USA Presidential Politics - 2008

[TAPPY]

Originally Posted by MikeW

I guess I'm showing my true colors
Neutral.
People hate neutral.
Not sure why.
Sitting on the fence allows me to see both sides fairly clearly.

You are right there is something to be said about being able to see both sides before you make your choice.

[MaripositaII]

Originally Posted by BonnyW

I am not a sexist. In that I am not promoting one candidate over another because of their gender.
As long as the person is qualified for the job, I don't have a problem if they are green, yellow, purple male, female or have an extra X or Y chromosome.
..whatever...as long as they can do the job.
And Steve, I answer on behalf of myself. Woman are quite capable of answering not as a group, but as individuals

Neither am I, but I wonder why to date, we have never had a female VP (or President). Still not qualified enough I guess...

[ryberg]

I trust it was clear I had my tongue firmly in my cheek with the line about speaking for all women.

That said, I wonder if there won't be more of a negative reaction among amen by and large, partly for the reason MPII mentions, especially after the "tease" of a woman being the favorite early on this year.

Or maybe partly for what might be seen as less forward thinking than Bonny and Mel were just displaying. After posting the question, I saw something on Politico aout a group of women, supporters of Cli ton, who have pledged to work against Obama and blame the current situation on sexism.

And MP has a point, too: women deserve a female president in the pantheon by now, certainly, just as black people do.

Anyway, just wondering about this, especially in immediate terms with respect to the VP choice but also just in general...

Steve

[MaripositaII]

Originally Posted by ryberg

I trust it was clear I had my tongue firmly in my cheek with the line about speaking for all women.

That said, I wonder if there won't be more of a negative reaction among amen by and large, partly for the reason MPII mentions, especially after the "tease" of a woman being the favorite early on this year.

Or maybe partly for what might be seen as less forward thinking than Bonny and Mel were just displaying. After posting the question, I saw something on Politico aout a group of women, supporters of Cli ton, who have pledged to work against Obama and blame the current situation on sexism.

And MP has a point, too: women deserve a female president in the pantheon by now, certainly, just as black people do.

Anyway, just wondering about this, especially in immediate terms with respect to the VP choice but also just in general...

Steve

Obama might be black (I can see why Blacks would be thrilled that their day is coming), but he's still a MAN. America is so way behind on these things

[melliedee]

Originally Posted by ryberg

I trust it was clear I had my tongue firmly in my cheek with the line about speaking for all women.

That said, I wonder if there won't be more of a negative reaction among amen by and large, partly for the reason MPII mentions, especially after the "tease" of a woman being the favorite early on this year.

Or maybe partly for what might be seen as less forward thinking than Bonny and Mel were just displaying. After posting the question, I saw something on Politico aout a group of women, supporters of Cli ton, who have pledged to work against Obama and blame the current situation on sexism.

And MP has a point, too: women deserve a female president in the pantheon by now, certainly, just as black people do.

Anyway, just wondering about this, especially in immediate terms with respect to the VP choice but also just in general...

Steve

I don't think this is about a particular group deserving anything. Women are not owed their "turn" at the presidency as if it's a hurdle to get over so we can say it's finally been done. Isn't this more about what is beneficial to us as a country?

No doubt there have been many qualified female prospective candidates, yet we always seem to choose from the same pool of rich white guys. Maybe it's because we think in terms of "Women deserve" and "Blacks deserve" rather than "The country needs..." That's the thing about being inclusive: it requires a "we." And not just in the way we phrase it, but in the way we think it.

Not picking on you, Steve. Just your word choice.

[ryberg]

Well I'm not glued that that word choice, by any means. My point in that bit was just to agree (I think) with MPII that, at the end of the day and by all rights, there probably should have been both a female president and a black president by now, or should be one soon. Not trying to make some sort of affirmative action type of argument or anything. I would just agree that it's unfortunate that all our presidents to date have been white men.

