The President Come 2017 Will Be A White Male

[RobertEarl]

The country is turning conservative. I should say the likely voters are turning conservative.

In 2008, we tried something new and supposedly Liberal: Obama.

The young people, and others who never voted before came out of the woodworks to vote. They wanted change. They wanted Bush out.

In 2016, there will not be so many voters wanting change, but there will be many who want Obama out. They will be looking to go back to a middle ground of what used to be, is what we want.

What they will want is a white male as president.

A woman as president just will not be acceptable to the likely voters. They may accept a woman as VP, but that's pretty iffy. Too much controversy in having a woman.

So we need to find an -- as Liberal as possible -- white male, who the teabagger types will say they can live with. Or we will have a republican as president.

Unfortunately, but history shows, we are a country that takes two steps forward and then one or more back, on our political way.

The young will not be turning out to vote like they did in 2008, and the new 2008 voters are saying: "What? Me vote? After that mess from 2008? No way, jack. Leave me alone."

But as always, it has been the Liberal base, that, if active, carries elections, or by not being active, gives elections away. So, to keep us enthused, we need to find a Liberal white male, one we can live with, to become our next president.

[Cali_Democrat]

1. So Democrats need to seek a white male for President....

Because a female wont be acceptable to voters?

What about another black person as President? We've had loads of white males.

Can we try another black person? White males have had 43 opportunities....

Why can't women and minorities get more opportunities?

[RobertEarl]

16. Read the OP again

The voters in this country just showed us what their mindset is. I ain't making it up. The proof is right fucking there: They hate Obama and will tolerate no more change of the 'way things were'. They want to go back.

If it were my choice, we'd have a Black woman as president, because such a person would most know what it's like to be a common American. So all you just itching to call me racist can check that bull at your keyboards.

What I am telling you is what the country as a whole will decide come 2016.

[VanillaRhapsody]

26. You do realize that the Midterms are completely different right? Democrats notoriously don't

turn out for them....and its the bane of our existence!

[RobertEarl]

32. 2000, 2004, ring a bell?

Do you have anything of value to add?

The rich, the media, and the congress, are all against us. Pretty damn formidable. And the last Clinton we had gave away the store and still got impeached! Another Clinton is not gonna happen.

[VanillaRhapsody]

46. Right...Good thing we have a candidate with TONS of support and a massive ground game ready to go!

[KittyWampus]

66. What a snotty, jerk comment "do you have anything of value to add"? You provide zero numbers

of any kind in your OP. Zero facts. The entire OP is nothing but conjecture and your own perception of reality.

My first clue was when you said we voted for Obama as a liberal.

No one thought of Obama as anything other than left of center (which he is) except the idiots who watch FOX or maybe the clueless voters who projected their own dreams on him.

[brush]

65. You're over reacting to the 2014 election

Last edited Sat Dec 13, 2014, 11:21 AM - Edit history (1)

After the 2012 election everyone was screaming that the repug party was broken and split and the dems would be in control for a generation. Remember, it was only 2 years ago?

Now two years later many are screaming that the dem party is broken and split and the voters have spoken and want repubs in control (white males).

Give us a break, the US electorate is a fickle as a ribbon in the wind.

In two years after the repugs screw everything up like they always do. Historically repressions and depressions always happen under repug control (the big one during Hoover's time, even during Ike's admin, Nixon's, Reagan's, Bush 1 -- "it's the economy, stupid", and certainly the big one 2 under Cheney/Bush 2) because of the policies they put in that favor the rich and f_ck the rest of us.

We'll elect a dem president to fix things, very likely a woman, and then two years after that the repugs will win the mid-terms.

Even with the changing demographics of the country the repugs, with a myriad of tactics on many fronts — including having SCOTUS in their pocket, have flooded dark money into the equation, suppressed votes and gerrymandered their districts so that it's just about impossible to get them out.

They win the mid-terms, dems win the following two years — the pattern holds — the easily-manipulated-by-repug-fear-meme, low-info voters who decide most elections, ricochet like pinballs from one party to the other looking for help while half the time voting against their own economic interests.

Fasten your seat belt, until there's a strong enough third party we're on the back-and-forth seesaw of US elections.

[roguevalley]

57. I don't believe we are conservative as a country. I believe we

have been deluded and that the issues that matter and passed in referendums, etc were progressive. I want someone who is good, tough and smart. I don't want a woman to have 'a woman'. I want a smart one. I would vote and work for Warren but not Clinton.

