2008 Ticket needs a little Leadership- not more white-washing.

[Coexist]

I just posted in yet another "who should run" thread - and once again, the whiteness of the list almost blinded me.

I LOVE the General (Clark) but would like to see him run with Mel Watt or Corrine Brown. The CBC is fearless - right up front of every issue - and they never get mentioned on the ticket.

What gives??? I don't care if Clark is VP or Pres on the ticket - I want my voice (the CBC) heard. And I am a white suburbanite.

Who is with me????

[electropop]

1. I have been saying "Boxer/Conyers" since January

The two of them have more courage in their pinkies than most other Dems put together.

[blm]

2. The bankruptcy bill was an aberration for those in CBC who voted for it.

Most CBC members dependably vote with the left.

[ClassWarrior]

3. Why the hell are you posting "who should run" threads to begin with??

Screw 2008 - we have a MAJOR election to win in 2006!!

NGU.

[FrenchieCat]

4. As an African American

I'll Take Clark on top of the ticket, with
Loretta Sanchez at the bottom.

I'll take Charlie Rangel as Sec of Defense

And JOhn COnyers as Attorney General

And Bill Clinton as Sec. of State!

And Julian Bond as United Nations Ambassador

and James Witt as Homeland Security Secretary

I want the CBC not only to be heard....but I want what they say to be acted upon. Clark is known for listening and incorporating voices he hears in what he does.....which is what makes him tops in my book!

It's not necessarily about having a Black person on the ticket as much as about including African Americans prominently into the equation of consultation. That would make all of the difference in the world.....to start with.

Barrack Obama can get a bit more experience, and then he can run as Loretta Sanchez' VP.

How sweet that would be! :thumbsup:

[Coexist]

5. Great list!

You have thought this out well.

[blm]

6. I am loathe to say this, but I am not impressed with Sanchez' brain power.

She is great when given talking points, but, she loses her footing when presented with arguments she is not expecting. It has bothered me for years, but, I have kept quiet about it in hopes she'd improve with greater experience.

I have no problem with Clark in any capacity...I think he's one of the really good guys and wants to make a positive difference in this world.

I would put Witt back at FEMA.

Gary Hart would make the best Homeland Security chief. He understands civil liberties completely, the legislative action needed and was the person who first DEVELOPED the proposals for REAL security back in the Hart-Rudman Report on Global Terror that was handed to Bush on Jan 30, 2001 - Bush refused to read it.

[FrenchieCat]

8. Do you have an example of that Flaw that you found in Sanchez?

I have watched her and always found her very assertive and articulate....although it is very possible that you may have seen something that I didn't.

Considering that she beat a Republican incumbent who had been entrenched in his seat for years and years in a mostly Republican Southern California District, she has always impressed me as the type of Hispanic Representation that we don't see enough of. When I look at the numbers of Hispanics that vote, I think that she would be a cleaner, fresher, and a better pick than the only Hispanic the Democrats seem to have on reserve; Bill Richardson...who is so full of bagagge known and unknown, that it's not even funny.

Sure Richardson has a lot of experience at doing a lot of things, but with that comes the double edge of the critiques on his performance that have come with each job--(think Dr. Lee in shackles confined to solitary and the Alamos national security scandal which took Richardson off of Gore's short list for VP in 2000 and for which Richardson has never provided an acceptable explanation)

But, you may be right.....I only know what I have seen of this woman...who appears strong and involved in National Security issues, as well as a "hands on" type on many varied areas of legislative activities.

http://www.lorettasanchez.house.gov/display2.cfm?id=8059&type=Home

[blm]

9. It was her post 9-11 appearances. She seemed at ease in some areas

but she didn't have a grasp of the extent of GOP administrations' coddling of the terrorists and their covert funding. She was one of the guests most often on the various shows, so I watched her alot on shows like Donahue's.

I, also, see her as strong and articulate, but she's just not always accurate when she's quoting what should be facts. But, she's great when it comes to overall sentiment of a situation.

The reason I note the difference is that every fact gets checked when you're a Democrat running in the P and VP spot.

Now, if she ran as a Republican, she wouldn't have to worry about the press checking her facts. LOL

[Rowdyboy]

7. I have no problem with your list but would LOVE to take back the house in

2006 so that John Conyers can have at least two years as head of the House Judiciary Committee and Charlie Rangel at leat two years as Chairman of Ways and Means. They've served in congress so long and both are ranking members on those committees. We're 16 house seats away from a chance for them to repay their Republican members for the mistreatment of the last 11 years.