And please, do tell, how is the current administration more liberal than Clinton (other than on immigration policy ... where I give them singular props)??


As for "why" a female or black president .... I simply feel that breaking the barrier, even symbolically, of the white male ruling class for the pinaccle of the ruling class is of vital importance to the progress of mankind.

If one looks at the amount spent, never mind rhetoric, one will find that Bush has out spent Clinton in not a few areas where one would expect a liberal to be the most generous with public funds.............I guess the major difference would be that Clinton was forced by a fiscaly responsible Republican congress to act the way he did whereas Bush had a Republican congress that thought they could spend their way to re-elections(which is why they lost...idiots).

Your reasons for wanting a non-white-male for President are admirable, but I still believe fly in the face of what we should be trying to achieve.

I hope to see the day when a Black Woman is elected President and no one finds it important or remarkable in any respect to her gender or skin color.

There was no option for Thomas Jefferson, so I voted for Bubba.
:)

Such as?

(I ask quite sincerely. Perhaps I haven't been paying enough attention. What "liberal" causes have the Republican administration and Congress lavished funds upon?)

And I believe that day will only come after (perhaps long after) the barrier is broken with much attention to gender or skin color.

Education and Prescription drugs come to mind...although I'll admit I am too lazy to look up the actual numbers.


Good point about the barrier being broken first....I suppose that will have to be first in order for what I'd like to be to occur.

I'll grant you the education thing. Lots of money went that way ... not wisely spent toward any education goals ... but spent nonetheless.

Prescription drugs, however, was a corporate giveaway pure and simple. Citizens got screwed and big pharma companies made out like the bandits they are. Money thrown at the cause of making more money for multinational corporations is not liberalism.

Very true.

That's right, baby! I am off for Monday #2 :) Gotta love public school.

I vote for Josiah "Jed" Bartlet. Can't wait to see what Santos does for the country, next. Oh, wait, that was The West Wing.

You'd think that as a 5th grade teacher I'd have a civic minded reason for my choice, but I guess I have the best naive childhood presidential memories of Carter. He was a peanut farmer and I loved peanut butter. What more could a little girl ask for in a president? Plus, he wore jeans. Although, he was president that hot summer Ubergeek & I had to sit in long gas lines with the black vinyl seats. Was that Carter's fault or economic backlash from Ford or even Nixon?

Yes, I think I am back to Bartlet.

What I wouldn't give to have Jed Bartlet in the White House right now. Sigh...

Neither oil crisis had much to do with who was president at the time.

The 1973 oil crisis was a real oil shortage and came about because of the Yom Kippur War between Israel and the surrounding Arab worlds. As punishment, the Arab nations cut off oil exports to countries that had supported Israel (initially just the U.S. and the Netherlands since Arabs particularly hate country names that contain "the" but it slowly expanded to others).

The 1979 crisis (the one you remember) was more ephemeral since actual oil supply only fell a little bit after the Iranian Revolution. But there was a market panic.