Are white men viable Presidential candidates?

[Radical Activist]

This primary season saw the failure of every white male who ran for the Democratic nomination. This makes me seriously question whether I'll ever see another white male Democratic nominee in my lifetime. After all, the white men who failed this time necessarily reflect on all white male candidates for the foreseeable future. The loss of Edwards, Dodd, Kucinich, Biden and Gravel is a loss for all white men who struggle to maintain their dominance over nearly every aspect of society.

[JVS]

1. Sure they are. I expect white men to continue their active involvement in politics

[Radical Activist]

6. heh

me too

[TheDebbieDee]

2. Not this year, they aren't!

[anonymous171]

3. I know, after listening to Ferraro, I'm convinced reverse-racism will make it impossible

for me to see a white man finally get the presidency.

[Radical Activist]

18. It has been a long hard road

:rofl:

[PoliticalAmazon]

4. Absurd question. n/t

[LSK]

5. no, especially when Obama rounds up all the whites and sends them to camps

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

Can we PLEASE judge candidates on their skills/qualities and not on their skin color?

[Radical Activist]

7. or

gender.

[LSK]

14. true

But when a candidate never apologizes for voting for an illegal war, admits to taking money from lobbyists, labels Iran's army as a terrorist organization, and lies about things like popular vote, my not liking her has NOTHING to do with gender.

[rusty quoin]

9. HA!

[Toucano]

8. Your analogy doesn't actually work.

The sentiment that some Clinton supporters have that they have lost more than a nomination, but their best chance to elect a woman president is sincere and has some validity.

It may be a bit exaggerated by some, but it's a valid feeling that I think deserves some respect.

[Radical Activist]

13. Its a sad premise.

Because its also based on the idea that the only/best chance for a woman to get elected President is by riding her husbands coat tails. Its a horribly negative and defeatist attitude for feminists to take.

[Toucano]

23. That's a myth.

Hillary didn't ride on her husbands coat tails. She pushed him up the ladder.

She was much more accomplished when they met than he was. He wasn't a dummy, but he was sort of directionless. She helped focus his energy to reach his goals.

It's easy to forget this fact because they've been a part of public life for so many years. Hillary is a highly accomplished woman in her own right.

[Radical Activist]

26. All that may be true but its irrelevant.

I'm sure she did many things to help get Bill where he is. But this isn't about assigning credit. Could Hillary have gotten elected to the US Senate from New York as a first time candidate from another state unless she had been first lady? The Clinton name, connections and donors are what made her a strong candidate for President and Senator.

So I guess we could ask whether Hillary would have gotten elected President if she had always been the career politician herself instead of Bill. There's no way of knowing but why don't we find a woman who did that and run HER for President instead?

[Toucano]

35. Uugh!

Sorry, but I think you're still not getting it.

The "Clinton name, connections and donors..." were EARNED by Hillary Clinton as much as by Bill Clinton. Those are resources that she was able to tap because she had worked for them. Do you really think those connections and donors just threw their money at her senate campaign as some sort of favor to their buddy Bill?

If Hillary Clinton hadn't been the first First Lady with a post-graduate degree, she might not have been the first First Lady elected to public office regardless of what her husband might have done or said.

Even women candidates who have been career politicians by themselves are subject to the impression people have of them getting what they got through their husbands. Look at Feinstein. People still talk about the wealth of her husband helping her advance.

[goletian]

50. not a myth. without having the clinton name she wouldnt have gotten this far.

if she personal experience and strength good enough to run on, she wouldnt have gotten so desperate after being upstaged by a young newbie.

[Toucano]

51. The "Clinton name" would never have been the Clinton name

if it hadn't been for Hillary.

You should brush up on her resumé.

[Radical Activist]

21. In fact

I have to wonder if feminist leaders who are that negative about the chances of another woman becoming President are unintentionally harming the movement.

[Toucano]

29. It's only the temporary blues, I think

I don't think it will set back the movement because the truth is there are other qualified women who will continue to advance the cause.

It's like when a love affair ends and you think "I'll never love again!" That feeling passes.

It's especially hard for them to accept because Clinton was viewed as an inevitability for so many months.

[Radical Activist]

31. That makes sense.

I hope you're right.

[Hamlette]

10. awwww, what a wonderful thought!

poor babies. Now you'll just have to work harder to get and keep our attention and adoration.

(Wouldn't it be wonderful IF the playing field were to be leveled to the extend lamented by the op?)

[Radical Activist]

17. It would be interesting to see

a list of potential non-white male Presidential candidates for another 4 to 8 years from now. Or as a list of potential VP's for Obama. But of course the problem is that no one outside Illinois knew who Obama was 8 years ago so its anybody's guess who the next nominee will be.

[slackmaster]

11. Obama is partly white, isn't he?

And don't give me any of that "one-drop rule" crap.

[cottonseed]

16. He's a manchurian white candidate.

They slipped him in right under our noses.

[slackmaster]

32. Can you see the red queen?

[villager]

12. generally speaking -- as a white man -- I'd love to see a slew of "other than" white male Presidents

for the next good while...

