America: only rich, white men can become president

[Q]

- Why?

- Care to comment?

[onehandle]

1. Not for long.

Caucasians will be a minority in a couple of decades.

Also, have you ever heard of a man named Obama?

[goddess40]

2. Because they control the purse strings

Schools are still geared to promote the white male agenda, until that really changes I don't see anyone else getting elected to the office of the president

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

5. Promoting the "white male agenda"?

You're kidding me, right? I didn't know I had an "agenda"... :eyes:

It's funny, when I was in school, most of my teachers were female and/or minority. I fail to see why they would be promoting the "white male agenda".

[smirkymonkey]

43. It's systemic, not individual.

[Aussie_Hillbilly]

67. Yes, its systematic.

We have the same thing here. It's no secret. Rich white guys are elected because people trust them.

A Croatian won't vote for a Serb, but they'll both vote for a White. An Arab won't vote for a Jew, but they'll both vote for the White guy. A Greek won't vote for a Turk, but they'll both vote for a White. That's why even left-wing minority-friendly parties tend to choose rich white men as candidates. They're everyone's second choice.

There are less positive reasons, of course. Women will vote for a man, but many men won't vote for a woman. Gays will vote for heteros, but many heteros won't vote for a gay. Working-class people will vote for a priveleged guy, but many rich people despise those less fortunate.

Lack of public finance for campaigns in the States of course militates against poorer candidates. I actually envy some aspects of your system believe it or not - the $2000 cap on donations (no limit here, the donor just has to declare if over $5000). Public financing strengthens the party machines, not the people.

Many symbolic requirements for leadership - like education and patrician mannerisms - are believed in by people who have neither.

I don't deny there are many hidden and ugly power-relations in Western society, but the Rich White Guy phenomonem is rooted in compromise and symbolism as much as wealth and connections. That's just democracy I'm afraid. Minorities need to work at building bridges with each other.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

3. It's simple

Why white? There are more white people.
Why rich? Have you see how much it costs to run a presidential campaign?

[Q]

4. Wow...

...I'm amazed at your simplistic response.

- So then...why are RICH, WHITE Women exempted?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

6. It's supposed to be simplistic.

But it's true. There are more white people than any other race in this country. Whether it's racism or whatever else you want to label it, white people will simply tend to vote for other white people. It's not a trend unique to white people by any means, to be fair, but that's the way it is.

And does John Q. Taxpayer have the money to fund a Presidential election? Hell, Kerry had to mortgage his house to make it competitive. How many of us here would've been able to do that?

[Q]

7. You're only reinforcing why rich, white men don't want campaign...

...finance reform...and why they don't want the PUBLIC to finance and have some control over the campaign process.

- And do you think that 'white people tend to vote for other white people' because they have no other alternative?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

12. I'm not sure that's why they don't want public to finance elections

I don't think there's some grand conspiracy the way you put it. For instance, I don't think all the male Senators get together in a room and decide amongst each other that the best way to keep women out is to block campaign finance reform. I think you don't see it happen because politicians are 1) scared of what will happen in terms of support from special interest votes and 2) they don't think it'll pass a Supreme Court test (something I happen to disagree with, personally, but most people seem to think it'd be overruled).

And I think white people vote for white people for reasons that aren't all that dissimilar to why black people vote for black people, latino voters for latinos, etc. It's familiarity. It's identification. And yes, it is in some ways racist. But you tend to vote for someone you can identify with, and lets face it, most of white American can't really identify with, say, Al Sharpton. Does that mean it CAN'T happen? Of course not, and I think Barack Obama has a very strong chance of making it happen. But he's going to have to overcome a lot in order to make it happen and don't think for a minute he's not at a disadvantage going in.

[Q]

25. I'm not talking about 'conspiracies'...but about...

...the total rejection of public financing by those who have the money or can buy campaigns by trading legislation/laws for cash and support.

- Our entire politcal system has been perverted by lobbyists and special interests that put gold over the interests of the people. At the same time...they've convinced YOU and others that they have some sort of 'right' to do it.