I read an article that had a republican speak about Jeb Bush. He doesn't think that guy will run because he's becoming a mini-me Romney investment leach and the guy said he wouldn't have done that if he was going to run because its fraught with problems for elections.

[Control-Z]

2. Say, what?

The young that will be turning out to vote in 2016 were only 10 years old in 2008.

Yeah. A white male is always the answer. Go white men. Rah!

[Cali_Democrat]

3. LOL

DU has become a parody of itself.

I mean...a post demanding another white male as President...

[Control-Z]

11. The world hasn't been right

since we allowed a black man into the white house. Gotta get back to basics.

[RobertEarl]

17. That's how the country is leaning

Backward. Look at the latest elections: Backward. It was all about Obama.

[Scootaloo]

35. No different than posts insisting we must, MUST run conservatives.

[Cali_Democrat]

39. I'll rightfully laugh at those as well. nt

[RobertEarl]

48. One difference

I say we support the most Liberal we can find and work hard for.

The country is in a mood to step back. Hell, Obama barely won reelection. Rove thought he had Ohio, but the computers just didn't count his way that night......

That's the way it is.

As for the party and state elections, it sure as heck has NOT supported the liberals and that is one reason we are moving backwards.

[zappaman]

4. White power!

[Cali_Democrat]

5. White male power!

Welcome to neo-DU.

[VanillaRhapsody]

28. Is this guy for real???

[Art_from_Ark]

6. I'll vote for Elizabeth or Bernie

if they throw their hat in the ring-- although I have reservations about EW's vow to keep Americans overseas "under surveillance". FTS. I live in one of the most easy-going countries in the world, and I have never committed a crime, nor have I ever had any intention to commit a crime, in my 50+ years in this world. I don't need to be "under surveillance" just because I live overseas.

[DonCoquixote]

7. A TRUE LIBERAL

Would refuse to be part of something that hurts both black males and women.

[bravenak]

8. Time to finally give men a chance!!!

I am now starting to consider Hillary. Thanks for that.

[steve2470]

12. LOL, +1 nt

[freshwest]

98. Oh yeah! I think that premise has backfired. I'd prefer a POC, but a female works for me, too.

[pnwmom]

9. You're wrong if you think young WOMEN won't turn out for a woman President.

Either Hillary or Elizabeth.

And there are many more women among Democrats.

[octoberlib]

10. Have you been drinking? Because I can't figure out any other explanation for this post.

[KingCharlemagne]

15. I thought he might actually be trolling for Hillary and using a bit of the ole

reverse psychology gambit to do so. To wit, say something so patently offensive that it drives far-left people like me towards Hillary out of revulsion at his sentiments. Almost too Rovian a rat-fucking scenario to contemplate.

[RobertEarl]

20. It is offensive

But that's how the country rolls: Offensive.

We had a great opportunity when we came out and elected Obama, but somehow it got blown away. This last election is proof.

Me, I am almost as Liberal as they come, but the rest of the country is going conservative, as I said in the OP, the likely voters are.

[VanillaRhapsody]

30. and where do you get this idea from?

come on admit it...you have nothing to back this up....you are harping about the Midterms...but these midterms were NOT some dramatic change...its exactly the same as every other Midterm....we always lose those!

Hell NOBODY showed up....only 40% of registered voters voted....

[Socal31]

13. How about the best candidate?

Your post makes it sound as if a white male is automatically a terrible choice. To me that is as ignorant as proclaiming a white male is automatically the best choice.

Strange.

[RobertEarl]

22. The country is ignorant

The country, my feeling is, they want to go backwards.

So, all we can do is limit how far backwards we go.

Maybe you can tell I'm disgusted with the country. No thinking person would not be. But reality is: they want to go back. Not all the way to Bush -- I hope -- but still, conservative.

[dissentient]

14. I tend to agree with the speculation that our next president will probably be a white male again

but as all speculation goes, that could change, depending on unforeseen things, like if a meteoric candidate suddenly appears on the scene, who is a woman or non-white.

I also agree that Hillary likely will have a very difficult shot at winning, if she enters the race. I think there is a sense of fatigue in America when it comes to very big and familiar political names, such as the Bushs or the Clintons, at this point.

[VanillaRhapsody]

31. In whose world? She STILL polls beating EVERY Republican INCLUDING Jeb Bush!

how is THAT "difficult"?

And Currently Jeb Bush is the front-runner and he only beats the rest of the pack by 3 points....

She is leading her pack by 55 points!

[dissentient]

37. I don't put any stock into polls about 2016 at this point

It's way too early, IMHO.

