25 replies to this topic

[tycoonboy388]

That's right, its April, its not an election year, and the debate is starting. Tonight on MSNBC at 7PM, the South Carolina Democratic Party will be holding the nations first Presidential candidate debate. There are many strong candidates from the Democratic Party (including a few heavy hitters that have not decided if they will run yet), and many are looking to be the first candidate; the first African American candidate, the first Female candidate, the first Hispanic American candidate, the first candidate from Delaware (just kidding). More importantly, this debate will provide momentum for the candidates as they all move their campaigns into high gear, and move towards the hectic primary season.

So remember people to watch the debates tonight, and start thinking about who will be the next President of the United States.

[katinka]

Chances are i'd vote for Edwards... However, Kucinich is just oh-so appealing! Too bad he has no chance. But, yea, maybe Kucinich. I mean, he's the man who's trying to impeach Cheney!!!

Oh yea, and I know someone who worked on his last campaign who won't stop raving about him.

[tycoonboy388]

For those without MSNBC, you can watch the debate online for free. Go to http://www.msnbc.msn.com/ and you'll see the link to watch the debate live.

[Reincarnation]

I'm already tired of the Democratic candidates. And then I realize that there's another (almost) year of this to go...

[randomania3]

Reincarnation, on Apr 26 2007, 08:32 PM, said:

I'm already tired of the Democratic candidates. And then I realize that there's another (almost) year of this to go...

i know what you mean, most of these candidates are all over the news, in particular, biden, clinton, edwards, obama n richardson. the other candidates i haven't really heard about though.

[tycoonboy388]

Gravel was shockingly new, but at the same time, he reminded more of my grandfather, in that he speaks his mind and he keeps it blunt, and somehow its not befitting for a Presidential candidate to be acting like my grandfather.

It wasn't a really interesting debate, but its not surprising with 8 candidates that basically all hold the same views. But Edwards and Richardson didn't impress me.

And Reincarnation, its not just the Democrats. The Republicans will be having their first debate next week, its rather scary that this is all so early, but at the same time, its just a mark of how ready we are for the current administration to be over.

[randomania3]

yea, it's really hard to tell at this point who's going to win the nomination. At this point though, i don't think it'll be Obama or Clinton- America isn't ready for a black or women president. And if one of them wins the nomination, i eat my words, but chances are they won't win. Giuliani will probably get the Republican nomination,, he';s the most popular of those candidates. Next November will be interesting to watch, but for now its just all talk talk tlalk, and it seems light years before the election.

EDIT: I thought the democratic party was divided with 8 candidates, so i looked up the republicans and was shocked to find they had 11 official candidates (those with exploratory committees) and 4 probable candidates wjho haven't made it official yet. whoa.. . it's gonna be a close race for those nominations...

[tycoonboy388]

The Republican field is even more divided because their three perceived front runners (Senator John McCain, Former Governor Mitt Romney and Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani) are not very popular with the party base (even though all of them do really well against Democratic party frontrunners in the polls). McCain has frequently criticized the religious right, and authored campaign finance reform seen by many Republicans as betrayal; Romney is seen as a flip-flopper a la John Kerry as his policies on abortion, same sex marriage, gun ownership, taxes and government spending have all changed before and during his time as governor of Massachusetts; and Giuliani has a personal life that makes the christian right cringe, and his record on abortion and gun control as Mayor earned him general hatred from his party and a reputation as a RINO (Republican In Name Only).

With all of these issues, it seems that the Republican party's core beliefs are not being represented by their top candidates, so everyone's conservative uncle has joined the race, and several are on the outside planning on jumping in if the anti-McCain/Giuliani/Romney sentiment continues. These possible men include notable figures like the Architect of the Contract with American and 1994 Republican Revolution Newt Gingrich (Tulane Alum), Actor-turned-Senator-turned-Actor Fred Thomspon (the DA on Law and Order), or moderate Republican anti-war Senator Chuck Hagel.

The race on both sides is really open, which is a unique event in politics. The saying goes that concerning Presidential candidates, "Democrats fall in love, and Republicans fall in line," meaning that there is generally a pattern of succession in the Republican party as to who gets the nomination. If that were the case this year, McCain would be the candidate, but at the moment, its not the case, because of McCain's strong support for the War in Iraq (his IED joke on John Stewart didn't go over well either). Even though most Americans are going to want to kill the candidates before they vote for them in November 2008, this election process is something to truly behold. This election will truly be a sight to see.

[randomania3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Democrat...tial_candidates
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_pr...tial_candidates
the beauty of wikipedia =P. all the potential candidates for both parties, and their stance.

[katinka]

In response to the post stating that America isn't ready for a woman president, I'd like to point out that the first woman ran for President in 1872. Yes, thats right, 1872, 5 decades before women were allowed to vote. She ran under the "equal rights party" or something of that nature, i believe. So Hillary isn't the first. India has had a female prime minister, as has great britain, and if i'm not mistaken the phillipines, amongst countless others. America is supposed to be the progressive nation-- I think we've been ready for a long time.

