Hey you guys from Iowa...
- Thread starter jbhtexas
- Start date
Obama and Hillary will have a VERY hard time selling themselves in my opinion. There are too many people out there who support the mysoginist and racist institutional discrimination. An easy way to see this is to look at HC jobs in basically any sport. How many black/African-American or women HC's in ratio to white men? As much as I'd love to see either one become president in either '08, '12, '16 and '20, I don't see it happening anytime soon. Too many people are afraid of change, and even though a majority of voters vote strictly on party lines, I have a feeling that if either a woman or African-America were to run (for either party) and they were running against a white male, they may vote for the white male candidate for fear of change. Just my opinion though.
Vilsack for president, what a laugher. He's just trying to position him self for a position somewhere in Washington. I'm still in disbelief Iowan's voted Culver as Gov. It's a sure sign of brain drain in the state.
You have a link for any of that? I thought that he attended school in Hawaii from 5th grade on and lived with his grandparents.
ex new york city mayor i think might run.. i know his name but i cant spell it to save my life.. but if he does run.. hes got my vote..
how did vilsack do last nite?
how did vilsack do last nite?
I think he's playing on the hollywood actors who swore "they'd move to Canada" if GWB won a second term, none that any of them have carried through ... too bad.
Tommy V is an unknown Dem candidate, which for the party is a good thing, because a famous Democrat is nearly always an infamous Democrat. He may work out well just because he doesn't have a long political history relative the othe candidates to pick apart.
I'm hoping others throw their hat in the ring, because Tom is looking about the best for me right now, if theres a Dem I have to trust - I'd need them to be somewhat level-headed and Iowa tends to instill that in people.
Hillary-No, Obama-where does he stand? I haven't heard his platform yet, Tom- ??
Rudy-Love the guy, question some of his Rino stances, McCain- ?? seems to waffle to suit any view - can he come up with his own thoughts without a poll?
The problem I always have with this is it takes soo much money to get elected that no matter who you get they're either from a wealthy family which I know from meeting plenty that they don't represent me well (anyone that's dealt with a "rich kid" in college knows what I'm talking about - they're not bad people they just have no idea what its like without insta-cash), or so indebted to others (special interests) for their finances they can't be trusted to not be swayed. I don't know how to fix it, I just don't like the whole set up.
Last edited:
i cant stand clinton... did any hear about her trips to new york and boston? when she went to new york she had a yankees hat pn and said she had always been a yankees fan since she was a lil kid.. then she went to boston that same week and had a red sox cap on sayin the same thing.. not sayin thats the reason i cant stand her but it's funny..
Yeah, I had a pretty good laugh the first few times I heard Vilsack was running and the conventional wisdom is that he's positioning himself for v.p. or maybe 2012 at best. However, after listening to him, I think he's serious about it, which makes it even funnier.
I don't think he has a chance but evidently he's connected well enough to get on the Tonight Show.
I don't think he has a chance but evidently he's connected well enough to get on the Tonight Show.
Or if you don't vote Libertarian, but want to express Libertarian views within the two-party system - vote for Ron Paul, congressman from Texas running for the Republican nomination (ran in 1988 as the Libertarian nominee for president and came in 3rd in the popular vote behind Bush I and Dukakis). He's about as Maverick as it gets, often being the dissenting vote in otherwise unanimous votes in the House (his nickname is "Dr. No"). Lately he's been attracting a very strange combination of supporters - libertarians, conservatives fed up with the Republican party, and liberal Democrats as well. Warning: he holds some views that aren't exactly considered "mainstream" especially for a nominal Republican (e.g. abolition of almost any government intervention in the market, pro-states' rights, pro-medical marijuana, anti-Iraq war, anti-Patriot Act, anti-UN). But he definitely is an interesting alternative (and being a popular congressman, he has a chance to win the nomination - though not a big chance by any means).
Check it out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul
Check it out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul
Vilsack has about as much chance as my current governer Bill Richardson (D-NM). Richardson however is more qualified than most canidates, Congressman, Energy secretary and UN Ambassdor and 2 term Governer looks good as resume. Still they aren't a Rock star yet, but neither was Clinton early.
Anyone that is Anti-UN cannot be half bad in my book! That orginization is the biggest joke!
Rudy Giuliani will have to do something to win over the radical conservatives since he is pro choice and for gay marriage unless he flip flops.
And he has his black eyes as well, such as his three marriages and alleged adultery. The media loves to have fun with stuff like that.
But the majority of the American people might forget about all of that when they show a clip of him on the morning of September 11th, 2001, walking the streets of New York with a bullhorn.
Last edited:
Bush can blame Clinton for all the economic problems early in his term, but the same thing happening in Iowa was all Vilsack's fault? If Vilsack drove Iowa into a hole, then Bush drove the whole country into a hole. Its not fair to say that about either of them regarding the economy.
If Vilsack would have ever gotten the nomination, he lost my vote when he commuted Dixie Shanahan's sentence.
Trust me, if a minority or woman was running against someone who goes against my moral opinions on certain issues, I would have NO problem voting against a white male should he be on the other side of those issues.
The school he's went to was in kindergarten, although you wouldn't know that by hearing a lot of what is said about it. All you hear is he went to a school that trains terrorists. If he were a Republican, you would hear conservative outcry about how the liberal media is trying to brainwash people into thinking he's a terrorist. But since he's a democrat, you don't have that outcry. Its just a story and no one cares that how is comes across is rediculous.
A lot of people would rule out a minority or a woman without even looking at the issues. I think most people would be okay and not let this affect them, but even a small percentage that do reject them immediately would put them in a hole.
I was basically saying that people would vote for them, but it would most likely be in the minority. Whenever a woman or "minority" runs for Prez, people will come out and say "we've been doing fine with white men for 230+ years, why change now?" Why do you think there was an 80 year lapse between the freeing of the slaves, and then giving them equal rights? Institutionalized racism such as this takes a LONG time to change. How long was the US around before women had voting rights? 160 years? I think that as a societal whole, we're a ways away from a majority voting in anybody that isn't a white middle-aged upper-class male. JMHO though.