If come December 2015, those are what the polls are saying, then I'll take it seriously.

[VanillaRhapsody]

41. Of course you don't but you would be dancing a jig if Warren or Sanders polled ahead of Hillary!

[dissentient]

43. I won't deny that, I like both Sanders and Warren

I don't hate Hillary though. If she becomes the Democratic nominee come 2016, I will vote for her with pleasure.

[VanillaRhapsody]

47. thank you....but things do not look nearly as bleak for her as you are imagining here...

Jeb Bush is their best hope....and he is going to battling a TIGHT race...he only beats the pack by 3 measly points...In fact one of the best things Democrats have going right now is the fact that the Republican Party is so splintered and they again have another clown car of fools, falsely thinking they are "ready for prime time".

The Republican Establishment is desperate to pull Jeb out of the pack so they won't humiliate themselves with Ricky Perry and Michelle Bachmann style stupid and or crazy talk! A long long long election with lots and lots of Republican debates is the BEST thing that could happen for us!

[dissentient]

49. I don't even want to think about another Bush running for any office ever again

[VanillaRhapsody]

50. Well he is their best hope....BUT considering the hubris of Rand Paul and Ted Cruz

and maybe even some Sarah Palin antics thrown in for good measure.....the Republican Establishment does not want to see the Teabaggers embarrass them and cost their boy Jeb the election!

[dissentient]

51. If you are right, then the day he announces, I'm gonna have to keep a barf bag handy.

[jaysunb]

18. And, his name will be : James Webb (D)-Va n/t

[RobertEarl]

52. Tell us about this Webb?

have heard the name but know little about him.

[Comrade Grumpy]

70. Here's a nice profile of him from the New Yorker a few weeks ago:

He is a former Secretary of the Navy and one-term US senator from Virginia.

The whole article is actually quite good. It looks at Hillary and her challengers:

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/11/17/inevitability-trap

In his senatorial race, Webb did well not only in northern Virginia, which is filled with Washington commuters and college-educated liberals, but also with rural, working-class white voters in Appalachia. In 2008, those voters were generally more loyal to Clinton than to Obama, but Webb believes that he could attract a national coalition of both groups of voters in the Presidential primaries. He laid out a view of Wall Street that differs sharply from Clinton’s.

“Because of the way that the financial sector dominates both parties, the distinctions that can be made on truly troubling issues are very minor,” he said. He told a story of an effort he led in the Senate in 2010 to try to pass a windfall-profits tax that would have targeted executives at banks and firms which were rescued by the government after the 2008 financial crisis. He said that when he was debating whether to vote for the original bailout package, the Troubled Asset Relief Program, he relied on the advice of an analyst on Wall Street, who told him, “No. 1, you have to do this, because otherwise the world economy will go into cataclysmic free fall. But, No. 2, you have to punish these guys. It is outrageous what they did.”

After the rescue, when Webb pushed for what he saw as a reasonable punishment, his own party blocked the legislation. “The Democrats wouldn’t let me vote on it,” he said. “Because either way you voted on that, you’re making somebody mad. And the financial sector was furious.” He added that one Northeastern senator—Webb wouldn’t say who—“was literally screaming at me on the Senate floor.”

When Clinton was a New York senator, from 2001 to 2009, she fiercely defended the financial industry, which was a crucial source of campaign contributions and of jobs in her state. “If you don’t have stock, and a lot of people in this country don’t have stock, you’re not doing very well,” Webb said. Webb is a populist, but a cautious one, especially on taxes, the issue that seems to have backfired against O’Malley’s administration. As a senator, Webb frustrated some Democrats because he refused to raise individual income-tax rates. But as President, he says, he would be aggressive about taxing income from investments: “Fairness says if you’re a hedge-fund manager or making deals where you’re making hundreds of millions of dollars and you’re paying capital-gains tax on that, rather than ordinary income tax, something’s wrong, and people know something’s wrong. ”

The Clintons and Obama have championed policies that help the poor by strengthening the safety net, but they have shown relatively little interest in structural changes that would reverse runaway income inequality. “There is a big tendency among a lot of Democratic leaders to feed some raw meat to the public on smaller issues that excite them, like the minimum wage, but don’t really address the larger problem,” Webb said. “A lot of the Democratic leaders who don’t want to scare away their financial supporters will say we’re going to raise the minimum wage, we’re going do these little things, when in reality we need to say we’re going to fundamentally change the tax code so that you will believe our system is fair.”