I mean, all other things being equal...

Kinda spark the collective imagination, limber things up, & etc...

And I expect my fellow white dudes will be able to weather such a "storm..." ;-)

[JuniperLea]

15. I can't wait until skin color is only relevant at the Estee Lauder counter... eom

[BigAnth]

19. Not this one......

[Radical Activist]

20. popeye is running this year?

who knew?

[onehandle]

22. What if Obama loses?

And why does your supposition seem somewhat racist?

[Radical Activist]

28. If Obama loses there will people who will say that

it reflects on the ability of any black person to get elected President, ever. And I will find those arguments just as ridiculous as this post.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

24. Nope...

no white men have ever been elected before...:eyes:

[crankychatter]

25. In the future of an increasingly educated and urbane america

this post will cease to be facetious and for myself...

as one trailer trash, red-necked, never had no money, never will, catfish belly white MF...

I can't wait for intelligent, sane and humane leadership

[Radical Activist]

34. True.

I suspect that '04 was the last time we'll see a Democratic ticket of two white men for a very long time. After 8 years of Obama we'll be at the point where having two white men will look like a big risk compared to having a woman or person of color on the ticket. Having two parties that both pick two white men for Pres and VP will seem strange and antiquated in 16 if not 8 years. Then we'll have tickets that more accurately reflect America.

[brentspeak]

27. As a white man, I could care less if the President is a white man -- or a white woman or black man

My only concern is that the best person for the job is elected. I would think that any responsible American citizen would believe the same.

As it so happens, the best person for the job would have been John Edwards. The second would have been Christopher Dodd. The third would be either Joe Biden or Barack Obama. Right now, we're getting around the third-best possible, which I can live with, even if it doesn't make me jump up for joy.

[Radical Activist]

30. huh

Edwards based on his one term in the Senate and sweet speeches that sound about ten steps to the left of his moderate voting record? Dodd and Edwards would have been good candidates but I think we got the best one whose liberal speeches match his liberal voting record.

[onehandle]

36. Hillary has a better liberal track record than Obama.

But they're both Centrists.

If you are expecting some sort of Liberal Paradise after Obama is elected, you're fooling yourself.

And Edwards (also a Centrist) polled better than any of them in the Real world and was #1 at DU.

[Radical Activist]

39. Obama is the first left wing movement activist to get the Democratic nomination.

His entire career record is liberal. I realize that its more fun to hear someone like Edwards throw out the read meat lines and pander to liberals during the primary, but I think it makes sense for someone with a very liberal record and professional background like Obama to strike a centrist tone from the start. You have to look past the speeches.

[onehandle]

40. So he's not being honest?

So he's just another politician? Is that what you're saying?

[Radical Activist]

43. I don't find Obama's message to be centrist.

You'll have to show me what he's saying that makes you think that. He's presenting progressive ideals in language that appeals to both moderates and progressives. That's how you win and there's nothing dishonest about it.

[onehandle]

47. Remind me of your pretty little premise when Obama swings right during the GE.

Which he will and which he should. To win.

[Radical Activist]

49. You're thinking of Howard Dean

or Hillary or Edwards etc.

[brentspeak]

38. No, Edwards would have been the best possible person for the job

because of his clear campaign commitment to a) ridding the White House of any and all lobbying influence; and b) reinvigorating America's domestic manufacturing base. Those two things (along with getting the hell out of Iraq) are precisely the most important issues the nation faces at this time. His Senate voting record is completely irrelevant; FDR's policies as President could never have been predicted from his record as New York State's governor.

Obama has not made any of those issues the driving focus of his campaign, and his exact policies in regard to them are still vague.

[Radical Activist]

41. I remember

how much Kerry's vote for the war in Iraq dogged his campaign and made many voters think he's an unprincipled flip-flopper. Edwards would have had the same problem times ten now that the war is even more unpopular. People want a candidate with conviction who can stick to his principles so Edwards' Senate record is very relevant. It would have been a central part of the Republican attacks against him and it would have worked. The fact that Obama publicly opposed the war from the start made Obama the far more electable candidate than Hillary or Edwards.

Unlike Edwards, Obama passed major legislation in Illinois and the US Senate to reduce the influence of lobbyists and campaign contributions. If those are your top two issues then I'm a little confused about why you didn't pick the candidate with a better record and plan for both.

[onehandle]

45. Don't bother.

The winners write the history books.

No matter what the facts are.

[BlooInBloo]

33. (shrug) And every other primary season in history saw the failure of every black male who ran.

[L. Coyote]

37. Why not ask if Hispanics are not viable? or women? Clinton and Richardson lost!

Of course, your logic is flawed, so scratch that!!

[Radical Activist]

44. yes

[LucyParsons]

42. They have a spotty history, at best.

[FrenchieCat]

46. Not in 2008!

[krawhitham]

48. Not this year ....

I guess that means McCain is shit out of luck

[shadowknows69]

52. Maybe not for a while, which is fine by me

Let's keep breaking glass ceilings.