[Tomee450]

44. Blacks don't

just vote for blacks, they also vote for whites even if there is a black in the race. Baltimore is a majority black city yet the black population chose a white male to become mayor. They recognized that he was the best candidate. Al Sharpton did not win the South Carolina primary even though there are many black voters in that state. In New York State, many whites did not vote for African American, Carl McCall. The same thing happened in California when a black man ran for governor. In the past, some whites have not been willing to vote for African Americans who seek higher office such as governor.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

47. Did I say it was dogmatic law? I don't think I did.

I said they tended to. There's a big difference.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

8. Well that's a different question

Personally, I'm not sure why we haven't had a rich white woman run for President under the Democrat banner. A paucity of viable candidates in the modern era perhaps, but that's changing quickly with the number of strong women that are up and coming in our party (Clinton, Napolitano, I don't think Granholm is U.S. born, but she'd have been a good candidate). Simply put, progress takes time. We're making a lot of progress with women in politics, but it's not going to happen overnight. We're getting more and more female governors and senators, POTUS is the next step. Since I think Kerry will win this year, I think you'll see 2 prominent, viable females running for President in 2012 for the Democrats. As for Republicans... I don't think you'll ever see one actually win the nomination, and yeah, I think it's flat out gender discrimination.

[Q]

10. Dancing around the pivotal question...

- Could it be that ONLY rich, white men can become president because they represent the true rulers of this country: corporations?

- I respect your opinion...but isn't it obvious why campaigns cost so much? Could it be that they cost so much to keep anyone BUT the rich from getting anywhere near the oval office?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

19. No, they cost so much because TV air time,

transportation, campaign staff, etc all cost a shit load of money to run such a gigantic campaign and you can't win without them. It's not like one person sets the cost of that stuff, but your campaign staff needs to feed their families. The television corporations (which are under law ordered to charge political campaigns a lower rate than normal) need to pay their employees and make a profit (what you think about them and their need to make a profit is irrelevant. that's business and there's nothing anyone can do about it unless you want to ban all TV advertising.) Gasoline, buses, airplanes, they all cost a lot of money. You cannot run any kind of campaign without it, so unless you want to have entirely federally funded elections, you can't do a damn thing about that. And yes, we can't have federally funded elections in part because of corporations, but also because people think it's unconstitutional to eliminate the freedom of speech involved with making political contributions.

[Terran]

9. I think we're actually at a point

where a rich white woman could become president. I'm not so sure about Obama, but I'd like to think that's true. But if, say, the repugs ran Libby Dole, I think she'd have a shot, as would Senator Clinton.

[Q]

13. We're struggling simply to maintain our democracy...

...so what makes you think a Black or a Woman has any chance of becoming president? Remember how Blacks were treated during the 2000 election? And don't forget that Women's rights are being systematically destroyed and relegated to the 16th century.

[Terran]

42. As I said...

I'm not sure about Obama (i.e., I'm not sure an African-American can become president in the near future). What rights of women are being systematically destroyed? Aside from the pressure on abortion rights, I must be ignorant of other rights unique to women that are being destroyed.

[Yupster]

85. Women senators and house members

win reelection at just as high or higher rate than their male peers.

So now that we have a good group of female senators who've been in for a while, when are they going to start to run for president?

Once they start running, they'll have the same chance of winning as their male peers.

[UpsideDownFlag]

11. two words: Hillary Clinton.

two more words: Barack Obama.

[ComerPerro]

70. I would prefer the second two words

Give him about 12 years....

[maxsolomon]

14. Because America was designed by & for them

duh

[Ravenseye]

15. Just Talking About This Last Night...

I also find it interesting. Our choices for President always seem to be between two rich white men. White men are in a majority, and it takes often either alot of money to get yourself in a political race at any level, or you're successfull enough in your own right that you've made money. People that run for office aren't out of touch, unlucky people. They're people that have worked hard, had enough breaks thrown their way, and most often made money along they way.

With that said, I find it interesting that not only are they white and rich, but always descended from British Royalty. I read somewhere that not only are all our past presidents descended from the british royals but whoever is more closely connected to the royal family has won the election. According to Burke's Peerage, the bluest blood, the most noble candidate, at least for the past 100 years, has always won.

Bush was more 'noble' than Gore.

Kerry is more 'noble than Bush.

According to this theory. Kerry will win.