Webb could challenge Clinton on other domestic issues as well. In 1984, he spent some time as a reporter studying the prison system in Japan, which has a relatively low recidivism rate. In the Senate, he pushed for creating a national commission that would study the American prison system, and he convened hearings on the economic consequences of mass incarceration. He says he even hired three staffers who had criminal records. “If you have been in prison, God help you if you want to really rebuild your life,” Webb told me. “We’ve got seven million people somehow involved in the system right now, and they need a structured way to reënter society and be productive again.” He didn’t mention it, but he is aware that the prison population in the U.S. exploded after the Clinton Administration signed tough new sentencing laws.

The issue that Webb cares about the most, and which could cause serious trouble for Hillary Clinton, is the one that Obama used to defeat her: Clinton’s record on war. In the Obama Administration, Clinton took the more hawkish position in three major debates that divided the President’s national-security team. In 2009, she was an early advocate of the troop surge in Afghanistan. In 2011, along with Samantha Power, who was then a member of the White House National Security Council staff and is now the U.N. Ambassador, she pushed Obama to attack Libyan forces that were threatening the city of Benghazi. That year, Clinton also advocated arming Syrian rebels and intervening militarily in the Syrian civil war, a policy that Obama rejected. Now, as ISIS consolidates its control over parts of the Middle East and Iran’s influence grows, Clinton is still grappling with the consequences of her original vote for the war in Iraq.


Although Webb is by no means an isolationist, much of his appeal in his 2006 campaign was based on his unusual status as a veteran who opposed the Iraq war. “I’ve said for a very long time, since I was Secretary of the Navy, we do not belong as an occupying power in that part of the world,” he told me. “This incredible strategic blunder of invading caused the problems, because it allowed the breakup of Iraq along sectarian lines at the same time that Iran was empowering itself in the region.”

He thinks Obama, Clinton, and Power made things worse by intervening in Libya. “There’s three factions,” he said. “The John McCains of the world, who want to intervene everywhere. Then the people who cooked up this doctrine of humanitarian intervention, including Samantha Power, who don’t think they need to come to Congress if there’s a problem that they define as a humanitarian intervention, which could be anything. That doctrine is so vague.” Webb also disdains liberals who advocate military intervention without understanding the American military. Referring to Syria and Libya, Webb said, “I was saying in hearings at the time, What is going to replace it? What is going to replace the Assad regime? These are tribal countries. Where are all these weapons systems that Qaddafi had? Probably in Syria. Can you get to the airport at Tripoli today? Probably not. It was an enormous destabilizing impact with the Arab Spring.”

[RobertEarl]

72. He sounds good!!

He has a great deal of appeal.

His ideas about the military and the ME are mainstream.

His tax policy is also, while being progressive.

Is there a good chance he will run?

[benz380]

88. Forget reading all that. Is he white?

[joshcryer]

19. This is absolutely absurd.

Holy shit.

[RobertEarl]

23. Yeah

Just look at the absurd voters who put republicans back into control of congress. Absurd is what America does best. And is where it is headed.

[Major Hogwash]

60. It's called "entertainment" for a reason.

It's not only absurd, it's funnier than hell!!!

[MohRokTah]

24. BWAAAAAAAA!!!!!

[RobertEarl]

27. Funny?

Then why is congress in republican hands?

The right wing are in control.... duh!!! Is that news to you?

The press, the rich, the bankers.... in control. If we can't stop them, they will have another rich white 'compassionate conservative' male in their White House. Because they can. The only way to stop them is head them off with one of our own. Imo.

[NuclearDem]

34. Because the Republicans won big in 2010

Which was a census year, allowing them to redistrict a lot of safe red areas for themselves.

Jesus, Robert

[Rhiannon12866]

25. So how about Bernie Sanders/Elizabeth Warren?

He might be a bit old to seek a second term, so would the country be ready for a female president in 2020?

[RobertEarl]

29. IDK

From the votes the last few elections, I think the country as a whole is ready for a republican. It is a trend.

Only if there is a candidate from our side that can inspire the Liberals to work their asses off, and not make the teabaggers go crazy again, will there be a Democrat in the WH.

[VanillaRhapsody]

44. You do realize that Hillary Clinton already has a MASSIVE ground game with TONS of support

ready to work their asses off right?

[Rhiannon12866]

54. After the last one, I can't see how we could survive another Republican

And we've just had a national flashback to what it was really like. I don't think we could survive another one like that and they sure haven't come up with anybody who's better.

[RobertEarl]

56. We can't

No way can we survive another republican president. Not with the republican congress that will still be in place for another decade.

