The Democratic Party

I can't buy that yet. The party could easily become a factor it just needs to retool. There will be plenty of other Alan Keyes out there. Sadly if there are a lot of Daschle's and Kerry's they're totally screwed though.

They've already begun to fade. Its been happening for a long time now and its all the more obvious this year.

The Dems have been on the defensive since Reagan. They've been playing it safe, trying to move to the center, trying to lose the "liberal" tag. In the presidential game, this has only worked when they had a very charismatic southerner. They simply cannot count on this strategey. Hopefully, this will be the moment of truth for the party, and they'll get it together (I'm not going to repeat the details of what direction I think they should move in, since I've allready posted it at least twice today). If not, it's not unforseeable that a new party could emerge, and the Dems go the way of the Federalists and Whigs.

Let's hold off on the wake for a little longer. I don't think the party is dead. Does there need to be a new strategy? Of course. But let's not jump to the conclusion that after one election the Democrats are over. There are two things that will help out.....

1. The next 2 years: This is a perfect opportunity for the Republicans to put up or shut up. With a majority in all three branches of government, there will be nowhere for the Republicans to pass the buck. So anything that goes wrong will be on them. This gives the democrats a chance in 2006 to reclaim both Houses in Congress.

2. These things are cyclical: It's been proven that power ebbs and flows from one party to another. Right now the Republicans are in power but it'll soon be the democrat's chance-starting in 2006.

It doesn't matter how much power and responsibility the Repubs have. They will always blame their evil, terrorist lovin' lib-ur-l opponents for all that's ailing ya. For crying out loud, they ALREADY control all 3 branches of government and they STILL won despite a lousy record (granted, this time it was more by misdirection than by setting up DEms as a boogeyman.)

Here's the thing: the Democrats still have power. They have 45 Senators (including Jeffords) who can talk a bill to death, ensuring it does not get out the Senate. They can block any judicial nomination they want. The Republicans don't have the power to stop that.

Also, the parties each love power just a little too much. The Republicans will over-reach. They will abuse their power. They will become complacent. They will screw up and lose a measure of the support they now enjoy from 51% of the electorate. (Remember Gingrich's shut-down of the federal government?) The Dems will field another Clinton. Their version of Gingrich will emerge to lead the Democratic Revolution to take back Congress. Their organization is too big, their support too vast to have them sink to irrelevance. Had Perot's Reform Party survived and built on its '92 numbers, they might be in a position today to challenge as a replacement for the Democratic Party. But now, there is no viable third party in a position to overtake the Democrats. The Dems still represent a massive portion (maybe even a plurality) of the population. They're down now, but they'll be just fine.

I also think it's way too early to start the Democratic funeral. I think the Republicans are in danger of being too influenced by the far right wing, as evidenced by the Senate elections last night. If the party goes too extreme, I think many of the moderates will be more than happy to vote in a more moderate Democrat instead. That being said, I think Bush's attitude in his second term will also affect how long the Repubs remain in control. He needs to realize he only won by 3% in what should have been a near slam-dunk and back off on some of the cowboy antics. America gave him a second chance, he should use some of the time to repair the divide in the country. If the rest of the world is as sincere as they sound today, he ought to repair those alliances also. I wouldn't be surprised to see a Democratic win in '08 if Bush doesn't attempt these repairs.

It's just strategy. The repubs have better strategy. The framing of their political arguments, their ability to define the playing field, their use of concepts of faith, conviction, character.

The dems could win if they had better strategists working for them. I heard a columnist on NPR today (wish I could remember who it was) who framed a democratic argument using words like "faith" and "morals" and all of the things that form the backbone of democrat policy yet were unspooled as plans, mechanics, abstract notions.

Dems had the moral high ground and yet they allowed themselves to be painted as God-hating heathens. Rove helped merge church and state. As of 2004, it's clearly a fact of politics. But there are other ways of showing faith -- keeping children out of poverty, for one thing. It's one of the many moral imperatives the Kerry campaign didn't leverege.

