0
   

2004 Elections: Democratic Party Contenders

 
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Apr, 2004 04:24 pm
Colin Powell has shown an inclination not to run - for the very reasons that are ongoing right now. I don't think for one second that he would put them aside at this juncture - VP maybe a different thought though - only with someone he personally supports.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Apr, 2004 04:26 pm
timberlandko wrote:
Pretty much with ya there, nimh, even though it puts me with you in opposition to Scrat; a rare occurrance indeed, eh?


Let's cherish it for the sheer single-time occurrence it will probably be ... Laughing
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Apr, 2004 04:29 pm
BillW--
I am concerned that Colin wants out of politics altogether. But, oddly...didn't he make an announcement that he was retiring after the first term? I know I saw him on some news show recently, saying again that he serves at the pleasure of his C in C, when asked what his second term plans were...

Can anyone clear this up for me?
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Apr, 2004 04:32 pm
Gee, Bill ... that's good too ...

Condi and Colin
Great For '08
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Apr, 2004 04:33 pm
yes, yes, and yes - that's clear as mud Wink

everything was slanted in poli-talk . . . . .

He was also out of politics after BushI
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Apr, 2004 04:35 pm
Sofia, Colin has said his druthers are to retire, but as also he has said, he "Serves at the pleasure of" his C in C. If asked to stay on, I doubt he would demure. What remains to be seen is whether he is asked.
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Apr, 2004 04:35 pm
Quote:
Rice in the Hot Seat Over Future Role
Los Angeles Times (subscription), CA - Apr 4, 2004
... occupants of those jobs, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell ... shrugs off inquiries about his own future, saying only: "I serve at the pleasure of the president.". ...


I don't have a membership in the LA Times. He has made this statement before.........
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Apr, 2004 04:45 pm
But, he also made noises about retiring after the first term.

I wonder about that now....
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Apr, 2004 04:47 pm
Meanwhile, the last job rating poll ...

http://www.pollingreport.com/images/PEWpres.GIF

Just the one poll, of course ... overall, the average of the polls from the second half of March was 49% approve, 44% disapprove ... lessee how it goes the next two weeks.
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Apr, 2004 05:00 pm
Lessee how it goes after tomorrow.....
0 Replies
 
JoanneDorel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Apr, 2004 06:30 pm
Colin Powel will never run for office - he has a past and a proctective wife that does not want her family run into the ground. I would even bet she will not let him stay on as Secretary of State.
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Apr, 2004 06:40 pm
Tell.
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Apr, 2004 07:18 pm
William Question
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Apr, 2004 07:31 pm
Apple and spice? * Sorry, couldn't resist the temptation.
0 Replies
 
Tarantulas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Apr, 2004 08:05 pm
http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/afp/20040407/capt.sge.fbh52.070404063856.photo00.default-256x384.jpg
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Apr, 2004 10:09 am
nimh wrote:
If you read up a little about the demonisation that the first Catholic candidate, for example, faced (try the link above for example) ... There's a historical tradition (and no, not just in the US) of the first candidate from whichever minority group facing severe "head wind", also from within his/her own party.

We've had black candidates run from both major parties. Please show me where these were treated with hostility or marginalized by any sizable group because of their skin color.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Apr, 2004 04:36 pm
Scrat wrote:
We've had black candidates run from both major parties. Please show me where these were treated with hostility or marginalized by any sizable group because of their skin color.

Nah, I think I'll take a pass this time, at least for tonight. It's certainly a rousing enough challenge, and I would actually be most interested in reading up on a couple of specific case studies, so I might get back to it later. But unfortunately I do not exactly have the kind of archive at hand here that would allow me to reach out to some folder and pull out a bunch of relevant newspaper articles. They could surely be Googled up - I, for one, remember reading several relevant stories, about parties suffering from part of their base abstaining or crossing over because of an ethnic minority candidate, or parties choosing not to even take the risk - but it would involve quite a bit of time to seek out and doublecheck a number of examples.

[Edit: this is where I originally wrote something about how you tend "to call on people to go through such exercises to 'come up with proof', only to gloss over the resulting findings" if they do - but I realise that was a bit unfair to you (of all people), actually. Chalk it up to a general frustration.]

In any case, considering the point I made was apparently obvious enough for even someone generally in such disagreement with me on these matters as Timber to assent, perhaps it isn't necessary this time anyway. For one I would suggest that there is a reason why there have only ever been two popularly elected Black Senators* and one elected Black Governor** in all of US history - beyond some sheer mathematical freak coincidence or hypothetical particular unsuitability of African-Americans for the office, that is ...

(*Edward Brooke in 1966, for Massachusetts, and Carol Mosely Braun in 1992, for Illinois.
The only Black Senators before Brooke served almost and over a century before him: Hiram Rhoades Revel was appointed in 1870 and Blanche K. Bruce in 1841, back when Senators weren't popularly elected yet.
**Douglas Wilder in 1990, in Virginia.
Before that the only Black Governor had been one Pinckney Benton Stewart Pinchback, who in 1872 was appointed as acting governor of Louisiana and served for six weeks.)
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 May, 2004 01:21 pm
nimh,

I'm starting to (am still undecided) to think you might have been right about Kerry/Edwards.

I'll never know for sure but what I'm sensing is that Edwards might have been harder to pin labels on because of a more plain persona.

I do, of course, have many reservations. For example, Edwards didn't weather the fire, so I don't know what could have been stuck to him and I also don't know if the fire will really hurt Kerry or if it'll just be regular partisan sniping.

Anywho, I've been meaning to post an update on my take, now that I'm starting to question some things.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 May, 2004 01:32 pm
It's impossible to know, I've been wondering too. But I still think that the "slick" thing would've been too easy to pin on Edwards, the connections to Clinton and untrustworthiness. Handsome, ladies' man, etc.

The two main things that they're flogging Kerry for (so far -- he's got to come out proactive rather than reactive at some point) both bite Bush in the butt worse -- flip-flopping and Vietnam. Whereas slick is diametrically opposed to Bush.
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 May, 2004 01:48 pm
sozobe wrote:
Whereas slick is diametrically opposed to Bush.


Cool
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 06/23/2021 at 10:01:50