Originally posted by kmax87The idea that the Republican party as presently constituted would nominate a black woman for President is laughable. But engaging in your fantasy for a moment, I think being part of the Bush foreign policy team responsible for the debacle in Iraq would be a killer for her in a general election.
If Condie runs and it becomes possibly a contest between her and Hillary. Assuming America goes color neutral for a moment, which aspect of candidacy would matter most.
Age or party affiliation? And for 50 bonus points, how would color influence the result and why?
Originally posted by no1marauderI would agree that the Republican party has no qualified black women at this time.
The idea that the Republican party as presently constituted would nominate a black woman for President is laughable. But engaging in your fantasy for a moment, I think being part of the Bush foreign policy team responsible for the debacle in Iraq would be a killer for her in a general election.
Originally posted by no1marauderWell who is the black woman in the democratic party. Correction, name a black woman in the democratic party... Condi is qualified but she's not even running. The dems will nominate Bill Clinton Jr, aka Hillary which will again keep them from winning.
The idea that the Republican party as presently constituted would nominate a black woman for President is laughable. But engaging in your fantasy for a moment, I think being part of the Bush foreign policy team responsible for the debacle in Iraq would be a killer for her in a general election.
Originally posted by NimzovichLarsenThere's so much stupid in this post, it's hard to start.
Well who is the black woman in the democratic party. Correction, name a black woman in the democratic party... Condi is qualified but she's not even running. The dems will nominate Bill Clinton Jr, aka Hillary which will again keep them from winning.
Black woman vote about 90% for the Democratic party. There are good reasons why. And Black woman are well represented in the Dem leadership - right wingers are always complaining about one or the other.
By any criteria of previous Presidents, Condi is grossly unqualified. She's an academic who has never ran for political office. Name one of those who's been elected President.
Nominating Bill Clinton kept the Dems from winning? Better check the election results in 1992 and 1996.
Originally posted by no1maraudernom Hillary would keep the dems from winning, can you read? I'm not making an argument for condi running, and I don't think she should, or would. But what makes you think Hillary is any more qualified?
There's so much stupid in this post, it's hard to start.
Black woman vote about 90% for the Democratic party. There are good reasons why. And Black woman are well represented in the Dem leadership - right wingers are always complaining about one or the other.
By any criteria of previous Presidents, Condi is grossly unqualified ...[text shortened]... Bill Clinton kept the Dems from winning? Better check the election results in 1992 and 1996.
1 edit
Originally posted by NimzovichLarsenWell, she has been a Senator (as quite a few previous Presidents have). Whether being First Lady rates as a "qualification" is arguable. At any rate, she's more "qualified" than Condi by the traditional standards of previous experience. I personally don't think that this type of qualification is the most relevant one. If you'll note, I didn't say Condi couldn't win because she was "un-qualified", I said she couldn't win because of her experience as part of a group now identified with a war that has become a disaster.
nom Hillary would keep the dems from winning, can you read? I'm not making an argument for condi running, and I don't think she should, or would. But what makes you think Hillary is any more qualified?
I can read. Can you?
NL: The dems will nominate Bill Clinton Jr, aka Hillary which will again keep them from winning.
Don't know how nominating Bill Clinton kept them from winning and since you're claiming nominating Hillary is the same thing, your argument is idiotic.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauder'Again' refers to the fact that the republicans have been in office for 7 years, thus the dems have been losing--a fact that will happen AGAIN if Hillary is nominated. You are struggling today aren't you?
Well, she has been a Senator (as quite a few previous Presidents have). Whether being First Lady rates as a "qualification" is arguable. At any rate, she's more "qualified" than Condi by the traditional standards of previous experience. I personally don't think that this type of qualification is the most relevant one. If you'll note, I didn't say Condi c ce you're claiming nominating Hillary is the same thing, your argument is idiotic.
1 edit
Originally posted by NimzovichLarsenYou seem to struggle every day. If that's what you wanted to say, you should have omitted the reference to Bill Clinton.