The democrat strategy was all wrong for the mood of the country -- and the percentage was close in spite of that. Based on his record it should have been a landslide. People needed to be assured that Bush had taken the moral low ground -- and the campaign didn't give them that assurance. "Wrong" is an intellectual choice. There's a vast difference when you throw morals and God's notion of right and wrong into the mix.

That's my 2 cents on the election.

I have a whole philosophy of what's going to happen in the next four years and it's pretty close to Dan Whitehead's feelings about it. But I think the lesson of this election isn't that this country is more republican than it is democrat -- it's that strategically Bush has claimed the moral high ground first and whether he deserved to be in that place or not is arguable. But finders keepers.

Go ahead and be confident of the Democrat party's solvency. I tend to think that Tom Delay's Texas redistricting fiasco was just the tip of the iceberg. Worst case scenario: Repubs completely out maneuver the dems structurally and increase their stranglehold on the foundations of power in Congress. That may be a worst case scenario, but it is not far fetched.

Is there anything in the past four years that would make you think that bush would be magnanimous to his Democratic opponents in Congress? No. Optimism's okay, but its not based on a single fact. But the opposite (say nice things and call for bipartisanship publically while backstabbing and screwing Dems behind closed doors) has occurred during the past four years.

Is there anything in the tea leaves that would point to a resurrection of the left wing of the democratic party into the power center of the party? Not yet. [sarcasm]Picking an anti-choice Senator from the "liberal" state of Nevada as Tom Daschle's replacement is a great start to whatever rebuilding process they have going on.[/sarcasm]

I'm not ready to throw the dirt on the dems' casket just yet, but I'll be fucking shocked if Bush governs from the center in his second term. This administration is bloated with zealotry it almost seems impossible. Then again I called the election for Kerry.... so what do I know?!?

well let's see... the economy continues to struggle and the gap between the rich and the poor grows? bush continues to make foreign policy mistakes and we get involved in an even worse struggle and lose more american lives and foreign allies? education and health care reform continue to slip through the cracks and people start putting these things ahead of vague notions of which party is more "moral." the terrorist threat either proves to be legitimate, in which case the republicans would seem impotent to stop it, or it subsides, in which case it will fade from people's minds a bit? the conservatives will get cocky and stop making an effort to appeal to the center?

the democrats are in trouble, no doubt. and the rise of the religious right is huge at this point in time. but I think eventually the tide will shift. unless of course liberalism isn't important, balance is not necessary, we're all wrong and the whole country becomes one big conservaorgy of god fearing, ass kicking, economically prosperous motherfuckers.

Democratic Values
How to start winning the red states.
By William Saletan
Posted Wednesday, Nov. 3, 2004, at 1:15 PM PT

Hey, Democrats!

One silver lining in last night's debacle is that for another 24 hours or so, you might be open to rethinking what your party stands for. So, while I have your attention, here's an idea.

Go back to being the party of responsibility.

I'm not talking about scolding people. I'm talking about rewarding them. Be the party that rewards ordinary people who do what they're supposed to do—and protects them from those who don't.

If you think this kind of moral talk is anathema, you're the sort of person Karl Rove wants to be running the Democratic Party. Get out, or get a new attitude. Nearly 60 million people came out to vote for George W. Bush yesterday because they think that he represents their values and that you don't. Prove them wrong and you'll be the majority party again.

How? Start by changing the way you talk about pocketbook issues. Remember Bill Clinton's commitment to help people who "work hard and play by the rules"? Your positions on taxes and labor would be assets instead of liabilities if you explained them in moral terms. The minimum wage rewards work. Repealing the estate tax helps rich people get richer without risk or effort. Lax corporate oversight allows big businesses to evade taxes, deceive small investors, and raid pension funds.

Yes, Republicans will accuse you of waging a class war. I can see you cringing already. Get off your knees and fight. It is a war, but it isn't a class war. It's a culture war, and if you talk about it that way, you'll win it.

