Facts about INDIA.

Sorry, Jack; I didn't mean to single you out. Of course you're right that the caste system did create a system equivalent to slavery--I would actually go so far as to say that it did create a slavery system, albeit not a chattel slavery system such as the one we had here in the States--but my point was only that the U.S. situation is no better. You never said it was, but I saw the conversation moving in that direction and thought I'd better throw my two cents in.


Cheers,

 

The funny thing is that the two most viable female presidential candidates of the past decade have been Elizabeth Dole and Hillary Clinton, both "presidential" wives. Barbara Bush would have probably also polled well, as might Laura Bush. But we've never had a Margaret Thatcher or an Indira Gandhi who came across as formidable independent of a male leader (in the Gandhi case, M.K. was a deceased ancestor rather than a living husband); Kay Bailey Hutchinson may very well be presidential material, but then so might Christie Todd Whitman. Since neither are household names, there's no real way to tell at this point. On the other side of the aisle, I'm still interested in the idea of Mary Landrieu as a 2008 or 2012 prospect, and I strongly suspect that Geraldine Ferraro would have done better than Dukakis did in 1988. So far, though, we've had a succession of 43 white men leading this country with 43 white male vice-presidents backing them up, and a strong likelihood that we'll see the tradition continue next year. That's not exactly an impressive record for a country that many believe has moved beyond race and gender issues.


Cheers,

 

One who could do very well is California's Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA).

She is certainly formidable, and has that undefinable quality that makes her the center of attention in a room.

She is politically very moderate, cooperates well with Republicans, has been no-nonsense on terrorism and is well liked by the military and by business. It would be very hard to outflank her on the right without looking like an extremist.

She's kind of a female Joseph Lieberman in that respect. (As well as in her being Jewish.)

She's also a San Franciscan, so she is laissez-faire on lifestyle issues, gay rights and abortion. That might alienate the social/religious right, but it would help her keep her base on the left while attracting independents, moderates and libertarians.

A very big plus with her is that she is crisis-tested and performs extremely well under pressure. She was the chair of the SF board of supervisors on the day that Dan White gunned down Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk. That was only one week after Jim Jones fed poison cool-aid to his flock of 900 that he had moved from SF to the Guyana jungle. The city was having an anxiety attack. Feinstein was as shaken as anyone else, but trust into the Mayorship, she stepped up to the plate and pulled the city together really masterfully.

I've been her fan ever since.

Unfortunately, she simply hates fund raising and detests campaigning. She likes being a Senator, and despite constant pressure from her party says repeatedly that she is perfectly happy serving out her career in the Senate.

 

I think both Elizabeth Dole & Hillary Clinton established their own identities beyond their husbands, a major reason why I think both would be viable candidates in 2008. Barbara & Laura Bush both seem content to be "traditional wives" in their husband's shadow.

Hutchison is one tough lady and a dynamic public speaker. If Cheney decides to step aside in 2004, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if Bush tabs her for the Vice-President's job (assuming that Colin Powell doesn't want it, of course).

Christie Todd Whitman is another story. I used to think she was an up-and-comer, but since she resigned as EPA Secretary, I think she's done for the moment. I can't see her pulling a Dick Nixon (winning a major election after being out of politics for an extended time).

I don't know much about Landrieu, which I think may be her biggest problem (I'm a political junkie and had never heard of her until this discussion).

Dukakis was a pathetic candidate, but I don't think Ferraro would have fared much better. I vividly remember the 1984 Vice-Presidential debate, and then VP George (41) Bush simply wiped the floor with Ferraro. I think her political career was over after that.

I couldn't possibly care less what race or gender the President or the VP is. I'm much more interested in their qualifications and their stand on the issues. Besides the women I already mentioned, I can off-hand think of some minorities that I would vote for as President (Colin Powell, J.C. Watts, & Alan Keyes).


Bruce

 

Ugh.

Her relentless assault on the Bill of Rights (more specifically the 2nd Amendment) makes her a prime target of the NRA (a formidable lobbying group regardless of what you think of them) and every other group that believes in individual liberties.


Bruce

 

Tom,

Happy Independence Day.

One does not become President of the United States by coups d'état or from hereditary succession. The U.S. Presidents are a diverse group of individuals. An actor, lawyers, professional politicans, authors, senators, lawyers, military professionals and on and on. The diversity among future presidents will continue to grow in every way.

The United States is not perfect, but it is more perfect than any other nation past or present.

 

Bill, re Dianne Feinstein: Definitely agreed.

Bruce, re Second Amendment: The wording of the Second Amendment is such that it is not clear to the Supreme Court (see U.S. v. Miller, 1934, the most recent landmark Second Amendment case) whether it's meant to refer to an individual right referring to personal autonomy and defense (as per the First Amendment) or a state's right referring to state autonomy and national defense (as per the Ninth). Good cases can be made for either interpretation; my take is that at the time the amendment was drafted, the two ideas were basically seen as one and the same but that Jefferson probably would not have protected AK-47s. It might be proper to refer to Feinstein as an opponent to the pure individual-rights interpretation of the Second Amendment, just as it might be proper to refer to Bush as an opponent to the strict separationist interpretation of the First Amendment's establishment clause; but neither are "enemies of the Bill of Rights" per se, or even the individual amendments they take positions on. I can think of no outright enemies to the Bill of Rights in this administration or Congress or the Supreme Court, and I include John Ashcroft (though he's certainly an enemy of my interpretation of the Bill of Rights).

Bruce, re Ferraro-Bush: I saw the debate on C-Span a few years ago and it came across as a push to me. I expected Bush to have a better grasp of foreign policy--15 years as director of the CIA will do that for you--but Ferraro seemed to be a little more steady on her feet. What ended her political career was that she and Mondale got squashed by the Reagan/Bush ticket, which is also what basically ended Mondale's career. I'm glad we both at least agree that Dukakis was a lousy candidate.

Bruce, addendum: Bush said in a semi-recent interview that he plans to keep Cheney on board for any second term.

Charles: Happy Independence Day to you, too! I did pick a pretty auspicious day to talk about our white presidents, huh? I recognize that Margaret Thatchers don't grow on trees; my point wasn't that there's something fundamentally wrong with the political system, something that isolates women and minorities from high office (there may be, but I haven't found it yet). My point was that there are problems with our culture that tend to isolate the most competent women and minorities from high office. Colin Powell would have aced the primaries and squashed Clinton in 1996, but from what I've read something apparently scared him away from the presidency (and Joint Chiefs don't scare easily). Hillary Clinton is a natural choice for 2004, but for some reason isn't running (probably because she said she wouldn't during the 2000 Senate campaign and wants to keep her job). Carol Mosley Braun is the only major-party female candidate running for president this year, and let's face it: she's not going to win the Democratic primaries, much less beat Bush.



Cheers,

 

Don't you find it a bit odd that the Supreme Court has decided that the entire Bill of Rights refers to individual rights, with the sole exception of the Second Amendment?

The intent of the framers in regards to the Second Amendment was to safeguard the right of citizens to keep & bear arms in order to have a safeguard against a tyrannical government.

IMO, Jefferson and the rest of the framers would have specifically protected AR-15's and other military-style weapons as a way for the citizens to have a check against the government.

Admittedly, I haven't seen the Bush-Ferraro debate since its original air date. However, I do remember what I saw, as well as the headline of the Boston Herald the next day. The headline read "The Gipper Owes George One", an obvious reference that Bush came out on top. This was important, as I recall that Reagan hadn't performed well in the first 2 Presidential debates against Mondale.

IIRC, Reagan recovered and did well against Mondale in the final televised debate.


Bruce

 

Hi Tom: No. Indira Gandhi was the daughter of Jawaharlal Nehru and granddaughter of Motilal Nehru. Her husband was Feroze Gandhi. Neither she nor her husband were related to M. K. Gandhi. But S.C. Bose was a fascist.

 

I knew she wasn't a blood relative of Gandhi, but I thought her husband was (hence why I said "ancestor" instead of something specific)--and completely forgot she was Nehru's daughter. Hoo, boy. Janko, you're one smart egg.


Cheers,

 

Actually, I do. But I can see a very strong case for the civilian militia interpretation based on the unclear wording of the Second Amendment and the fact that it suggests a cause-effect relationship ("A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state...") in a circumstance where the effect no longer exists. Their "well-regulated militia"--Washington's original civilian militia, created after the war ended--is long gone, having been replaced by the Army National Guard. I'm not convinced that the Miller interpretation is entirely correct, but it isn't irrational.

This attitude was no doubt reflected in what the framers wrote elsewhere, but the implicit idea was that citizens should have arms equal to those of their government. A literal interpretation of what the framers meant on a philosophical level would entitle each of us to a B-2 bomber and nukes, provided that we could afford them. By drawing any limitation on personal arms versus military arms (and implying that certain forms of weaponry can be allowed to the latter but denied to the former), we violate the framers' original intent. We can only assume that the framers would have thought differently had they been exposed to the unimaginably destructive weapons we've invented since their time. But if we assume that, why not assume they would have also objected to sawed-off shotguns, Uzis, and so forth? Where do we draw the line?


Cheers,

 

MP Ela Gandhi (ANC-Phoenix) is the granddaughter of M.K. Gandhi.

However, S.C. Bose was a fascist.