Of all the Years for our Dem Party to do the Race/Gender Thing...why pick 2008?

[KoKo]

Can someone help me here with the logic? With Bush/Cheney and the "Unitary Presidency" and Violations of the US Constitution so outrageous....the Dem Party decides THIS IS THE YEAR...to make Race and Gender an Issue?

Are we CLUELESS....WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON?

We had a great slate of Candidates starting out. And, if one didn't like the Progressives like Gore, Kucinich or Edwards one had Richardsen, Biden and Dodd! Richardson, Biden and Dodd have experience that would cower Obama and Clinton AND they all had Great Charm and Personalities that could have worked "across the aisle." We even had Weird Mike Gravel who is a counterpart to Ron Paul!

Now we have what ..6 States who have voted and 2 who don't count but so far Richardson, Dodd, Biden, Kucinich and now John Edwards have all DROPPED OUT?

What is this? What kind of Democratic Party is this? Can someone help me here? Most Americans are looking forward to the "Super Bowl" and "Super Tuesday" is some kind of "Kick Off!" They don't know what's gone on before that they are now down to two Dem Candidates! Even the Repugs (dirty BushBots) have allowed THEIR PROCESS to winnow out. But not our Democratic Party....

Who the hell is calling the shots here? The voters or some CABAL?

[goldcanyonaz]

1. Cuz that white man (Kerry) who ran in 2004 did so well?

[Andrea]

6. The election in '04 was stolen

what Kerry did wrong was not fight hard enough after it was stolen.

[doc03]

17. I think Dean would have won if the MSM

wouldn't have invented the dean scream thing.

[Andrea]

18. I think you are right

That scream was nothing - they just latched onto it to drive him out.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Andrea]

41. With supporters like you

She MUST be great!
:sarcasm:



I'm considering recommending you seek professional help, but unfortunately counseling is usually not successful for people with personality disorders.

[SecularNATION]

54. In the general?

HRC has extremely high negatives going in. The goal is the White House. There are several candidates who would've had a better chance at winning the general election in November.

[rodeodance]

65. It is beyond RUDE to call Sen. Clinton a 'DIRTBAG" !!

HRC is the STRONGEST CANDIDATE. GET USED TO IT
Posted by neutron


Dirtbag

[sampsonblk]

60. Kerry was pathetic

Face it. He was an awful candidate.

[book_worm]

7. Hey we agree!

:)

[jasmine621]

30. Who announced first, Obama or Clinton? Just asking. nt

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rodeodance]

66. and now you call a poster Trollshit.---for asking a question.

36. you're from Daily Kurse too. Go back where you came from

Trollshit.

[jasmine621]

68. I found the answer. Clinton, January, 2007 Obama, May 2007

It's just a curious bit of information that adds to my suspicions about who is backing Obama and why.

[GodlessBiker]

2. Get a grip. The voters are deciding. The white men don't always win, you know.

(Although it may not always seem like that.)

[WinkyDink]

63. Excuse me? Have you looked at all our previous Presidents??

[557188]

3. Offensive

This post is rather offensive. Judge the candidates based on their actual qualities.

Seriously, this type of shit is probably the worst post I've seen in GDP and that is saying a lot.

[HughMoran]

35. I agree

This sort of navel gazing can be done in the comfort of her own bed.

[Island Blue]

4. 'Cause the woman who's running

was too chicken to give it a try in '04, even though she's been planning to run since 1999? :shrug:

[Metric System]

9. I don't think Hillary would be so arrogant to run after just one term in the Senate, unlike...

[Armstead]

10. Huh?

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Andrea]

5. Exactly

why have we helped the Republicans to marginalize us?

We had a great slate to start with and now we are screwed.

[bklyncowgirl]

8. Don't forget Richardson--the only guy with executive experience in the group.

Oh sorry, he sucked on TV, that's the main qualification these days.

[KoKo]

11. Great Point...I just added him...sorry for leaving out...What a Great Hispanic Candidate!

We had an "embarrassment of riches" running. But everyone had to drop out before MOST OF AMERICA even VOTED!!! WHYYYYYY would our Dem Party DO THIS???

[bklyncowgirl]

13. I really didn't think we'd be down to two candidates by 'Super Tuesday'

For once New Jersey gets to actually be relevant and we're down to two, count-em two, candidates.

