Obama '08?

I agree, JPB. Too much new in both senses -- lack of experience, and groundbreakers. (First black person, first woman.) If either of them run, they need ballast on the ticket, not more of the same. (An older, experienced, white, probably Southern man.)

0 Replies

I tried to quickly correct my "Two much new", soz, but it applies just as well. Smile

0 Replies

Bill Richardson? (although he is another minority, Hispanic)

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

Foxfyre, the anecdote you relate doesn't quite strike the right note with me (as in, I'm not sure I buy it -- not about your recollection, but Mancow's), but I DO think that Obama would be in this to run for the presidency.

I agree, soz. I think the tone is Mancow's own, but I don't doubt the theme.

0 Replies

Roxxxanne wrote:

sozobe wrote:
Women are minorities?

We are as far as civil rights protection goes.

That must be one of those interesting cultural differences between America and Germany. Around here, arithmetics governs counting, comparing, and deciding what's a minority and what's a majority. Even though the outcome may have consequences for civil rights policies, determining it is not itself considered an issue of civil rights protection.

0 Replies

What did you mean to say, JPB? "Too much NEW" makes a lot of sense to me.

Roxxxanne, yeah, I thought of Richardson when I was writing. Dunno. I like him a lot, personally. It would definitely be interesting to have a black man and a Latino man on the same ticket -- one doesn't want to assume that members of a given demographic would vote for a person from the same demographic (black people, Latinos), but that would be a pretty hefty chunk of the vote!

He's pretty young, but a Governor and experienced -- could be a Clinton/ Gore thing. He's not Southern in the usual sense (Alabama or whatever) but sure isn't Northern. And the Western democrats are doing some interesting things.

So, maybe. Dunno.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

Foxfyre, the anecdote you relate doesn't quite strike the right note with me (as in, I'm not sure I buy it -- not about your recollection, but Mancow's), but I DO think that Obama would be in this to run for the presidency.

There's sure no way to know since the conversation was apparently off camera, but Mancow seemed pretty convinced of Obama's opinion about running as anybody's vice president. I didn't take Mancow's reference to the 'chameleon' quality of Obama as a negative thing at all but rather an observation of how likeable Obama can be. Mancow had nothing obviously negative to say about Obama and Mancow is about as far right on most things as you can get.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

Roxxxanne wrote:
We are as far as civil rights protection goes.

Really? The phrase usually seems to be "women and minorities," and if women WERE considered a minority there wouldn't have to be an "and." A quick check didn't turn up anything in particular, I'll keep looking.

Foxfyre, the anecdote you relate doesn't quite strike the right note with me (as in, I'm not sure I buy it -- not about your recollection, but Mancow's), but I DO think that Obama would be in this to run for the presidency.

I am convnced that Obama is ready for the top spot. I wasn't earlier. He heard him talk about Iraq and foreign policy in general the other day and I was stunned, absolutely stunned, at how knowledgable and confident he is when he speaks foreign policy issues. The only way the Republican candidate would have any chance agsinst him is if they just flat out refuse to hold debates. Obama would have any of them for lunch.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

sozobe wrote:

Foxfyre, the anecdote you relate doesn't quite strike the right note with me (as in, I'm not sure I buy it -- not about your recollection, but Mancow's), but I DO think that Obama would be in this to run for the presidency.

There's sure no way to know since the conversation was apparently off camera, but Mancow seemed pretty convinced of Obama's opinion about running as anybody's vice president. I didn't take Mancow's reference to the 'chameleon' quality of Obama as a negative thing at all but rather an observation of how likeable Obama can be. Mancow had nothing obviously negative to say about Obama and Mancow is about as far right on most things as you can get.

I have heard Obama talk about the VP job. He says he is not interested and, to me, he sounds like he means it. BTW running for President is not the ideal way one sets her or himself for consideration for the VP nominee. Edwards was the exception..

0 Replies

Roxxxanne wrote:

The only way the Republican candidate would have any chance agsinst him is if they just flat out refuse to hold debates. Obama would have any of them for lunch.

Point well taken... but not everyone watches debates. Perot obliterated his opponents (doubled his polling numbers), but only a fraction of the voting public watched it.

0 Replies

(Oh, TWO much new, just got it. Some editor I am!! Laughing

)

Roxxxanne, everywhere I've looked I've seen "women AND minorities," as in separate entities. Here's a random example:

Quote:

through the Affirmative Employment and Diversity Staff, barriers to employment and advancement opportunities for women, minorities, and persons with disabilities are eliminated.

http://www.epa.gov/ocr/index.html

If you can show me where women are considered minorities in terms of civil rights protection, cool. They're not minorities in the measurement sense Thomas mentioned (those wacky Germans, always with the facts....)