Some of you are dismayed by the emergence of a huge voting bloc of churchgoers. Stop viewing this as a threat, and start viewing it as an opportunity. Socially conservative blue-collar workers don't believe in the free market. They believe in the work ethic. Bush wins their votes by equating the free market with the work ethic. Show them where the free market betrays the work ethic, and they'll vote for the party of the work ethic—you—against the party of the free market.

What's your strongest issue among these voters? Outsourcing. Why? Because it's the issue on which you talk most naturally about right and wrong. It's also the issue on which you're most comfortable appealing to nationalism. That's another lesson you need to learn. People are voting Republican because they think you're weak. And, let's face it, you are weak. You say you'll defend this country, but then you go on about consulting other governments, cultivating goodwill, and playing well with others. You make a world full of terrorists sound like kindergarten.

Democrats in the Roosevelt-Truman years didn't have this problem. They called tyrants by their name, and they didn't sound like they were faking it. A party that believes in right and wrong at home must be assertive about right and wrong abroad. You need a serious antiterrorist agenda. Otherwise, when you object to a war like Iraq, you sound like the peace party.

I'm not asking you to act like you care about this stuff. I'm asking you to care about it for real, and not just at election time. When a Republican president runs a TV ad accusing you of failing to protect us from wolves, you should be able to point out that he's the one who emptied our shotgun into a fox, leaving us helpless against the wolves. And you should sound credible saying it.

Once you eliminate the sincerity gap between you and the Republicans on national security, you can exploit the reverse sincerity gap between you and them on responsibility. Think about the values of our armed forces: shared risk, shared sacrifice, and reciprocal duty between officers and soldiers, regardless of race or class. Those are your values.

When leaders betray troops through bad planning and false pretenses for war, that should be your issue. When Republicans cut taxes for the rich while the nation is at war and the Treasury is empty, that should be your issue. When soldiers from poor families die while corporations skim from the war budget, that should be your issue. I've heard John Kerry talk about each of these issues separately, but each time, he sounded opportunistic. To be powerful, they must flow from a common message. That message is responsibility.

All the issues Democrats like to run on—education, the environment, the deficit, energy independence—would be vastly more powerful if united under a single theme. Clean up your mess. Take care of your children. Pay your debts. Stand on your own two feet. It all comes down to responsibility.

The Democrat who talks this way most naturally is John Edwards. (I know, I've got to stop advertising for him.) He's the one who frames every issue in terms of values. He's the one who argued during the presidential primaries that Republicans were favoring unearned wealth over work. He's the one who connected Republican tax policies to make the point. You don't have to teach him the language, because he learned it growing up in one of those red states.

So, there's your candidate, and there's your message. Now go and live it, so you won't have to fake it.


William Saletan is Slate's chief political correspondent and author of Bearing Right: How Conservatives Won the Abortion War.

http://slate.msn.com/

Whither Liberalism? Again?
Here comes the usual bad advice.
By Timothy Noah
Posted Wednesday, Nov. 3, 2004, at 3:45 PM PT


In the coming days, a heartfelt dialogue will begin in which Democrats ask themselves, in a refreshing spirit of constructive self-criticism, why they can't connect with the American middle class. I have been listening to, and occasionally contributing to, discussions on this topic for more than two decades, and they began well before I tuned in. By now, the very subject makes me want to scream. Three critiques tend to dominate this discussion:

1. Democrats need to move right.
2. Democrats need to move left.
3. Democrats should sit tight and await the inevitable demographic shift that will put them on top again.

They're all wrong. Let's take them one at a time.

Democrats need to move right. This is the animating philosophy of the Democratic Leadership Council, a reform group within the Democratic Party. The DLC has made a valuable contribution to the political debate, especially on the subject of welfare reform. Bill Clinton was a former DLC chairman when he became president, and by implementing a DLC-influenced "triangulation" strategy he was able to steal the right's thunder, and even some of its rhetoric ("The era of big government is over").