Steve

[roni]

Originally Posted by ryberg

Well I'm not glued that that word choice, by any means. My point in that bit was just to agree (I think) with MPII that, at the end of the day and by all rights, there probably should have been both a female president and a black president by now, or should be one soon. Not trying to make some sort of affirmative action type of argument or anything. I would just agree that it's unfortunate that all our presidents to date have been white men.

Steve

I think it is unfortunate that some have been the particular men with the particular set of beliefs they brought to the office. There are black conservatives who would have been just as unfortunate as those white conservatives.

[RonH]

Originally Posted by MaripositaII

Obama might be black (I can see why Blacks would be thrilled that their day is coming), but he's still a MAN. America is so way behind on these things

I'm not behind. I worked my butt off for Hillary here in Indy. Looks like it really didn't do any good. BTW, can someone please tell me why Obama is listed as a african-american when he actually has 50% euro-white in him. Even some of my 100% african-american friends wonder the same thing

[AndrewII]

Originally Posted by RonH

I'm not behind. I worked my butt off for Hillary here in Indy. Looks like it really didn't do any good. BTW, can someone please tell me why Obama is listed as a african-american when he actually has 50% euro-white in him. Even some of my 100% african-american friends wonder the same thing

Marketing.

[melliedee]

Originally Posted by AndrewII

Marketing.

Right. Because it's so much more adventageous to get elected to office if you are Black. I guess the proof is in the over abundance of U.S. Senators and former presidents...oh, wait...

It is not uncommon for people of dual ethnicity to identify with one over the other, or both.

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by melliedee

Right. Because it's so much more adventageous to get elected to office if you are Black. I guess the proof is in the over abundance of U.S. Senators and former presidents...oh, wait...

It is not uncommon for people of dual ethnicity to identify with one over the other, or both.

Exactly!

[SunKneeMarie]

FWIW, I hate the box checking myself. We checked the Hispanic box for my kids when they entered school and now I'm kind of asking myself "Why?"... it certainly was not because that's the side they identify with... and in a way I feel like it discounts me as a parent. Same as it would if we had checked Caucasion--not Hispanic (or however they phrase that) and it would have discounted Mike... I wish there was a multiple box option... "Other" just seems weird... but maybe I'll check that box with Riley when enrollment happens for her....

And it bothered me watching the results come in, being broken down by race over and over again. What happened to just people voting?

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by AndrewII

Marketing.

Well that, or, if you want to look it up and find out the real, true answer, because he elected to live his life that way.

This is an elementary point covered in his bios. But then so is the point that he's Christian, which he would obviously have to be if he was a member of a Christian church (controversial or not), and yet a number of people still believe he's Muslim (some while simultaneously complaining about his involvement in that church).



Steve

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by SunKneeMarie

FWIW, I hate the box checking myself. We checked the Hispanic box for my kids when they entered school and now I'm kind of asking myself "Why?"... it certainly was not because that's the side they identify with... and in a way I feel like it discounts me as a parent. Same as it would if we had checked Caucasion--not Hispanic (or however they phrase that) and it would have discounted Mike... I wish there was a multiple box option... "Other" just seems weird... but maybe I'll check that box with Riley when enrollment happens for her....

And it bothered me watching the results come in, being broken down by race over and over again. What happened to just people voting?

Another thing you and I have in common.

We have a lot of fun with the "White, non-Hispanic" category ourselves.

Sometimes I cross out the "non-" part and then check the box. Sometimes I deliberately and clearly check multiple boxes, despite the instructions to check only one. Mostly I just refuse to answer, though.

Steve

[SunKneeMarie]

Originally Posted by ryberg

Another thing you and I have in common.

We have a lot of fun with the "White, non-Hispanic" category ourselves.

Sometimes I cross out the "non-" part and then check the box. Mostly I just refuse to answer, though.

Steve

what did you do for your kids in school? thinking back to 19 and 12 and 11 years ago, I can't remember if "other" was an option... or if you could leave it blank... your kids are younger... what did your schools require in the states?