Presidential nominees??

[Loosehead]

Given that the democrats would probably consider it their "turn" for the Presidency, do you think that given the American ingrained attitudes and prejudices that they will risk Nominating Clinton or Obama? I'm more on the Republican side so I'm not really bothered and this is not intended to start a sexism/Racism debate. What I'm really saying is the US ready to vote for a Black or Female president?

[paulos66]

According to a 2007 gallup poll 5% wouldn't vote black and 11% wouldn't vote woman:
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2007 /02/black_president_more_likely_than_mormon_or _atheist_/

[jake-the-peg]

But if that 5% or 11% were republicans the point is moot.

It's not a question so much right now of whether the US is ready for a black or woman president as much as whether the Democrats think they are and are willing to risk putting a black or female candidate in front of the voters.

Facinating to see that more would vote for an openly gay than an openly athiest candidate

[Kromovaracun]

The USA as a whole might well be. But there are certain areas of the USA (namely the 'Bible Belt') where Obama and Clinton will definitely struggle to gain support due to existing prejudices (in fact I'd be surprised if they bothered).

It's not impossible though. There plenty of states (primarily in the North-East) which wouldn't mind voting for a black man or a woman.

[China Doll]

I think it would be blinding if they did but I suspect the democrats will go with Clinton. I think female is radical enough for America.... For the land of the free they're still pretty conservative. But hopefully I'm wrong!

[Clanad]

Good question... but polls aside, I see it (as an American citizen and voter) a matter of placing the right person of color or woman before the electorate. I sense, especially from the results of the Iowa caucuses, that Clinton may not be the right woman. She's seen in many quarters as being a reminder of the really bad aspects of her husband's tenure. Her reliance on Bill in the late days of campaigning in Iowa I think, made even many Democrats uncomfortable. In the same vein, even with Obama's win, he'll increasingly be seen as inexperienced and real questions are unanswered concerning his basic core beliefs, some of them religious. He escaped scrutiny of those aspects in Iowa, but Clinton won't miss the chance to raise them in the future (nor will the Republicans).
Ironically, a black woman, such as Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice or a black man, such as Colin Powell, would do very well with both Democrats and Republicans.
Having spent a great deal of time in the south, the old guard has faded to but a shadow of itself. There will always be pockets of racisim and of course sexisim, but a strong, well presented leader of either (or both) persuasions would give a good run for the money.

[lankeela]

I think if Condoleeza Rice stood she would win hands down, thereby giving them a black and female president.

[jake-the-peg]

Well Colin Powell is out of the question, he's associated too strongly with Iraq and as I recall his wife threatened to leave him if he stood.

[jno]

here's a question for you, Clanad, if you're still around.

The Republicans put themselves forward as the party of the family. And yet I've been told that in fact all the Republican candidates are divorced and none of the Democrats is. (I haven't checked this out and may be wrong.)

Anyway, that suggests Hillary Clinton ought to win support because she stuck by her husband: a faithful wife. And yet it seems that in reality she's seen as unreliable, and one of the impressions I get is that people actually think worse of her, not better, because she didn't dump a cheating husband. She's seen as doing it for political reasons rather than because she really wanted to - much as she's suspected of prevaricating over tricky issues rather than committing herself.

If my impression is right, then American 'family values' are not quite the ones people say they are. An honest divorce may be seen as morally superior to standing by your man for the wrong reasons. I'm not suggesting that this is improper or hypocritical; it does actually seem to accord with modern life. But how do you see the issue of 'family values' as playing at the polls?

[mightyWBA]

Perhaps they should do what we do, and get the sweatties to run the nation.
:-)

[Clanad]

Good question jno (as usual, by the way. Fact is, over the last few year 'family values' has become nothing more than a catch phrase. Ot of the current batch of possible nominees, the Republican's winner last night in Iowa, Mike Huckabee isn't divorced, Mitt Romney isn't, Rudy Giuliani is (twice, once very messy), and John McCain isn't. Amongthe Democrats, Hillary isn't, but that truly is seen as a political calculation since there doesn't seem to be much of substance to the marriage anyway, except political calculation, the winner Barack Obama isn't and John Edwards isn't (in fact his wife is suffering from cancer, outlook unknown).
But, the appeal of a clean cut, family oriented, mildly but not blatantly religious (which makes Huckabee a real question mark for the long run) experienced but not part of the system has great appeal to a lot of the electorate. Unfortunately, the party faithful will almost always choose adherence to the dogma over a good candidate everytime. Especially after the press and the various party "machines" get through dredging up every possible negative factor of the opposing candidates life... which a lot of people tend to feed on... tsk, tsk... rant over...

[Clanad]

I stand corrected, jno, John McCain was divorced. He's a little old at age 73 to be a real front runner, but deffinitely, when one considers his true war hero (Vietnam, a truly stirring and inspring story) status, one of the most qualified candidates...

[jno]

thanks, Clanad. Yes, if I were American I suppose I'd be a Democrat, but I'd vote McCain: he seems to be honest, not bound by party or religious dogma, and to have plenty of experience. So obviously, I don't think he actually has a chance but he seems by far the most impressive to me.

Not being a believer myself, I have no time for those like Huckabee or Romney, who seem to be running for archbishop rather than president and seem to think Christians are the only people who count. It's curious that though America deliberately separated state and religion, it's actually Europeans who think candidates should keep their faith to themselves and Americans who take it into account in choosing - which is why Blair didn't convert to Catholicism until he'd left politics; he didn't want his religion and his politicsto appear linked in any way.

I don't really trust Giuliani or Clinton (though like many non-Americans I was a big fan of her husband - family moral issues don't trouble Europeans so much as long as they do the job, and Bill Clinton managed peace and budget-balancing); Edwards doesn't inspire me and I have no idea whether Thompson ever actually decided to run. So my guess is Obama may be the one, which would certainly be a historic moment

[Quinlad]

It would be Edwards for me. And he'd be the best candidate for the same poor, black voters that are getting so excited about Obama.

But he's got no chance obviously.