Today, though, the DLC approach is, for two reasons, a bad prescription for the Democrats.

Reason 1: The DLC is a victim of its own success. Having already moved the Democratic Party rightward—these days, there isn't much point in distinguishing between a "new Democrat" and a plain old "Democrat"—it now risks taking the party too far rightward. If the Democrats continue down this path, then pretty soon it will be impossible to distinguish the Democrats from today's Republicans. (Some folks on the left, including Ralph Nader, think that's already happened.)

Reason 2: The process of moving the Democrats rightward has no end point, because every time the Democrats shift rightward the Republicans respond by shifting a little further rightward so they can continue to denounce the Democratic position as radical leftism. That explains why the GOP of today is so much further right than the GOP of the Reagan era, when Republicans were still willing to support expansion of the earned income tax credit for low-income workers; more progressive taxation of Social Security benefits; arms control; and promotion of human rights abroad. (This rightward shift was documented compellingly by Joshua Green in "Reagan's Liberal Legacy" in the January/February 2001 Washington Monthly.) In theory, there ought to be a point where the GOP has moved so far to the right that nobody will vote for its candidates. But in practice, I'm not confident that such a point exists.

Sometimes the need to move rightward is portrayed as more a matter of style than of policy. But John Kerry didn't get anywhere with his hunting-trip photo op, or with frequent affirmations of his Catholic faith. Democrats, I fear, are doomed to be thought phonies whenever they play this game, even when they aren't. (Kerry is a phony in some ways, but I believe him to be sincere in his faith and in his enthusiasm for hunting.)

Democrats need to move left. The mere fact that this would sharpen the difference between Democrats and Republicans makes this option appealing. And in at least some ways, a leftward shift would likely improve governance. The Democrats' reluctance to move leftward has hobbled party efforts even to imagine, much less enact, truly comprehensive health-care reform, which is badly needed. And the party's left wing turned out to be wise to resist the invasion of Iraq.

But while a more leftist agenda might be advisable policy, as politics it doesn't work. Merely to identify oneself as "liberal" is suicide for most politicians, and these days you even see private citizens edging away from the label. In his brilliantly textured book, What's the Matter With Kansas?, Thomas Frank documents and analyzes the mysterious alliance between corporate America and the proletariat better than any of the countless other academics and journalists who've attempted it. But when it comes to offering advice to the Democrats, Frank's recommendation—move leftward!—is no more satisfying than anyone else's. Moving leftward has been tried repeatedly. It never works! Al Gore tried to get himself elected president four years ago by adopting a post-convention strategy of economic populism, and it didn't win him victory in the Electoral College (or, if you prefer: It didn't win him a decisive enough victory in the Electoral College to keep the Supreme Court from stealing it back). Indeed, since the death of Sen. Paul Wellstone, D-Minn., it's been difficult to name a single politician on the national stage who's acquired a significant following while positioning himself to the left of the Democratic Party's center. (Michael Moore has, but nobody elected him.) The left can hardly lecture President Bush about the importance of fact-based reasoning if it ignores this recent history.

Democrats should sit tight and await the inevitable demographic shift that will put them on top again. This is the enormously appealing message of The Emerging Democratic Majority, a book that John Judis and Ruy Teixeira published right before the Democrats took a pasting in 2002's midterm congressional elections. (For an extended discussion of the book, click here, here, and here.) It may well emerge. But Judis and Teixeira's coalition a-borning depends heavily on people whose lives were shaped by academic and quasi-academic environments, i.e., it excludes the white working class. The best Judis and Teixeira can say is that as Republicans continue to wreck the economy, these proletarians will migrate back to the Democratic Party. Even if it were possible to have a Democratic Party that didn't include the working class, would we really want one?

And who knows whether this demographic messiah will ever arrive, anyway? Teixeira is a genius at crunching data in ways that keep the flame burning, but on his Weblog he hasn't yet weighed in on the 2004 results. He'll have a hard time spinning this one.