[AnneDreeAhh]

katinka, on Apr 27 2007, 05:54 PM, said:

In response to the post stating that America isn't ready for a woman president, I'd like to point out that the first woman ran for President in 1872. Yes, thats right, 1872, 5 decades before women were allowed to vote. She ran under the "equal rights party" or something of that nature, i believe. So Hillary isn't the first. India has had a female prime minister, as has great britain, and if i'm not mistaken the phillipines, amongst countless others. America is supposed to be the progressive nation-- I think we've been ready for a long time.

Took the words right out of my mouth.

I just think that there is still way too much prejudice in this country, in the more traditional places. People in the major cities are more open to new ideas. But take for example, people in small southern towns. Serious Racism still exists in those areas, and a candidate like Obama won't get as much support, solely because he's black. Well, half black.

Sexism still exists too, in large numbers. Look at the news. Wasn't it just the other day when a study found that Women are paid 5-30% percent less than their make counterparts? It's a shame, because like katinka says, countries who are far less advanced than the US have had female leaders.

It's good to think that we are moving forward. It's not the first time a woman or a black man has ran for president. However, it's the first time a woman or a black man actually has a chace at winning.

[Reincarnation]

I do want to point out that we are free to make statements on progressiveness and the US largely because we live in New York City. You'll want to take a look at a huge part of this country that may not be as progressive as you think, most notably the interior and southern portion of this country. While I personally believe that we should be ready for a female president, a huge part of the electorate (and arguably the part that does better in showing up on election day) might very well not believe so. It's unfortunate, but it is indeed the "other" half of the nation that might not be ready, and making the entire nation, therefore, not ready.

[WhiteIce89]

I'm lucky enough to have already registered with the Democratic Party so I will likely be voting in the primary elections =)

[EndocrineFlippa]

AnneDreeAhh, on Apr 27 2007, 05:29 PM, said:

Took the words right out of my mouth.

I just think that there is still way too much prejudice in this country, in the more traditional places. People in the major cities are more open to new ideas. But take for example, people in small southern towns. Serious Racism still exists in those areas, and a candidate like Obama won't get as much support, solely because he's black. Well, half black.

yea, luckily those racists probably wouldn't have voted for him anyways since most of them are conservative...

[djharkavy]

EndocrineFlippa, on Apr 28 2007, 12:37 AM, said:

yea, luckily those racists probably wouldn't have voted for him anyways since most of them are conservative...

Because most racists are conservatives????

Look around. There are racists in the Democratic party as well as the Republicans. Racists come in many flavors.

[tycoonboy388]

djharkavy, on Apr 28 2007, 02:19 AM, said:

Look around. There are racists in the Democratic party as well as the Republicans. Racists come in many flavors.

That is true, but I'd like to think the racists in the Democratic party are dying off. Most people who used to support the Democratic line because of its support of Jim Crow laws and open segregation have since left the party or have died. The Democratic Party is more a big tent group than ever before, not to say that it doesn't include racist individuals, but it isn't a common position held by Democratic politicians or supporters.

[AnneDreeAhh]

I consider myself more conservative than liberal, but given the chance to vote next year, I'd vote for Obama.

Too bad I won't be old enough.

[randomania3]

to katinka and annedreeah: Yes, I know other countries have had female presidents, I know very well of Margaret Thatcher. And I would so vote for a woman president, I know we could do it. but but a lot of American voters are chauvinistic guys who wouldn't want to vote for a woman. It's sad but it's true. I don't like the whole sexism thing- but it exists. And I know Hilary Clinton isn't the first woman to run. but she's the most well known. We had two run in the '04 election. did we even hear of them? not really. just wanted to make it clear that its not that I wouldn't vote fora women president, but there are many who wouldn't, even some women feel a woman belongs at home and not leading an entire country.

[djharkavy]

tycoonboy388, on Apr 28 2007, 12:51 PM, said:

That is true, but I'd like to think the racists in the Democratic party are dying off. Most people who used to support the Democratic line because of its support of Jim Crow laws and open segregation have since left the party or have died. The Democratic Party is more a big tent group than ever before, not to say that it doesn't include racist individuals, but it isn't a common position held by Democratic politicians or supporters.

What about those who say that we have to give xxx minority special treatment because they would not be able to get into schools/get a good job without those breaks? Isn't that just as racist as those who outright insult such minorities? In fact, it is somewhat worse, because at leas the outright insults are more honest racism.

I have met many liberal bigots of this sort. Racism is racism regardless of how well-meaning it is played out to be.

[tycoonboy388]

djharkavy, on Apr 28 2007, 10:30 PM, said:

What about those who say that we have to give xxx minority special treatment because they would not be able to get into schools/get a good job without those breaks? Isn't that just as racist as those who outright insult such minorities? In fact, it is somewhat worse, because at leas the outright insults are more honest racism.

I have met many liberal bigots of this sort. Racism is racism regardless of how well-meaning it is played out to be.

Affirmative action is a very testy subject. On one side of the argument, such policies might hurt some people who have faced struggles not related to their skin color, while rewarding priviledged people of underrepresented groups. The other side is then getting rid of these policies, and seeing minority presence vanish entirely. I'd like to believe that there is a happy medium between the two policies, between rewarding racist thought and becoming an exclusive society with minorities being marginalized.