[not systems]

37. What about Clinton vs Bush...

didn't the "noble" theory fail that year.

[Ravenseye]

69. according to what I've read...

nope. it's worked for the past 100 years...

http://www.burkes-peerage.com/press_release4.htm

"During the last two hundred years it has been noted that the presidential candidate who possesses the most royal genes is the usual victor."

"Research at Burke's Peerage is underway but so far it looks as if the royal and noble connections of Senator Kerry even exceed those of President George Walker Bush."

[smirkymonkey]

45. Actually, white men are NOT a majority.

and if you think GWB has "worked hard", think again. It's power and money and those who have it will do anything to keep it.

As far as the nobility theory, I'd like to see a link.

[Ravenseye]

71. Thats why I said....

either alot of money, or...

obviously Bush fits in the first section of that statement. His family gave him tons of money, he didn't earn it. Whereas the second aspect is people like John Edwards. They worked hard, and made their own money.

As far as alink there are tons. Do a search for royal us presidents, or burkes peerage...

here's a few...

http://www.burkes-peerage.com/press_release4.htm

This one is definitive that Kerry is more royal than Bush, in fact he's more royal than any previous president.

http://www.burkes-peerage.com/press_release7.htm

[Yupster]

86. Partial blame goes to the presidential candidates

One way to be president is to be VP first.

So why every four years does the cadidate have top pick a white male as VP?

Blame Kerry, and Bush, and Gore, and Dole, and Clinton, and Bush, and Dukakis if you want to. I blame the Democratic candidates more than the Republican because the Dems represent more women and minorities in their base of support.

Let's give a hand to Mondale and wonder why no one has followed him. There are much better choices today than Geraldine Ferraro to choose from, not that she was so bad, but she had little experience in 1984.

[catzies]

93. The 'noble theory' didn't work for Clinton vs. Bush 41...

n/t

[Gman]

16. Colin Powell dropped his presidential bid

in '96 because of death threats.

The GOP is such an all inclusive party.

[UpsideDownFlag]

18. i thought he dropped it because his wife was strongly against

him running?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

22. Yeah, because she didn't wanna die.

[Gman]

34. His wife was strongly against her family dying

the death threats from the rest of the GOP were the reason she didn't want him to run.

[newportdadde]

17. What about..

Bill Clinton and Harry Truman. Both white sure... but not exactly Rich when either sought office.

[Q]

20. Allow me to throw out a question: what about public financing...

...of national campaigns? In the end result...we end up paying through the nose for these campaigns anyway. Why not public financing and free airtime on OUR public airwaves? Wouldn't this open up the possibilities and give access to OTHER than rich, white men to the highest office?

- Thoughts?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

24. I don't necessarily agree with it,

but the concept of entirely federally funded elections has been deemed unconstitutional because it denies people the right to make a political statement through contributions to candidates. They argue that this would be tantamount to a denial of free speech.

[Q]

27. UnConstitutional? Can you quote the decision?

- What's unConstitutional is allowing a few rich men to rule our country while pretending to honor the Constitution. The Founders warned against this.

- It would simply take an act of congress to establish public financing. Of course those with money or rich supporters don't want such a law to pass.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

29. Yes.

Buckley v. Valeo, 1976. In Buckley, the Court strongly emphasized that “discussion of public issues and debate on the qualification of candidates” are fundamental to our system of constitutional democracy, noted that such discussion cannot take place without money, and reached the obvious conclusion that limitations on contributions to and expenditures on political campaigns “operate in an area of the most fundamental of First Amendment activities.”

On edit: Further, “the concept that government may restrict the speech of some elements of our society in order to enhance the relative voice of others is wholly foreign to the First Amendment.”

[Q]

30. Strongly emphazied?

- That's not a decision. This opinion doesn't take into consideration that discussion of the public issues and debate on the qualification of candidates CAN TAKE PLACE (on the public's airwaves) without the money from special interests.

- I'm interested if you actually believe this swill or if you're only playing devil's advocate?

[Blue Wally]

35. Only if you accept.........

that you have just as much right to the TV microphone as Britt Hume or Dan Rather.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

36. No, that's the decision.

And no, I don't believe that it's unconstitutional. I believe that under the current system, the right to free speech has been effectively limited only to those who can afford it, and this is not what the founding fathers intended.