So what should the Democrats do? In the words of Jack Benny: I'm thinking, I'm thinking!


Timothy Noah writes "Chatterbox" for Slate.

http://slate.msn.com/

How many of these fucking "wake-up calls" will it take before the Democrats learn they have to grow some balls to compete on the political front? All this half-assed politics as usual, these fatally compromised arguments, these soundbite positions...who do they think they're fooling?

Jesus Christ, Nader was so right. They had a big stupid sitting duck in Bush/Cheney with a huge red target painted on its ass carrying a sign that said "Go ahead, shoot me whenever you're ready... Take your time, I'm not going anywhere". So how the fuck do they end up blowing off both their own goddamn feet?

You know what i've been hearing that amuses me? Everyone has been so impressed by Kerry and Gore's concession speeches. Saying " they seem so emotional, touching and human. Why don't we see more of that during their campaign runs? " and I think that argument speaks to one of the huge problems with the Democrats right now. They need to be real and open up in a frank and honest manner. Sound bite quotes, Campaign reutoric and Dr Phil & The Daily Show appearances just aren't going to cut it in the long run.

Everybody says Hillary is radioactive for '08 ... I don't know, she might be a very competitive candidate.

The name Clinton makes hard core Republicans very irrational, somehow I get the felling it would get them off their game. Bill has a lot of symphaty with the public, having him as the first "man" (???) might be good too, then again, lots of people say the US is not ready for a female president which if true is a real scandal.

The US isn't ready for a female president. All those Red States that voted morals and national defense are the same states that won't allow a woman in office. Even talking to my own family(who are all raging economic democrtas, but who this year voted for a Republican for the first time ever, especially my mother) and friends(they're 50-50 Rep's and Dem's)(and I share this opinion), they would never vote for a female presidential candidate, regardless of the party affiliation, this country is not ready for it. If the Democrats can get someone with Charisma and Morals behind him, he'd have my vote in 4 years, but in the 2 presidential elections I've been able to vote in since becoming of age, I've voted Republican, even though raised a Democrat(only on the economic side of it).

I read those articles RD. Thanks.

I agree with some of the points made in each. Saletan's article really only applied to this election, but it could continue to be an issue if things look the same or worse in '08. Then it could be a permanent problem for the Repubs.

Policy wise, it would behoove the Dems to embrace liberalism and the left. The grass roots is liberal and leftist. They don't like feeling adrift in their own party. and when they're energized, then they can do great things. The Karl Rove strategy for stoking the base worked wonders.

The problem Dems have is: who is their base? Can they expand their base by engaging in the issues at a deeper level, while staying true to their liberal roots? Why do blacks, who are culturally conservative almost always vote heavily Democrat? How can they transfer some of theat mojo to white religious types? Clearly "values" politics is here to stay, but swinnging to the right is just a horrible idea. The Dems need to define "values" politics on their liberal home turf. For example: Outlawing abortion will NOT make abortions go away no matter how hard you restrict people's freedom. Eliminating poverty (an extremely Christian value) can reduce the need for abortions to a statistically insignificant percentage.

I think the Dems did an admirable job at the convention of reclaiming the flag and patriotism as not being the exclusive property of the right, although obviously they still have a ways to go on that. But the next step is for them to reclaim the word "liberal."

Just out of curiosity, that "and I share this opinion"? Do you mean you share the opinion that you wouldn't vote for a female president?

damn straight

No I wouldn't vote for a female candidate.

Why? You hate women or something?

Um...would you care to elaborate on that? How exactly does a vagina prevent someone from being a good leader?

I'm telling you, all the Democrats need and even needed this election was an "everyman" that kissed as much ass as possible. Why do you think Clinton was so popular? I think we can pretty much all agree that outside of a small % of people who actually know about the issues, it all boils down to likeability and commonalities. Clinton may not have meant half the shit he said, but you believed he did and for the most part, you felt like you had things in common with him. Blue-blood intellectualism will not get you elected and that's why you see Bush back in the White House.

