English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

this is the first presidential election (that i know of) that a woman and black guy are running for president (way cool) and i just wanna know what peoples opinions or thought are on this. ithink its really cool that this is finally hapening. ive allways thought that either or shuld run and be in office but this is a hard decission to make. well people let your thoughts roll.

2007-02-26 16:36:03 · 12 answers · asked by doktor of the mynd 1 in Politics & Government Elections

12 answers

As Ralph Nader said in the 2006 Time Magazine Review, it is a field of uninspiring candidates.

This is not the first time that a female and an African American are running for president.

In the 1970s, Shirley Chisholm, an African American female ran for the nation's highest office.

2007-02-26 16:43:42 · answer #1 · answered by Murry 2 · 2 1

It's interesting because at least one major party is virtually guaranteed to nominate a woman or black man. Considering the public's general backing off of Republican ideals for the time being, this will be an interesting test to see whether the American public is prepared for a president that isn't a white man.

I am still not certain about the candidates themselves. I am wary of John McCain for his hard-line war support and inconsistency regarding certain parts of the Republican party. Rudy Giuliani offers a more centrist compromise, and he has great charisma. On the other hand, is he prepared to run the entire nation? Barack Obama is also highly charismatic, but his relative youth and inexperience are also questionable. Hillary Clinton has the most relevant experience, but I am opposed to her views on one deal-breaking issue.

In the end, the candidates are little better or worse than could be expected, particularly in a polarized situation like right now. There is a lot of choice regarding the next President, except in regards to religion. The only one not a Protestant Christian is Mitt Romney, and even before considering that he's a Mormon, I doubt he'd get the nomination anyway.

Colbert in '08, anyone?

2007-02-27 01:22:46 · answer #2 · answered by BDOLE 6 · 1 0

First off, this is not the first time either has occurred... Jesse Jackson, Alan Keyes, and a black woman, former U.S. Senator Carol Moseley Braun of Illinois

As far as how I feel about it, I think it's great to have this much diversity in the presidential race. Up until recently I was dedicated to voting for Hillary but have since changed to Kucinich.... nothing Hillary did bad.

It's just that Kucinich is the only one saying:

1 He is the only one saying FIX NAFTA, GATT & WTO and not saying, "The jobs are gone & not coming back"

2. His healthcare plan gets rid of for-profit insurance companies. What does it tell you when USA's 2nd richest man gained his wealth by owning insurance companies.

2007-02-27 20:36:57 · answer #3 · answered by BeachBum 7 · 0 0

Shirley Chisholm who was a female, African-American congresswoman from NY, ran for president in 1972. Bela Abzug of NY also ran as a long-shot candidate in 1976. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson both have run for president several times. The former governor of Virginia, an African-American, Douglas Wilder also ran for president, as did another, Ambassador Alan Keyes of Maryland, in 2000. Elizabeth Dole of Kansas also ran for president in 2000.

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are not trailblazers. They are just continuing on a path made by Shirley Chisholm and others, who happen to either be female or African American. I don't think that should be the primary issue. We should vote for the best qualified person, regardless of their color or race.

2007-02-27 02:48:54 · answer #4 · answered by gone 6 · 1 0

If Obama fails to win the nomination or the election, it would say little or nothing about the nations willingness to have a black president. (If Colin Powell had run in '00, we'd have a black president now.) Obama lacks experience, and he's a bit too liberal and too slick, too given to Madison-Avenue-quality aphorisms. He'll lose on his own weaknesses. Hillary has her own weaknesses. One of the problems for getting a woman in is that most of the available women are feminists, and that ought to be a disqualification in itself; it's a bad, sexist ideology. A moderate Republican woman who was indifferent to feminism would be better, but impossible in today's political environment.
___The conventional way of putting the woman-president issue ignores the problem of whether Americans want a FEMINIST president. And that's a different issue than whether it wants a woman president. But the press insists on conflating the two. Is this stupidity, deceptive spin, or bias?
___John Edwards is an attractive candidate, but it's disturbing that he stole Mitt Romney's health plan without giving credit, and his talk of big changes in general seems a bit too much like a posture of drama with little concern for the effects. Mitt Romney is amazingly lifelike. Guiliani lacks experience of the right sort. Joe Biden always seems to have a chip on his shoulder. Al Gore might lull us to sleep for four years, and the Islamic terrorists might sneak in to steal our virgins. (Good luck in your search!) And Sam Brownback??? What's he doing there?? Yes, it's a disappointing field, but who's Nader to say anything? He built his reputation on fraud and self-righteousness and condescension, an appropriate candidate for the loony fringe. Come on down, Ralph!! We need a loony lefty spoiler to compensate for Brownback. I'm feeling a bit cynical this year. Maybe McCain, but I'd have to take a look at those rumors about some immoderate conservatism lurking in the background. But of them all, McCain has the most demonstrated strength of character. And the question, "which of these candidates can we trust?" is a huge one these days.

2007-02-27 02:43:58 · answer #5 · answered by G-zilla 4 · 1 0

I see Hilary carrying too much baggage from her time when Bill was the Pres. She also comes across as cold and very calculating and too willing to run a 'dirty' campaign. Why can't a non white person be President? There's far too much pretend equality that falls by the wayside when people are asked to voice an opinion.

One of the US's major problems is that voting isn't compulsory. The last election saw dodgy figures coming in and too many places can be 'stacked' by encouraging one group to vote while discouraging or totally invalidating others votes.

2007-02-27 02:15:30 · answer #6 · answered by Kay P 3 · 1 0

Everyone is focusing on the issues of gender or race. Those are the least important factors in chosing a president. You have to look at their past voting history to see where they stand on the issues. If they are like Obama and don't have much history to examine they are simply not qualified.

2007-03-02 13:14:41 · answer #7 · answered by Blanca W 2 · 0 0

The election is very much talked about because gender and race is making an impact in the selection of the President unlike in the previous elections.

2007-02-27 00:41:02 · answer #8 · answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7 · 1 1

So far all the candidates suck. We need someone like Tom Tancredo that will close the borders. You can't fight a war on terror with open borders. We also have to stop the flow of illegal immigrants who send 23 billion of our dollars to Mexico every year. And by the way, Obama is only half black.

2007-02-27 02:34:37 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Yeah, its definitely nice to see them run, but you can count 'ol obama out right now. The Clintons have already tried to link him to a radical madrasa (he wasn't brought up in a radical fashion). Either way, the guy is in for the fight of his life against Hillary. When they get their rabid attack dog- James Carvell on him, he will have to be both forward and squeaky clean. If that isn't the case, they will carve him up.

2007-02-27 02:44:02 · answer #10 · answered by Theodore B 1 · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers