Democratic Presidential Hopefuls

According to another poll on this site, most of you are Republicans--but if you do for some reason feel an overwhelming compulsion to vote for a Democratic presidential candidate in 2004, which of these ten will it be?


Cheers,

 

I am not a democrat but Joseph Lieberman and I share similar values.

 

I'm an independent liberal, and Joseph Lieberman and I share similar values; after he gave his wonderful speech at the 2000 DNC (using U2's Pride (In the Name of Love) as his fanfare), I found myself very disappointed with the idea that he would be, at most, the veep. Right now, his standing promise is that he won't run against Gore in the 2004 primaries; but if Gore doesn't run, I'd say he's probably in. Now I find myself actually hoping Gore won't run.

(A non sequitur, but something for folks to bear in mind: It's 2002; if 2004 were 1992, this would be 1990. And how many of us had heard of Bill Clinton in 1990?)


Cheers,

 

Me

 

Given these choices, I would would like to write in Fred Flintstone.

 

As a lifelong Democrat, I've learned to take the good with the bad. (I guess Republicans have had to do the same with Nixon, Regan, and both Bushes. No President is perfect, but even those four did some good or great things.) Reactionaries have trouble separating the good Clinton accomplished (peace and prosperity for 8 years is normally a sign of greatness in Presidents) from the bad (the Lewinsky affair, mostly). Given that, there are three outstanding choices up there, Lieberman, Kerry, and Edwards. Put them in reverse order and you'll find my list of hopefuls.

(Of course, this list conveniently ignores the largest threat to the Republicans: John McCain. )

 

It's funny to see how some of us can agree on issues that relate to education, but when it comes to politics, there is a different story.

I never thought we would get into this on this board but here goes.


Let me first say that I am not what most would call the typical Republican. I am a 30yo Black Male who grew up on public aid in the inner-city. My first independent thoughts were not independent at all. I thought that Republicans represented an oppresive regime that was meant to further increase the distance between the rich and the poor. As my thoughts matured, I began to look at the messages offered by the major political parties and realized that conservative ideology best met my needs. From a racial perspective, I am highly offended by the bamboozling that has happened to black Americans at the hands of Democrats. Things such as minimum wage and affirmative action are used to demonstrate how caring the Democrats are and how ruthless Rebublicans are. But, from election to election there is no difference is what is produced: Blacks are still disproportionately poorer than any other race in America. I think this is because of the promises made and broken by Democrats every year. Don't get me wrong, I know that there are those who genuinely care about the disparities that exist in this country. But when I see these "leaders" who get in front of us every year touting the benefits of Democratic Ideology ( We don't want the Rebublicans to take your health care., We want to ensure that everyone makes enough money, even though an increase in the minimum wage has to lead to unemployment, inflation, or a decline in the GDP, which nulls the original intent of the increase in the first place., We want to make sure that even though education is declining in poor areas, that the teachers who vote for us are protected instead of the children who will be our leaders in the future., We want to make sure that even though Social Security offers a horrible return on investment, that we deny citizens the right to invest how they see fit, while demonstrating how risky it is to have this type of system and trying not to expose that the real risk is that we won't have the same amount in the fund that we used to steal from to fund other things that fall outside the realm of what Social Security was set up to do in the first place., We want to give every one fish, instead of teaching them to to fish because we know that when they learn to fish, they will no longer need/vote for us, and that is worse than having a nation where everyone knows how to fish and provide for him/herself.), this really kills my "democratic" spirit.


I realized that Republican Ideology stands for the purest interpretation of the constitution, which offers all of us Freedom. Freedom that is jeopardized by intrusive government.

There are good men and bad men. Many if the men on this list are honorable. But still, if these are my choices for President, I want Fred Flinstone.

 

There is a persistant myth that the Republican Party is a white man's club, but there are outstanding black Republicans such as J.C. Watts, Alan Keyes, Colin Powell, and Clarence Thomas.

For the record, I'm registered as unenrolled, which means I can choose at the polling place which ballot to take. I've voted Republican in every Presidential election since I've been eligible (1984) simply because Reagan was the greatest President in my lifetime in 1984, Michael Dukakis was just pathetic in 1988 (and I knew what he was capable of as Governor), Bill Clinton was (and still is) a despicable human being in 1992 & 1996, and the thought of President Al Gore in 2000 scared the crap out of me.


Bruce

 

I just voted for Al Sharpton.

The reason I did that was because I think that he is the most divisive, and hence has the least chance of winning in the general election. Considering that I'm a registered Republican, the logic should be obvious.

What's interesting is how so many Democrats did exactly the same thing in the last presidential prmaries by voting for McCain, who they saw as "the largest threat to the Republicans" as Rich put it.

I am a lttle unclear about why so many Democrats thought that, since I liked McCain myself and voted for him in the CA primary. I guess the idea was that the far right Republicans wouldn't have turned out to vote for him in the general election. Hence the theme of divisiveness.

Of course, the right might have (perhaps reluctantly) rallied to McCain to keep the Dems out, while McCain was simultaneously wooing the moderate Democrats, in which case the Democrats would have been the ones getting screwed. It's hard to predict that stuff.

But Sharpton? That one is pretty easy.

 

When you think of black Americans with national stature, who are kind of being groomed for a future run at the presidency, most of them are Republicans.

I mean Colin Powell. What more can you say.

Another one that should be on your list is Condoleeza Rice. She could end up being our first black (and female!) president. Here's a woman of proven toughness in a traditionally male job (national security advisor) with a tremendously high profile post 9-11, and she is so smart she's scary. (I just saw in the news where she accompanied Yo Yo Ma on the piano at one of his recent recitals.)

I thoroughly believe that our first black president will be a Republican.

 

I suspect you're right; everyone refers to the Democratic Party as the party of African-Americans, but when you look at actual presidential material, you've got Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice and J.C. Watts on one side (any of whom could one day be president) and Jesse Jackson Jr. and Al Sharpton on the other (Sharpton will never be president; Jackson Jr. is a possibility, but not for another ten years).

I've always been a fan of Condoleeza Rice as well. Although I've only voted for Democrats so far--Clinton in 1996, Gore in 2000--I will say that Dubya has the best foreign policy team I've ever seen. Not only does have Dick Cheney as veep, and a guy who could have easily been president in 1996 as his Secretary of State, but if you look at the credentials of his team, these are all folks who have stood out. I especially like Rumsfeld--I'm more of a dove than a hawk most of the time, but my feeling is that if we should go to war, it's important, if possible, to pick someone who remembers what Vietnam was like. And besides, his experience translates to competence; I don't understand this whole youth fetish in politics, where the idea seems to be to get a bunch of kids fresh out of grad school and put them in cabinet posts. Sure, Rice is relatively young, but she cheated--she went to college at 15, got a Ph.D. in time to work on the Cold War during the Reagan and Bush Sr. administrations, and is now probably one of the most experienced and competent foreign policy people in Washington.

My voting usually works on this level: If I'm most worried about foreign policy, I vote Republican; if I'm most worried about domestic policy, I vote Democrat. Arlen Specter would have been a perfect candidate for me, but of course he had no chance at the Republican primaries because he was an agnostic who used libertarian rhetoric, and the Christian Coalition wouldn't even invite him to speak.


Cheers,

 

I am a "card-carrying" republican, but I must say that if forced to choose between the folks listed....

I couldn't pick Fred Flintstone....

How 'bout Ralph Nader

I think I would just stay home and watch TV.

clint

 

Honestly, I know these folk's politics better than I know most of them as people. So before I could vote for any of them, I would investigate each of them in detail and vote according to their integrity.
I say that because I disagree strongly with most political stances of each of them. So I would go for someone I could at least trust.

clint

 

Speaking of Al Sharpton, on his weekly radio show he is now being introduced as the Honorable Rev. Dr. Al Sharpton.

His biographies, available here and here, however, make no mention of any of his academic achievements.

Moreover, this little snippet states that he supposedly received an honorary doctorate form the A.P. Clay Bible College in Baton Rouge, LA, but questions his use of the honorific Honorable.

Can anyone shed more light on Al’s use of titles and honorifics?

 

A search through not one but four Who's Who volumes reveals no mention of a college education of any kind, much less a doctorate. This is not to say that he didn't attend college, but assuming he did, it must not be a very widely known fact.


Cheers,

 

While he is not being groomed for the presidency, Walter Williams is another black man who would likely share an ideology consistent with that of DCross, and the men that Bruce mentions here.

Williams also has the distinction of being one of the few nationally known college professors who even attempts to make any sense at all when he speaks about current events.

You can view his web page here.

Tracy<><

 

Further searches indicate that he attended Brooklyn College for at least two years during the early 70s, but I can't find anything beyond that.


Cheers,

 

Thomas Sowell would be another good man to include in this group.

clint

 

Who needs a college education to get a doctorate?

 

Bruce I am in agreement with you. The thought of President Al Gore is of concern. I am not convinced he would have weathered the current storm as well as GW Bush has in no small part thanks to Bush's excellent team (I get a kick out of Rumsfeld). Although much was made of Bush's academic record he at least has a Harvard MBA. Gore's academic record was far more dismal and if I remember included failed law school attempt and theological school attempt.

Of the list above I think Bradley is the smartest.

I also agree that there are some outstanding African American Republicans such as the individuals you mention (Watts, Keyes, Powell) and the person someone else mentioned (Condoleeza Rice). Two of the list are very bright academics (Ph.D.'s Rice & Keyes). Rice, Watts, and Powell have a solid history of public service. As Watts & Rice are young I hope we have only begun to see their public service careers.

For all the Democrats talk of equality I think that it is this Republican administration that has actually placed more non white males in top positions than any other administration. It is not merely lip service & the individuals are highly qualified and deserving.

One final thought is that Bill Clinton had good qualitites and did some good things but someone mentioned his being responsible for 8 years of prosperity and peace. This is not accurate. He was not responsible for the prosperity of the E- boom. He had the good fortune to be in office. Now, Al has mentioned the economy as if it were sent down hill by GWB rather than the fact that it was on it's way down before Bill ever left office.

Let me also say that I understand no party is without faults and all have negatives and positives.

North