Here's the exact summation of the decision:

CONCLUSION

In summary, we sustain the individual contribution limits, the disclosure and reporting provisions, and the public financing scheme. We conclude, however, that the limitations on campaign expenditures, on independent expenditures by individuals and groups, and on expenditures by a candidate from his personal funds are constitutionally infirm. Finally, we hold that most of the powers conferred by the Act upon the Federal Election Commission can be exercised only by "Officers of the United States," appointed in conformity with Art. II, 2, cl. 2, of the Constitution, and therefore cannot be exercised by the Commission as presently constituted.

In No. 75-436, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed in part and reversed in part. The judgment of the District Court in No. 75-437 is affirmed. The mandate shall issue forthwith, except that our judgment is stayed, for a period not to exceed 30 days, insofar as it affects the authority of the Commission to exercise the duties and powers granted it under the Act.

So ordered.

[gandalf]

38. That is how it goes in Germany

Free (if limited) airtime before the elections.

Around these times, you can see a lot of funny tv ads from parties you never heard of.

Our system definitively does not prefer wealthy people, but it has other disadvantages. For the really ambitious and well-educated people it is often not attractive to enter politics.

[shawcomm]

41. Great idea on the air time...

Free and equal air time. The campaign finance reform we have now is just stupid. It is always geared toward allowing those who have to set the rules when we all pay for any administration.

If we are the ones doing the back-breaking labor, we're the ones sacrificing our children, we should be the ones who honestly elect the presidents, not some cabal of rich white guys who can afford to air their lies.

[smirkymonkey]

57. I think it's a great idea, we need to get extreme wealth and

special interests out of government. The government will NEVER be by and for the people until that happens.

The chances that the fithly rich and connected will ever favor a government that caters to the average citizen are slim to none.

[Yupster]

87. After seeing what a fiasco McCain Feingold has created,

how can you want public finances?

So we'll give each candidate money from the treasury, and then they'll raise as much s they can through front groups or whatever other loopholes they'll find too.

And everything will be the same or worse, and the public treasury will be looted a little more.

[UpsideDownFlag]

21. furthermore, abraham lincoln, and many 1800s presidents weren't "rich"

nt

[Q]

23. But certainly you have to admit that things have changed since Lincoln?

- I'm referring to the way it is NOW. Everyone BUT rich, white men have been pushed OUT of the political process because it's so expensive to run for national office. Money, not the people, determines who becomes president.

[leesa]

78. Lincoln was a lawyer. He wasn't very poor.

[Cocoa]

26. keep spreading that cynicism

of course cynicism is what it is, not a constructive, idealistic critique of our society.

[Q]

28. Why is the truth cynical?

- I would rather have a debate about reality than join you with your head in the sand.

- Just how do you think George Bush* became president? Not by the will of the people. He was installed by corporations with an agenda to weaken and then destroy democracy.

- Please tell us why only men can become president? Please explain why presidential campaigns have become so expensive?

- Bush* and even Kerry have raised more money than anyone in the history of this country. In 2008...more money will be offered by lobbyists trying to buy the presidency. This isn't democracy. It's America for sale to the highest bidder.

[Cocoa]

31. you're pointing out obvious truths

probably the main reason I supported Gephardt and Kucinich in the primaries was that they were exceptions to the rich rule. Curious that you preferred Al Gore, who was among the richest of dems...

The person uttering these truths isn't necessarily truthful himself. Instead of sincerely wanting to comment on this flaw in our society, he may be trying to leverage resentments in order to demoralize people before an important election.

[Q]

55. Gore won the election...which is the basis for my...

...continuing support. I supported Democracy.

- Why would I want to 'demoralize' people before an important election? On the other hand...it seems that some people are content with an ignorant citizenry who votes devoid of informed consent.

- Lack of information and awareness is why George* became 'president' and why he has any chance at all of 'winning' in November. Being rich in and of itself isn't the problem. The problem comes about when money and influence peddling is used to pervert democracy and representative government.

[smirkymonkey]

59. Yes, but under the CURRENT SYSTEM in place NOW,

it doesn't matter if you support candidates who aren't rich, because if they aren't rich, they won't matter!