We are gonna have to work with them. Obama tried and failed. Mainly because they hate Obama. It really makes me sick to write such things, but that's the way it is.

[greymattermom]

33. It's the economy...

If, in two more years, folks have somewhat better somewhat more secure jobs, they won't have the fear that is leading them to want to go backwards.

[RobertEarl]

42. That's part of it

For 6 years now it has been one controversy after another, and except for Obama winning in 2012 - barely- the voters have gone whole hog for republicans.

We're back in the ME fighting, just like the republicans wanted.

Torture is passe. Bankers in control. The media is still RW. And I am hated for being an Obama supporter. We have to circle the wagons just to hold on to what we have.

As for the economy - it's on shaky ground. The reason it is still bubblying is that there is no better place to invest than in the US. When the investors pull back, (did you see the 350 point NYSE drop?), then another round of stagflation like we had in 2008 is right around the corner.

[NuclearDem]

36. Have you thanked your white male today, Robert?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2139421

[Cali_Democrat]

40. WOW

Looks like we have a Stormfront infiltrator.

[RobertEarl]

45. Heh

"... it has to do with the affirmative action the wm embraced and made good with. "

We have come a long way, and I am proud of most white males, for we have made progress. But only about 45% of us voted for Obama. Today it would probably be about 35%. That's the way it is. Much progress still to be made. Maybe one day?

[msanthrope]

63. Holy crap! nt

[steve2470]

73. Robert...... you better completely renounce that post very clearly

Not good, at all.

[RobertEarl]

74. Why?

Have not white males made progress?

What is your problem with the post?

[steve2470]

75. Dude..that's NOT what you said

I'm a white male also.

we can thank the wm, as a whole, for producing the easy life we now enjoy

You can't see the problem with that ? Women and minorities ALSO produced the life we have now. Blacks, in particular, were never paid for their labor.

I'm done with this "debate". Wow.

[RobertEarl]

76. We have all played a part

Heh, I can bash wm as well as anyone. Have done so many times in public.

I, for one, can look at the world with a perception of reality and realize how we got here today; where we are with all these comforts of life in America, and be able to see who it was that worked hard to get these comforts in place as compared to other societies, and in the course of history.

Have there been those who were stepped on to get where we are? Hell yes. And it isn't a good thing. Indeed, we could be better had we not been so cruel. My point is that we are making progress in this wm dominated country, and that is because the wm's are making some progress at being less cruel. Some, being the key word.

As far as you, and this being a debate, I think that is just your imagination.

[benz380]

89. Pssst....just tell 'em 'wm' is the abbreviation for women & minorities.

[JTFrog]

87. Holy shit that whole thread.

That was an interesting trip down the old memory hole.

[Number23]

94. Holy Christ on a cracker!

[ancianita]

38. Yes, the mid term turnout is a pattern. I do agree with you, tho', that momentum is backward.

Not saying I want a white male president.

If I have to go with the momentum, Sanders/Castro would get my all-out effort in 2016.

Clinton/Castro might even have a shot.

[6000eliot]

53. Horse shit.

[ucrdem]

55. Obama got 43% of the white vote in 2008, and 39% in 2012:

Washington Post, November 8, 2012:




2008 - white voters who supported Obama: 43%


2012 - white voters who supported Obama: 39%


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/11/08/president-obama-and-the-white-vote-no-problem/

White males won't choose the next president, at least not if the vote count is honest.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

96. THIS

Those numbers are truly incredible. They suggest, with demographic shifts. we would have won the lost 88, 00, and 04 elections, and 80 would have been a nail biter.

[moondust]

58. Identity politics is for Republican idiots. n/t

[Major Hogwash]

59. Hahahahahaha!!!

As if there will still be an America in 2 more years!!!

[Quantess]

61. write it on the shopping list, Honey.

1 white male dem for president

[left is right]

62. I have been saying this since November 2012

This is the way human beings work. After trying any new big thing, we tend to revert back to the familiar. This provides us with a chance to evaluate our experience. We will need the time to realize that Obama did not run us over the cliff. Any woman (Black, White, Latina or Asian) or another black man will not be elected for at least 2 presidential election cycles

[Harmony Blue]

64. The white male prvilige talk

is really going to backfire in a big way in 2017.

