already. In the Air Force deployments are only 90 days at a time, but that's two whole years of an enlistment! Us folks in the military are ready for change, who we vote for now (IMHO) will determine the future of our military.

Tibbychick

I just want Bill Clinton back in the White House. He was fun.

Actually I really don't care who wins, as long as they have a brain. However Bush got elected is still a mystery to me.

DTN

I hope obama wins.

Hillary is too much of an activist for me. If we have an activist as a president, that means we all have to live with activist rules. She gets involved in too much I think.

On the other hand, Obama, being just as capable and with more experience would be my choice. As a plus, he's black, which may not matter too much to those in the north, but here in the south black people LOVE to pull the race card. This would put an end to "the white man always keeping the black man down".

I'm not a racist. I see plenty of racisim here in the dirty south where it flourishes. I think having a black president would eliminate alot of it.