'Again' refers to the fact that the republicans have been in office for 7 years, thus the dems have been losing--a fact that will happen AGAIN if Hillary is nominated. You are struggling today aren't you?
EDIT: The Dems didn't lose in 2000 as you well know.
Originally posted by kmax87Considering that the preoccupation of the life imitation industry has been in recent times to place Jimmy Smits and Geena Davis into the White House have we indeed seen a seeding of the plough in the run up to 2008. Hawkeye didnt make it he just seemed too old.
Americans would overwhelmingly vote either a black man or a woman into the office of presidency.
Is life being prepared to follow art?
Originally posted by no1marauderVietnam war, US dead: 58,209
The idea that the Republican party as presently constituted would nominate a black woman for President is laughable. But engaging in your fantasy for a moment, I think being part of the Bush foreign policy team responsible for the debacle in Iraq would be a killer for her in a general election.
Iraq war, US dead: 3,292
1 edit
Originally posted by NimzovichLarsenDonna Brazil, Barbara Sykes, Viola Thomas-Hughes, Rep. Bonnie Thompson...
Well who is the black woman in the democratic party. Correction, name a black woman in the democratic party... Condi is qualified but she's not even running. The dems will nominate Bill Clinton Jr, aka Hillary which will again keep them from winning.
Originally posted by no1marauderHave to agree with you moron. Condie has no chance at all IMO.
The idea that the Republican party as presently constituted would nominate a black woman for President is laughable. But engaging in your fantasy for a moment, I think being part of the Bush foreign policy team responsible for the debacle in Iraq would be a killer for her in a general election.
No experence. Black. Woman. Bushie. Republican. Looks like a vampire. Probably the smartest one in the whole lot.
Hill(Billy) can't lose the Dem nomination unless she really screws up. She's got the money. She's got the machine. She's got Bill. So far she's been smart enough to not say anything about anything, much like her time in the Senate.
She'll run on Billys back .. and get caught with HIS pants down.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderBefore carpetbagger-in-reverse Hillary bought her New York Senate seat she had never run for a federal office. Also, as Secretary of State, Condi has far more international experience than Madame Hillary does at this time. Based on that tidbit and her character, hands down, she would make a better president than Madame Hillary. More importantly, she doesn't have to answer the following embarrassing question: What do I do with my low-life husband now that I'm in office?
There's so much stupid in this post, it's hard to start.
Black woman vote about 90% for the Democratic party. There are good reasons why. And Black woman are well represented in the Dem leadership - right wingers are always complaining about one or the other.
By any criteria of previous Presidents, Condi is grossly unqualified Bill Clinton kept the Dems from winning? Better check the election results in 1992 and 1996.
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterBut you're missing a golden opportunity Ritter - Hillary and the dems would be back in control if she wins the presidency. That means you right wingers would get to do the only thing you do well - attack the Clintons!
Before carpetbagger-in-reverse Hillary bought her New York Senate seat she had never run for a federal office. Also, as Secretary of State, Condi has far more international experience than Madame Hillary does at this time. Based on that tidbit and her character, hands down, she would make a better president than Madame Hillary. More importantly, ...[text shortened]... following embarrassing question: What do I do with my low-life husband now that I'm in office?
The republicans have proven they can't govern, they can't win the war, they can't cut spending, they can't clean up after a hurricane, and they sure can't bring ethics to congress! So what's left? Well just let somebody else run the place and then you can find fault all day long. And much to your enjoyment.
Originally posted by wibYou can replace Republican with Democrat and your statement still holds true.
But you're missing a golden opportunity Ritter - Hillary and the dems would be back in control if she wins the presidency. That means you right wingers would get to do the only thing you do well - attack the Clintons!
The republicans have proven they can't govern, they can't win the war, they can't cut spending, they can't clean up after a hurricane, and t ...[text shortened]... else run the place and then you can find fault all day long. And much to your enjoyment.
That sho iz sum gubmint we gots.