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

LoneStarMadam wrote:
Desperation is running an unknown that has served in the senate for two years. If the Dems run Obama it'll be as Hillarys running mate.
The dems dream team, two minorities on a ticket & that would be the reason that the dems would run Obama. For all I know, he's more qualified than anybody, but that reamins to be seen. I'm betting that if Obama runs, Hillary will offer him the VP slot because she'd be afraid that he would nab the presidential nomination from her.
As for McCain or Guillaini, neither of them would get my vote.
Obama already polls higher than Hillary with people familiar with both.
Wouldn't vote for Giuliani or McCain? Really? In the following scenarios, tell me who you'd vote for:
Obama Vs. McCain=
Hillary Vs. McCain=
Obama Vs. Giuliani=

Hillary Vs. Giuliani=
Any Dem (fill in name) Vs. McCain=
Any Dem (fill in name) Vs. Giuliani=[/quot

If McCain or Guilliani are the nominees, my vote would be,
[i]Write in[/i] -v- Guiliani or McCain
I don't abandon my core values for any political party.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

LoneStarMadam wrote:
Desperation is running an unknown that has served in the senate for two years. If the Dems run Obama it'll be as Hillarys running mate.
The dems dream team, two minorities on a ticket & that would be the reason that the dems would run Obama. For all I know, he's more qualified than anybody, but that reamins to be seen. I'm betting that if Obama runs, Hillary will offer him the VP slot because she'd be afraid that he would nab the presidential nomination from her.
As for McCain or Guillaini, neither of them would get my vote.

Fox & Friends does a short segment bantering with Mancow (Chicago) each morning. This morning they asked him about the four hours he recently spent with Obama. Mancow said he asked Obama if he would consider being Hillary's running mate. According to Mancow, Obama replied that "Not only no, but hell no. If I'm going to run, it will be as No. 1. I don't intend to be second to anybody." Mancow further gave his personal opinion that Obama is good. Very very good. He has the Clintonian ability to be whomever anybody needs him to be at the time.

But there are political proclamations and other poltiical proclamations so we will see.

However, Dick Morris, Washington political analyst with a pretty good track record on predictions, last year was saying that Condi Rice was the only candidate the Republicans had who could beat Hillary in '08. Yesterday he predicted Obama/Hillary in 2008 and they will be elected.

Morris has blown one now and then also, so again we will see.

I saw that this morning. Morris has been wrong before, hopefully he will be again.

0 Replies

JPB wrote:

Interesting switch showing Hillary as Obama's running mate rather than the other way around. I've vowed not to vote for Hillary unless she was running against a theocrat. I haven't given much thought to how I feel about her as VP, hmmmmmm.

I think it's a mistake to put both of them on the ticket in 2008, regardless of the order. Two much NEW all at once.

It would be an exotic ticket, but if Hillary is the nominee, I really don't think she can get it, Obama OTOH, might.

0 Replies

I agree, LSM.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

Women are minorities?

Yes, in the same way that Mexicans are a minority in Tx.

0 Replies

Women are one third of the population? (Mexicans are not a majority even in Texas.)

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48000.html

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

Women are one third of the population? (Mexicans are not a majority even in Texas.)

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48000.html

"Anglos are no longer a majority in Texas"
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/texas/stories/MYSA082704.1A.censusupdate.214ce37.html

According to US Census Bureau in 2004 there were 149.1 million women in the US, 144.5 men in the US.

0 Replies

Your link didn't work.

My link -- census data -- states that 34% of Texans were Hispanic in 2004. (Hispanic is not equivalent to Mexican, by the way.)

Even if your link is correct -- that anglos are no longer the majority -- that doesn't mean that Hispanics ARE the majority. What about blacks, Asians, etc., etc.

By the way, in case you didn't catch it, I was responding to your statement that women are a minority "in the same way that Mexicans are a minority in Tx." Hispanics are about 1/3 of the population in Texas. So your statement indicates that women are about 1/3 of the population in America. As you found, that is not the case. (And that was my point.) Women are not a minority.

Anyway, this has gone pretty far afield and seems like it could go on for a while. If you'd like to continue, maybe start a new thread? Otherwise let's get back to Obama.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

Your link didn't work.

My link -- census data -- states that 34% of Texans were Hispanic in 2004. (Hispanic is not equivalent to Mexican, by the way.)

Even if your link is correct -- that anglos are no longer the majority -- that doesn't mean that Hispanics ARE the majority. What about blacks, Asians, etc., etc.

By the way, in case you didn't catch it, I was responding to your statement that women are a minority "in the same way that Mexicans are a minority in Tx." Hispanics are about 1/3 of the population in Texas. So your statement indicates that women are about 1/3 of the population in America. As you found, that is not the case. (And that was my point.) Women are not a minority.

Anyway, this has gone pretty far afield and seems like it could go on for a while. If you'd like to continue, maybe start a new thread? Otherwise let's get back to Obama.

The link works, but the story has apparently been moved.
Maybe I should've said Hispanics rather than Mexican. Hispanics in San Antonio make up 73% of the cities population of 1.5 million, 6% black, the rest are whites, asians, indians, etc. San Antonio is a good indicator of the percentages, while west Tx is not so heavily minority it is also very sparsley populated, compared to south central, north & east Tx.
Women are a minority so far as civil rights are concerned, which I disagree with completely, we are all equal, or so I've heard.
I hope we can get back to the topic of Obama & Hillary, that's much more interesting.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know