Morrigoon, yes I've determined the precedent of a woman president is more important, imo, than the precedent of a black president.

And, for me personally, either a black or woman candidate would have to be significantly "worse" (again, according to my political principles) than the white male opposing candidate in order to lose my vote.


In other words, if Hilllary were a man and McCain were a woman, I would likely vote for McCain.

Speaking as a woman, that's not how I'd like to be elected. I'd rather know that I got in on my own merit than on someone's charitable version of affirmative action.

You've already said that if it is McCain vs. Clinton that you'll give strong consideration to voting for him over her; it's an interesting triangle.

Clinton over Obama. Obama over McCain. McCain over Clinton. We can play rochambeau.

I was responding more on the divisiveness issue rather than semantics. See the parts of the original quote that I have highlighted.

I believe that, for the most part, Obama supporters are not doing the bashing. I believe that there are two separate and distinct groups:

• Those who hate Billary (I am one of them)
• Those who passionately support Obama (I am not necessarily one of them)

Yes, there will be some crossover, but for the most part, Obama supporters appear to be staying away from the mudslinging.

This is a moot point until November. The issue at hand (for Dems) is Clinton or Obama.
____________________________

So you concede that you WOULD vote for a (in your eyes) lesser candidate JUST because that candidate were a woman and/or black? I'm not saying hugely less qualified, just a "little bit" less qualified.

That makes no sense to me.

Well, June 7 is the last of the primary/caucus votes but we should have a better idea after March 4 when 444 delegates are decided. Of course, that still leaves about 600 odd delegates to make a decision and, in this seemingly close race, it might take Oregon or Montana (or, wouldn't it be funny if last to go Puerto Rico's 63 delegates made the call).

I've never watched the primaries this closely before. it's sort of fun.

We may have to wait until the end of August (August 25-28, 2008) for a final decision to be made at the DNC.

Very true.

It is very exciting to get to choose between a black person and a female person for the Democratic candidate. However, if you choose BECAUSE they are black or female, you are missing the point, IMHO.

I can't believe that my use of the word "bitch", followed by a winky smiley, would be the cause of such backlash, NA. Rest assured, I placed a winky there because I knew it was an over-the-top thing to say. I suppose I could have followed it up with "haha, isn't it crazy, I'm just kidding, how dare I, eh?" I thought the smiley made that obvious. Sorry to get your dander up over a dirty word.

Hey, if you want to call Obama an asshole, go right ahead. Oh wait, that wouldn't make anyone angry. It would be a non-sequitur, because no one ever claims he's an asshole. Hmm, interesting. ;) <winky smiley means this is supposed to be funny - Your Mileage May Vary>

For some reason you're interpreting enthusiasm for Obama and dislike for Clinton as divisiveness and bashing. I don't know why it would be so hard to accept that it could be, as Kevy similarly put it, enthusiasm and dislike.

I, and hundreds of thousands of disillusioned voters, haven't voted for a major candidate in well over a decade. I've had no reason to. Obama gives me a reason. I agree with Morrigoon - I wouldn't vote for Hillary this fall. Ok, maaaaybe if the race was really close in California....which it won't be.


Anyway - I, too, am having fun following the process. :)

My selection process doesn't have to make sense to you, Kevy. It's mine, not yours.

But I've said in one of these now nearly identical political threads that I believe the president has very limited impact on domestic policies, and that the world is going straight to hell with or without America's help.


I can honestly be happy with either Obama or Clinton. I think Obama's the nicer person. Clinton's the woman.

In my book, yes, for historical purposes, her gender is far more important than who's nice, or runs a more happy and even perhaps more productive administration.

Plus I've already said I believe Clinton might accomplish half of her less lofty goals, while I expect Obama to accomplish merely a tenth of his more lofty ones.

My "making no sense" comment was purely editorial. You are 100% correct that the decision is yours.

The questions were to make certain that I was not misunderstanding your position.

And I disagree with your position. I believe that the President DOES have enough impact on our country that I should be making a decision based on who would best serve our country.