Let me reiterate what I said in another post about Hillary, if the Dems put her up there in '08, they might as well pack it up. Hillary is just way too polarizing. No matter how bad the Bush admin. is, not one Republican would vote for her, and unless the 'Pubs march some stiff up there she'd probably split half of the votes the Democrats are used to getting-Minorities, registered Democrats, women. About the only group you could count on would be the gay/lesbian vote. I guess in the end, I still think Dean is the most viable guy.

What? Why the hell not? Is it because you honestly think a woman wouldn't be effective as a leader, or would you feel you'd be throwing your vote away because a woman couldn't win? Or do you have some moral objection to women working?

If it's the first, go read a history book or two. See: various Prime Ministers and Queens around the world.

If it's the second, that's just sad.

If it's the third, I'll be speechless.

We can't even trust them to run their own bodies! How can we trust them to run the country?

No, I don't hate women, but in a position like the Presidency, or on the front lines of Battle they become a liability and an easy target. This isn't being the head of a Law firm or a fortune 500 company, its running and governing the lives of millions of Americans, and if the person in charge becomes a liability its like putting a target on the country, which is true for any sex, but why start with one obvious glaring strike against you in the eyes of most of the world? I also love the knee jerk reaction on these boards, because I wouldn't vote for a woman as president I'm assumed to be a misogynist. That's as rich as when people were telling me because I don't support Gay Marriage that I'm automatically a homophobe. I'd never read two statements by a person that I've never met face to face and label them anything, except ignorant and childish.

If women can be as dumb as men and join the military when they're young, I don't see why couldn't they be as intelligent and conniving as men when they're older and become the leaders of their countries. It's working quite well today for Ireland, Latvia, New-Zealand, Finland, Bangladesh, even if -gasp- they have to sit down to pee.

Hair Metal - Saying America wouldn't vote for a woman because she's a woman doesn't make you a mysoginist, saying that you personally would not vote for someone merely because she is a woman does.

It has nothing to do with intelligence or ability, you people are putting those words in my mouth, it has to do with public perception by the members of this country and others around the world. I guarantee you if a woman is put up as the Democratic candidate in 2008, you will see even more voter turn out in this country than last year, people who don't give a shit will be out in droves in order to keep a woman from being elected. All the women I know, republican and democrat, family and friends shudder at the thought of a female president, and they are not the minority in thinking this way. In order for America to have a female president, there need to be significant changes in the attitudes towards women around the world. In all of the foreign countries that treat woman lower than worm shit see the greatest nation in the world with a female President, forget about, our credibility goes right out the fucking window, we won't be taken seriously. In regards to someone mentioning Queens, when was the last time a Queen had absolute, total power under-god type ability? Any country with a queen nowadays has got just as much legislation around her as the US has around the president.

Actually, your personal feelings of misogyny are projected into a vague notion that women are a "liability" while leading a battle and are not backed by anything except your prejudices. Thatcher was as ruthless as any man could have been during the Falklands war, it didn't make a difference that she had boobs **goes vomiting at the thought**

You're thinking in terms of this presidential election only, which is fine, if you enjoy the advantages that Republicans have over Democrats. Running a good candidate will always help the ticket, but parties will always have weak candidates.

This election was not just about a victory for Bush. The entire party ate the Dems alive at the congressional and state level.

I'm talking about long term strength. I'm pretty sure that Kerry and the DNC had to accomplish in 18 months what has been the culmination of a conservative strategy in place for about 40 years. That he had a shot at all is due mostly to the horrible record of GWB.

Clinton won twice because he is one of the most gifted politicians in a generation.