No disrespect to Senators Clinton and Obama, mind you or their supporters, but I would have like to have been able to choose between a nice selections of applicants for the job as opposed to having to choose between two who may not meet the qualifications.

It's sort of like having your secretary rule out some people you would really like to have hired before you even got to have met them.

[KoKo]

14. And what about us here in NC...who don't vote until May 5th...we will never see the candidates

just like when John Kerry didn't show up before our vote but Edwards and Elizabeth showed up in a Rally that filled our stadium... But...no Kerry...because the "Southern Strategy" wasn't what "The Party" wanted to focus on.

[doc03]

19. What about us in Ohio

same here. I don't think any Democrat has ever been elected without carrying Ohio and we never have any choice in the primary. Consistently the f---ing party establishment have our candidate picked in a handful of little states and the MSM. I'm just disgusted with the whole thing. I just hope an acceptable third party candidate emerges.

[Andrea]

21. I'm with you

Here's my "wildest dreams" ticket:

Gore-Edwards running as third party.

[doc03]

22. That would be my dream ticket too n/t

[bklyncowgirl]

55. I feel your pain--New Jersey used to do it in June

They changed it this year. Well, at least we're relevent, sort of, but it would have been nice for the early states to have left us a few more choices.

There has to be a better way.

[Andrea]

20. right!!!

when this started, I was deciding among these great candidates: Edwards, Kucinich, Richardson, Dodd, and Biden. Now look. Come our March 4th primary here is Ohio, it will be meaningless (even if both Clinton and Obama are still in).

Why couldn't people see that those two candidates were being forced on us and ask the simple question, why?

[Jack Sprat]

38. Chris Matthews is so excited to see history

unfolding in the 08 campaign. Do you think Matthews is about to vote for Clinton or Obama over John McCain? Not.

[Andrea]

42. He LOVES McCain

I guess he'll love discussing the war with Iran, too.

[K Gardner]

12. Excellent post.. interesting analysis and good points. I think we get caught up in the

hype and forget the facts: 4 states = 6 candidates OUT. Absolutely unbelievable. But I never for one minute, not since figuring out the MSM and the Superdelegates, felt like "we" were calling the shots. The script calls for Hillary v McCain and that's how it will turn out.

[KoKo]

15. And...the "Script" Decides...Not those of us Registered Democrats ...who donate

and are constantly told to GET MORE INVOLVED? I speak as a Precinct Vice-Chair for Kerry/Edwards '04.

[livvy]

57. And McCain is the chosen one.

With him in the White House, the regime continues. Four more years of the same or worse.
The deal was sealed with the hug.

K, I'm with you on this. I don't mean to sound like a pessimist, on the contrary, it gives me more reason to fight. I will support the Dem candidate, be it Clinton or Obama. I have a preference between the two, but it is not a super strong one at this point. My candidate of choice, who did not fit into the plan was eliminated after Iowa.


There is the reality like we have been taught, and then there may be other realities, that we are unwilling to accept as possibilities for what the reality actually is. They are unacceptable possibilities and completely against what we have been taught about our role in this fragile Republic.

[ecstatic]

16. Yeah... they should get to the back of the bus!

:sarcasm:

Well, there's still one white man on the D side you can vote for. And there's always Nader and the repugs.:eyes:

[LiberalFighter]

23. The party decided to have both a woman a black man run for President?

I don't think so.

[MonkeyFunk]

24. Because they ran

The party didn't do anything.

[Maven]

25. Why not 2008? It's about time, on both accounts.

[Zorra]

26. After Bu*h, no republican presidential candidate had a snowball's chance in hell to win...until

the Democratic party ran a novelty primary campaign in which an unelectable candidate would emerge as the winner.

Corporations have lots of money. They hire MENSA folks to figure out how they can most easily maintain control of our government through media manipulation of the political process.

[Jack Sprat]

32. shhhh. You'll break their hearts.

Some of them are still believers.

[Phillycat]

73. DING DING DING DING DING

Nail. Head.

[Triana]

27. answer: Some CABAL....

...namely the corporations who own and control our government and our media.

[2hip]

28. The Dems only wanted to "make history"

The Dems only wanted to make history and "we the people" and Electability just wasn't part of the equation. We've been sold out again. Our so-called democracy really is a sham, isn't it?