I completely disagree with your assessment of Q's argument. I don't think it's "leveraging resentment" to point out a SERIOUS flaw in the way our nations top officials "gain" office.

[Cocoa]

62. of course it's a serious flaw

but with some people it's obvious that all they do is point out flaws, of which there are many, and deemphasize the idea of finding solutions.

One thing Bush definitely wants to do is keep people from voting.

Various ways to do this: increase the feeling that voting is pointless, spread the myth that the dems are the same as the republicans, make people resent Kerry for being rich, make people think that Bush will steal the election and there's nothing we can do about it, etc.

In summary, increase cynicism, increase the feeling of hopelessness. Which is what Q is here at DU for.

[Q]

68. At the risk of being banned...

...I won't say what I think about your board politics. Suffice it to say that no one has any more 'right' to be here and express their opinion than anyone else.

- Voting is NOT hopless. But Democrats are seemingly making it hopeless by not taking seriously the threat of election fraud and minority disenfranchisement. Our very democracy goes to the highest bidder and your answer is to single out the messenger and attempt to chill their speech with intimations of working for the 'other'.

- I want Democrats to wake the hell up before it's too late. You seem to prefer the status quo and 'waiting' for the outcome.

[Surf Cowboy]

32. Because women and minorities can't get their political acts

together long enough to elect anyone. You have Black Log Cabin Republicans (is this even possible?), women who are against (yes, against) equal rights for women, and minorities like the Hispanic and Arab groups who all voted for *.

A bunch of stinking idiots. Women should have had a president some time ago, and when the day comes that they finally realize that there is power in their numbers, there will be. Women are the weakest political link in this country and are easily split. This is not misogyny, it's fact. White men stay in power by playing blacks against Jews against Hispanics against Arabs against Asians against gays against the poor. They divide and conquer, because they know that the majority of white men are going to vote Republican. All they need is just a little bit of each group to defect and vote for them and they achieve the necessary percentage to win.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

39. thats BS

thats like saying white male dems are against themselves...those groups have their own reasons to vote the way they do...it has nothing to do with women not getting their act together

"together long enough to elect anyone. You have Black Log Cabin Republicans (is this even possible?), women who are against (yes, against) equal rights for women, and minorities like the Hispanic and Arab groups who all voted for *. "

[Surf Cowboy]

48. With all due respect,

women make up almost 51% of our population. If they ever stuck together they could control the whole shooting match. The only way that republicans win is by splitting the women.

When you spoke of male Dems as voting against themselves, I gotta tell you--we are. Republican policy is far more advantageous to white males than to any other group, period. I'm a white male, and I realize that there would be more personal advantages for me if I voted Repug. I don't, though, because I care about the entire country, black and white, women and men, poor and poorer (fuck the rich--they don't need my concern).

When women vote republican, they ARE voting against their own best interests. Who killed the ERA? Why don't women make as much $ as men doing the same job? Why is Viagra covered by health care, but birth control is not? I'll tell you why---because republicans don't care about women's issues at all. And the Black Log Cabin Republicans? Clearly they are voting 180 degrees from their own self-interest. Republicans have been disenfranchising blacks for ages (see elections 2000 and upcoming 2004). And it's not often that we consider a constitutional amendment which legalizes discrimination against gays.

There's just no excuse for it. Repugs should never win, and they wouldn't, if women would vote for those who deal well with women's issues, if gays would vote for those who don't want constitutional amendments banning their marriages, and if the poor white trash of our country could get over their fear of women, blacks, and minorities long enough to see that they have far more in common with a poor black man than with a rich white one.

It's a combination of fear and stupidity. A little from column A, a little from column B.

[HEIL PRESIDENT GOD]

61. Bullshit on this:

"When you spoke of male Dems as voting against themselves, I gotta tell you--we are. Republican policy is far more advantageous to white males than to any other group, period. I'm a white male, and I realize that there would be more personal advantages for me if I voted Repug."

Tell this to all the white males who voted Repug and then got THEIR ASS SHOT OFF in Iraq.

