So, are we supposed to nominate a white male for electability reasons?

[CreekDog]

Because some people won't vote for a woman.

And some people won't vote for an African American.

Is this the basis on which we choose the nomination?

[jakem]

1. I say we nominate early David Bowie-

lets keep them all guessing.

[NaturalHigh]

2. Didn't he hang out with the Sex Pistols back in the day?

He would have a lot of explaining to do.

[jakem]

5. im sure it was an alter ego... he was not responsible.

of course the R candidate would have to be Garth Brooks and his made up Alter ego...


politics sure is complex.

[JVS]

3. Did you read about WI?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4552551&mesg_id=4552551

What did I tell you?

[Cleita]

4. No, but if the white male is the best candidate, he should

be elected. I don't feel the two front running candidates who are being supported by a rush of emotional responses are as good as some of the white males who have dropped out of the race on the Democratic side. However, when it comes to our candidate against McCain, in this case the white male is not the winner here IMHO.

[EffieBlack]

10. Is that a new rule?

It certainly hasn't been consistently applied in the past. Why all of a sudden are concerned about it?

[Cleita]

13. If there were rules, then they would apply.

No there aren't any rules.

[Orangepeel]

6. I don't get it. We aren't going to.

:shrug:

[CreekDog]

11. My point was made out of frustration

It seems like a number of people think Barack shouldn't be nominated because as a black candidate, his race will work against him, ergo, nominate Hillary because her race won't be used against her. But her gender will be used against her as well as other things.

If we are following this logic and the convention can nominate anybody they want to on the second ballot, then why wouldn't they nominate a white male and get past all these issues.

My answer is nominate the best candidate, regardless of race or gender, period.

It's a mistake to not nominate Hillary because she is a woman, a mistake to not nominate Barack because he is African American if in fact either is the best candidate. Likewise, it is a mistake to nominate a white guy who is not the best candidate because people won't vote against him on the basis of race or gender (although they might, who knows).

I just think the whole thing is ridiculous and when I voted on 2/5, I was faced with either voting for the candidate I thought was best or taking other people's prejudices into consideration and voting against my best judgement. In good conscience, I couldn't let the latter prevail.

[NightWatcher]

7. early on there were questions of electability, but after the turn out for BOTH..

those questions are moot.

[DiamondJay]

8. it doesn't hurt

if Al Gore had run, this race would not be about race, it would be about issues. goddammit gore, you fucking tool

[EffieBlack]

9. It's worked for the past 230 years . . .

Why change now?

:sarcasm:

[RoadRage]

12. It's going to be a tad bit difficult to do that now.. Gravel? Hello?

GO Obama
Go Hillary

Go someone who isn't a white male.. way to be the first party to go against the status quo!

[jackson_dem]

14. Obama and Hillary are the status quo

Where do you think Obama's raising $1 million a day from?