[VotesForWomen]

29. Clue: white males aren't entitled to the presidency. too bad they made that the 'issue' for over 200

years.

[Jack Sprat]

31. Honestly, because we have been about making

statements more often than we are about winning elections. It goes back to McGovern in 72. We had the first female VP in 88. It was great, but we took a thumping if you recall. We are the most self-destructive party by far. We take beatings out of some sense of obligation, I think. McCain will likely win the Independents and that's the death knell for us in 08.

[EffieBlack]

39. A couple of things

First, Geraldine Ferraro was on the ticket in '84, not 88. '88, was the year (just like all the other ones, except '84) that we had two white men on the ticket. How'd that work out?

Oh, and Walter Mondale's butt-kicking had nothing to do with having a woman VP nominee. He'd have gotten shellacked that year with anyone, with the possible exception of Jesus Christ (and even that would have been no guarantee).

It's absolute bullshit to even suggest that somehow having an African American or a woman running will be the death knell for Democrats. White men do not have some kind of built in guarantee of winning elections by virtue of their pigment and testicles. White men win elections because only white men run.

What you are arguing is for the indefinite perpetuation of white supremacy.

But I'm starting to realize something . . . many of you who continually make this crap argument aren't so much worried that the black man or the woman will lose - you're worried that they will WIN!

[Jack Sprat]

43. right.

You have all the answers. No arguing with you. Did you help give Mondale/Ferraro that shellacking? I didn't. I voted for them. You seem to have this white supremacy utmost in your thoughts. You sure have a way of making friends and influencing people.

[EffieBlack]

37. Yes - let's wait another 20 or 30 years before allowing more than half of the population

to be eligible to run for president. White men have been doing such a great job all this time, why change now?

Jeez.

[mrbluto]

40. Easy answer: It's the most plausible way to lose.

Stealing an election isn't easy - neither is being the shill team that loses to the Harlem Globe Trotters. You have to be inventive.

The focus on race/gender is the best way to keep the contest within striking distance of being stolen. They can claim they tried.

Hey - give the line in the papers "...probably Bush's last SOTU address..." everyone who's reasonably comfortable in this country should count their lucky stars, because otherwise there was likely to be an overt coup and a third Bush term.

Doesn't really matter. Your political voice is now has the impact of chalk graffiti on a granite wall.

We live in an empire - the experiment (in Democracy) is long over.

Time to bite the bullet, admit the reality, and proceed to climb and claw as far up as you can in an imperial system of governance. Otherwise you'll just wind up being a casualty of what I call "The Eventual Solution".

[Andrea]

44. Yeah, it is

the most plausible way to lose. That's what I think. The experiment is over. Time for a new experiment. A revolution by regular people who support what this country was supposed to be. We need to revolt and restore the constitution. No violence, no destruction. But we have to find a way to restore the principles of democracy. It is up to US, the PEOPLE.

[chascarrillo]

45. Pathetic race/gender baiting from the Edwards camp.

You lost. Get the fuck over it.

[LiberalHeart]

46. Well, that was charming.

[chascarrillo]

47. As charming as the OP's "Why did we have to nominate a broad or a colored"?

You can shut the fuck up as well.

[BeyondGeography]

48. Congratulations on a comically lame post

:applause:

[AJ9000]

49. You're right. 2008 wasn't the best time to see of we're ready for a women/black president.

If the answer is that we're not, then our country will pay a severe price. Edwards, Kucinick, Gravel had much better platforms anyway.

But hey, the reality is that the corporate media is mostly behind the demise of the candidates who truly represented change.

[EffieBlack]

50. You DO realize that that will ALWAYS be the excuse for maintaining a racist status quo?

As it always has been. That's the argument the slaveholders used against abolition - "Slavery will EVENTUALLY die out, but we can't do it right now. It will wreck the economy and be really bad for the darkies since they can't possibly take care of themselves."

It's the argument that was used to keep women from getting the vote, from getting equal pay, from getting a college education - they're just not ready yet. Just sit tight, your time will come. Be patient.

It's the argument that the segregationists used in their massive resistance movement against the enforcement of Brown.

It's ALWAYS the argument that is used to keep people down. "The time is just not right." Funny, the time always seems right for white males - how convenient.