You can't leave the rich out of the equation here. And what's white, anyway? White's a culture. You have to opt into it, as well as being born with the skin. The skin's getting less important. So's the gear. People of color rise by acting white, women and gays rise by acting like straight men.

The culture, not the people, deserves to be attacked.

[Surf Cowboy]

73. Yeah, I'll tell it to the 10,000+ who got wounded or killed.

You go tell the other 100 million how repugs have it in for the white men.

[HEIL PRESIDENT GOD]

75. Read the thread back

I'm responding to the idea that just by being white and male you get some advantage from Republicans being in office.

Not saying the Republicans aren't a "white male" party. They are. Just pointing out that most of their white male constituency ends up getting the shaft, anyway.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

92. with due respect

women should also have the right to difference of opinion even on choice.,..its only because we are sociological minority that you even make this argument...we are not just one group or one people...we are individuals too,..

[skygazer]

52. "Women should have had a president some time ago"

A woman president would not be president just to women. The problem is thinking like that - putting people in boxes, in groups. Until this country can get over its sexism and racism, we won't have minority or female presidents because everyone thinks of them as somehow belonging to some other group. We all belong to the same damn group!

You're right about the divide and conquer but when you use phrases like the above, you're doing the same thing.

[Surf Cowboy]

58. We really don't belong to the same damn group.

That's the point. The ERA would have helped women, but men didn't want it, so they divided the women through bullshit propaganda so that many of them would be against it. How in the hell does that happen?

White men have controlled this country since day one. As a result, we have exterminated the Native Americans (I'm 1/4 Cherokee, BTW), enslaved the Africans, and suppressed the women. Their interests do not include women's interests. We're not in it together. Do you think the gay population really believes we're all in the same group? After we tried to constitutionally discriminate against them?

Thinking that we're all in the same group is nice in theory, but there's little if any evidence of such a connection in actual practice.

[skygazer]

60. Well, if you really believe that, we might as well give up

What's your suggestion then? I see you shooting down everything everyone else has to say - what do you think the solution is? Separate countries for each little group? Okay, perhaps idealism is not realistic - it works better for me than pessimism. I'd rather strive for a higher goal than settle for a pile of crap.

[HEIL PRESIDENT GOD]

63. We should consider separate countries

But geographically, not by race or gender.

Nation-states are committing suicide by the nineteenth-century practice of maintaining the integrity of their borders. Smaller states do not do any worse today. Big states attract big hate.

Unity sounds nice, but do you really want to be united with ALL of America, and responsible for all it does?

America needs its teeth pulled out, that's what I say.

[Surf Cowboy]

72. No. You don't have to cut the hangnail out at the hip.

Education and greed are the problem. People making more money are going to be attracted to the "lower taxes" mantra of repugs. That's why a large # of blacks supported the repug idea of no estate tax (the first generation of wealthy black folk are beginning to die, and they don't want the money going to the government).

Also, people who lack education and don't know any better are going to vote for those who are suppressing them economically, being the unwitting accomplice in their own destruction.

When gay blacks vote Republican, there is something insanely stupid occurring. Since when have repugs done anything for either gays or blacks?

When women vote Republican, there is less insane stupidity, but nonetheless, they are voting for people who don't care about what women think (see Ahnold's "girly men" remarks).

Simply put, the only people who should really be voting repug are those making in excess of $200,000/year. There's not too many of those, percentage-wise, and very few percentage-wise are female or minority.

There's no middle ground here. The repugs are not going to compromise. They haven't in the last four years, and if they get re-elected, they'll feel they have a mandate. The only hope is to educate those who continue to vote against themselves, and do whatever it takes to bring them to their senses. We have to start belittling and berating those who won't even vote in their own self-interest.

[noiretextatique]

80. your post explains the problem

too many white people (males, in particular) don't vote in their best interests. they vote in what they believe is coming from a position of power by maintaining the existing power structure where people who at least look like them are in power.

[smirkymonkey]

66. Research the psychology of oppressed groups

in society sometime. It might give you some insight.

[Sparkle]

33. Clinton wasn't rich.

Although he's rich now.

[alphafemale]

46. I was going to mention Clinton - He was raised by a single mother

And got ahead through brains and ambition.

And Carter came from more humble beginnings.