[zappaman]

67. Fox agrees with you!

Fox's Bolling: "There Should Be No Question" Men Are More Successful And Better Leaders Than Women

http://mediamatters.org/video/2014/12/12/foxs-bolling-there-should-be-no-question-men-ar/201869

[Kermitt Gribble]

68. I disagree.

I think people are desperate for a genuine populist president. I don't think race or gender will matter to the majority of voters. Most thought they were voting for a populist in 2008, but it turned out to be a marketing ploy.

The problem is going to be the corporate media pushing the corporate candidates (Hillary and Jeb) or the fake populist (Rand Paul) and the voters falling for yet another marketing ploy. If a genuine populist were in the race, they could pull the mask off of the fakes.

[RobertEarl]

71. Name one

The idea that the likely voters will overlook the gender or race makes no common sense. Roughly, the majority of likely voters are those who are militaristic, have money, and are establishment materialist.

It is fun to imagine that most voters are altruistic, care about the environment, and are non-bigoted and non-prejudicial, but evidence of past voters belies that imagination.

Obama was a one-off, one chance in a million, step forward for the US. The country will take a step back from that in 2016 and we best be preparing, or we will have a white male republican as president.

[amandabeech]

85. My theory is that when voters are either scared to death or totally pissed off,

they're less interested in skin tone or gender. They're looking for a leader to go after the bad guys (and gals) and save them.

In 1860, the voters in the North went for a gawky one-term congresscritter who was then a rail road lawyer.

In 1932, they went for a guy in a wheelchair.

In 2008, they went for a black guy.

I don't think that we've solved the problems of inequality of opportunity and a winner-take-all compensation plan. We also can't seem to get out of the Middle East and North Africa.

Either of these problems, or some known or unknown unknown, could rise up and bite us in the behind in the next two years and throw all political calculations out the window.

Then people will vote for Barney the purple dinosaur if it looks like he's a real leader.

[DemocraticWing]

69. I counter your post and say we nominate Tammy Baldwin.

Screw the 1950s view of the world. We don't need white, straight, Christian men every damn time.

[CK_John]

77. IMO,You're correct about gender but I think it will be the former Governor of MA.

[True Blue Door]

78. There are limits to demographic pigeonholing. You have passed them by.

I hope that Jerry Brown runs, but I'm not defeatist about the chances of a female candidate if that's who we end up with.

But only if it's Warren. If it's Clinton, I have little confidence - but because she is who she is, not because she's a woman.

[RobertEarl]

80. Warren is not running

She would be someone who understands what this thread is all about, I think.

But hey, dream on about Warren.

[True Blue Door]

81. I don't "dream" one way or another. I seek options.

The only truly bad candidate would be Hillary Clinton. And not just on value grounds - she is politically incompetent.

[99Forever]

79. I'm more concerned with stands on issues and policies than I am...

... plumbing and skin tone. Neither of the later offer any insight as to how a candidate might preform in office or be beholden to.

[RobertEarl]

82. To us, yes

But to the rest of the likely voters? It matters.

Policies are those made up by the media these days. That's just how it goes these days.

Like I said earlier, I favor a President who is a Black female because she would be someone who really knows what it's like to be a common citizen. But that is just me.

[99Forever]

83. I don't consult "other voters" as to what is important to me.

I vote my conscience, not some freakin' popularity contest.

[Bluenorthwest]

84. I read this and suddenly I want Deval Patrick as the nominee, just because. Or, an openly gay

white male so that moderates won't know what to do...of course Bernie provides white, male, liberal and Jewish so he'd also be a first and a challenge to the diversity challenged voter.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

86. The Psychic Helpline

[Niceguy1]

90. white, black

Male , female,

It doesnt matter as long as it's a good one.

[davidn3600]

91. Too much emphesis is being put on color and gender

I dont know why gender or skin color should matter in who we nominate...but apparently to some racists and sexists here it matters an awful lot.

It's like to them, we need a woman or a minority to be president in order to prove we've made social progress. You also have others who think we need to do that to expand the voter roles....which is racist in itself.

[RobertEarl]

92. Good point

There is us and there is them. Obama said he is the president of all. But even on DU we have people judging by color or sex. So we've a long way to go.

My point is that the other voters (outside of DU) will be making the decisions and we will live with that decision. We can all hold hands and think we are above it all, but that would be mere dreaming. Dreams don't cut it in DC.

[NaturalHigh]

93. I'm not so sure about that.

Hillary Clinton has a lot of name recognition, and she is closely identified with her husband. A lot of people who hated Bill Clinton sure as hell wish they had him back.

[Orsino]

95. Sec. Clinton won't have time between now and then for that sort of surgery. n/t

[Cali_Democrat]

97. White Male Power!