You cannot extrapolate me being a misogynist from saying I wouldn't vote for a female president. There is no logic there. Let me elaborate: Did I say they shouldn't work? Did I say they shouldn't be allowed to pursue any career they choose? Do I hit women? Curse them? Avoid them? Talk down to them? Did I say they shouldn't be in positions of power, no, except for the presidency.


mi·sog·y·ny -noun-
a hatred of women

where do you get me hating women from saying I, at the way the world is right now would not vote for a woman presidential candidate?

You saying you wouldn't vote for someone merely because they are a woman says a lot about where you place women in this world. You can not hit them all you want, but you obviously have a lower view of their place on this planet. I suppose they should stay in the kitchen and make babies?

Where does it say I want them to stay in the kitchen? Are people failing to read what I wrote above? I'm not saying they shouldn't work, I'm not saying they can't pursue whatever they want(even the presidency), I'm just saying I wouldn't vote for a woman as a president.

See, I would think that it would GIVE credibility to the idea of female equality. As for the rest of it, I don't want to call you sexist (or homophobic), but when you make an INCREDIBLE statement like "I would not vote for a woman as president, regardless of her positions or qualifications," you really need to back it up with a well-thought-out argument.

http://www.guide2womenleaders.com/Premier_Ministers.htm

All those countries, including India and the UK for long stretches of time, sure did suffer from having women leaders. In fact, they lost so much "credibility" that... hum... wait, that's right, nothing happened.

Yeah. You have some mental issues with women. It's okay - lots of people do. Just don't expect others to pat you on the back and nurse these attitudes because they're sick and wrong.

I feel I depicted my argument fairly well, and I feel there's a lot of bitterness on these boards because those who would elect a female president know it has zero chance of happening for a LONG time, I walked into this discussion, so its only fair that I accept my lumps, at least the discussion here has stayed civil unlike some of the other boards.

Replace "woman" by "black" and see how your statements sound, Hero. It's the same thing.

Black, white, purple color means shit to me. But where the country is right now, Colin Powell is probably the only candidate of color that would stand a chance. If the Dems trot out Obama, they can kiss that election goodbye as well, I'd love to see a man of color run, it would be great for the country, but a person of color isn't going to be elected for a LONG time either.

"Replace "woman" by "black" and see how your statements sound, Hero. It's the same thing"

I love when people play the race card, proves their reaching.

Editing to say that If I felt a black candidate had the right stuff, he'd get my vote

That's fair enough, it's arguing that "if our leader was black/female/handicapped/whatever then we would lose credibilty in the eyes of the world and reliability during battle" that's more controversial.

But on that point you're right, if Americans couldn't elect Kerry because he felt too different from them then it'll be a long time before a woman or a black gets elected, sadly.

I sincerely hope Hilary or Obama runs, so the true face of this country can be revealed. If Hilary runs, she'll lose in the red states because she 'seems like a bitch', if Obama runs, who knows, they'll find something else superficial to focus on. If this election taught us anything, the actual policies and job performance of a candidate has no bearing on the voters decision. It's all perception.

I didn't mention handicapped, so don't put that in my mouth either(I'm pretty sure we've had presidents with physical limitation by the way). I said Woman, and that is the only thing I said, argue it that way, don't fudge with it, don't put words in my mouth, just stick to what I say, not what you want me to say.
An fer cryin out loud, handicapped people can do whatever the fuck they want, a lot of times better than those without problems.

You really haven't a clue what you're talking about. Powell would have been a good candidate four years ago, now there's about 10 minority politicians that would make better presidential candidates. Why does playing the race card mean someone is reaching? What they're actually trying to do is get you to see the prejudice in your statement. You obviously see nothing wrong with your views, we're just trying to say that it's no different than racism.

Also, are you trying to imply that if we elected a woman, Muslims will hate us? But bombing the shit out of them, killing innocents, and trying to take over the middle east - that'll bring 'em to our side!

I'm having a hard time understanding your "argument". You're saying we lose credibility if we elect a woman, why? On the military side of things, you do know we had a woman fly an A-10 Warthog in Gulf War II that was half blown up and survived. You think we lost credibility there?

I don't get your argument.