Nixon too. (For what that's worth)

[Q]

50. Agreed...but 'white guys' can use other people's money...

...with the same results: buying office and making themselves rich.

- Rich, White Bush* didn't use his OWN money to buy the presidency. He used other people's money and owed them favors afterward.

[Atman]

40. I wore this yesterday...

It gets some good reactions. Republicans don't know it is negative at first, so I don't get spit on. Most people laugh and give me a wink or a thumbs-up. Curiously, I've sold quite a few of them in Europe, especially the Netherlands, France, and Nepal. Yes, Nepal.

[UdoKier]

49. rich women and rich people of color will eventually get in...

But as for people that actually have some understanding of working people getting in?

Well, that wouldn't be America, would it?

[HEIL PRESIDENT GOD]

64. "rich women and rich people of color will eventually get in..."

And you can bet your ass they will act as white and male as a motherfucker

[UdoKier]

65. Of course. They will have to be someone the power elites are comfy with.

Otherwise, their media attack dogs would destroy them.

But when this righ woman or person of color with VERY pro-establishment views gets in, the media wil trumpet it as proof of America's tolerance, diversity, etc., they may even characterize it as a "swing to the left", even as the new president passes the next NAFTA or welfare deform legislation.

[noiretextatique]

83. two words: colin powell

some even fantasied about him being the democratic nominee. personally, i think he benefitted from lowered expectations. at least no one is talking about him as a potential democrat anymore, thank goodness.

[noiretextatique]

82. explain the CBC's attempted protest of the coup

thanks.

[HEIL PRESIDENT GOD]

90. Hmm?

Don't know what we're talking about here.

CBC=Canadian Broadcasting Corp?

coup=12/00?

Sorry, I just don't get it!

[mark414]

51. obama 4 prez

i hope it happens

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

53. Our "democracy" is built on the power of money.

It's, at best, a semi-oligarchy. Whether the candidate himself is wealthy or not, the fact remains that elections are controlled by monied interests, capitalists. Our "democracy" is a pretty myth.

[nancyharris]

54. It should be noted that

It is the Republican and Democratic Parties that nominate the candidates for President. They have all been white (mostly rich) men because the Parties have only nominated white (mostly rich) men as presidential candidates.

To break this cycle, it is the Democratic and/or the Republican Parties that have to take the step of nominating a woman or minority as their presidential candidate.

[TexasSissy]

56. This is a patriarchal society. (Rich because that's required....

you've seen the $$$$ it takes to win these elections. Kerry even had to mortgage his house to get the nomination.)

[Ezlivin]

74. Only if you can "debone" your closet

I suppose that's the handy nature of wealth: You can purge your past history.

If GWB hadn't been able to scrub his past, do you think he could have been elected?

The reason that rich, white men become president is because the Bible tells them so. If it weren't for our clinging to the patriarchal society modeled within the Bible, we could have moved on to a more equitable model.

[tom_paine]

76. Well, given that the positioon of pResident no longer exists in Amerika

It is quite obvious why rich, white men can only become Emperor.

[Redleg]

77. Isn't that how it's supposed to be?

JUST KIDDING FOLKS! The system does appear to be rigged to favor well-to-do white dudes. It is shifting to favor well-to-do folks of all colors, as long as the color is not too much darker than white.

[Zhade]

79. Because it's been that way since the inception of this country.

NT!

[PROGRESSIVE1]

81. kick

Sad but true!

:puke:

[kodi]

84. its because they own the god damned place!

.

[LSK]

88. like Bill Clinton??? like John Edwards???

They were not born with a silver spoon in their mouth.

[Cleita]

89. I believe it.

When the neo-con fascists are trying to get a law changed so that Arnold can run for President, it proves the point that a foreign born rich white man stands a better chance of support for becoming President than a native born non-white man or a native born woman of any race.

[HEyHEY]

91. Because only middle class/rich white men vote

[catbert836]

94. I don't know

[The Straight Story]

95. perhaps it should be 'only rich white men get a president elected'

They pull the strings. The tide will change as the demographics change though.

But I do wonder, what does one think a woman or a person of color will do differently if they are in office? If we are all equal ability wise then is not the ideals a president brings more important than their skin color?