But you know something? If you believe that we're just not ready, that the time is not right, you will ALWAYS believe that because when it comes to that argument, "next time" never comes.

[AJ9000]

52. I'm afraid many have supported for HRC or Barack based on gender/race. That's too bad

b/c Edwards would have done more to help minorities/women than either of those 2 with his truly progressive platform. He also would likely have destroyed any Republican in the 08 general.

[EffieBlack]

53. And people have supported Edwards because he's white, etc.

You apparently believe that the only reason that Obama and Clinton are doing as well as they are is that people are supporting them BECAUSE of their race.

You ignore the fact that they have both had to overcome enormous odds JUST to get into the room. I think it's disingenuous at best and sadly bigoted at worst for people to assume that somehow a black or female candidate has a built-in advantage because of their race - with the flip-side being, of course, that the white male candidates are somehow at a disadvantage because of theirs.

People support candidates for all kinds of reasons, many of which have nothing to do with their objective qualifications. It's interesting that the only time some people seem to be worried about that is if they think that - GOD FORBID - the race or gender of a black or female person is not limited to just being a liability.

And, btw, you may believe that Edwards would have "destroyed" any Republican, but considering he couldn't even get 20% of the DEMOCRATIC vote in most of the primaries he ran in, it's kind of hard to prove that to anyone.

[DiamondJay]

51. one word: buzz

[Perry Logan]

56. Another word: change.

[SammyWinstonJack]

58. Why not ask Obama and Hillary, the ones with the huge egos. They could have waited.

But then, it really IS all about THEM and not us.

[pampango]

59. MLK could have just waited, too.

If a woman or a Black run, "it's all about them". If a white man runs, it's all about public service.

And I know that "this election is too important" to risk breaking new gender or racial ground. But then the elections in 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004 were probably "too important" too, as will be the elections in 2012, 2016, 2020 and so on.

[rodeodance]

70. bingo

[sampsonblk]

61. Yeah! Let's wait a few more decades... ?

What, if anything, are you thinking?

[rodeodance]

62. Clinton embodies womanness and Obama embodies blackness. Live with it as they do.

[WinkyDink]

64. I thought we weren't supposed to mention race. Furthermore, I thought Obama supporters are pointing

out his MIXED heritage.

[rodeodance]

69. Who declared we can not mention race? And i know obama is of mixed

heitage. He identifies himself as black.

[tom_paine]

67. Cabal. n/t

[psychopomp]

71. You missed the point

Neither race nor gender are the issue; the issue is who will be best to be President.

[Jennicut]

72. It was going to happen eventually

Why not now? If not now then when? Kerry was not the greatest candidate but the best one that emerged from the pack at the time. I thought he would have made a good president. Also, Gore never said he was running. My vote would have been for him but with politics and campaigns being so ugly I don't blame him for not getting in. So we are left with Hillary or Obama. I really don't care if one is a woman and one is a black man. I will look at their records, views, and positions and then decide who is the better person for the job. Our two candidates are not perfect and the system desperately needs to be fixed. Still, as John Stewart said the other night, its only taken 200 some odd years to finally have a woman or black candidate be a nominee for president. I think its time to get over this question of can this or that person be elected. Its 2008. Besides, there is always the age issue with McCain. Is he too much of an old fart to be elected? That is the real issue here.

[cobalt1999]

74. Because 2008 is a slam dunk win for the democrats.

As for being down to two candidates, blame the primary system. Fight to get a national primary day so the entire country can vote for a full slate of candidates instead of the (Dean endorsed) few favored states.

If you are worried the republicans will win, then you must also believe...
The republican base will turn out for McCain (not a chance)
The economy will rebound into a boom (again, no chance)
The war will be over and the troops home (HA!)

If any year is a sure thing and a get year to break barriers THIS IS THE YEAR!

[Whisp]

75. is a bit odd.

of all the times for two 'minorities' going head to head for the big prize, .... now?
has america gone less sexist or less racist than 4, 8, 12 years ago? I don't think so. more likely the opposite if you consider the points of fascism that have become worthy of serious thought these last few years.

Could the hand picked Hillary have had a chance against a white male?

these things are decided upon far in the past and not by voters. It's just a show, folks.