Do we have to have a woman or minority somewhere on the ticket this year?

[rucky]

Poll question: Do we have to have a woman or minority somewhere on the ticket this year?

Three of the 8 candidates could make history. If they don't win the nomination, should our nominee balance the ticket with a woman or minority?

Would it be a snub if we ran two white guys again?

[jillan]

1. It almost reminds me of my days in management, when I had quotas

of how many minorities were working for me.


May the BEST people win REGARDLESS of their gender, ethnicity or skin color.

[rucky]

8. But the VP is picked...

so - all other things being equal - should we pick a woman/minority?

[jillan]

23. What I am trying to say is that we should pick the best person - regardless.

[rucky]

28. I hear ya. n/t

[LostinVA]

12. "Quotas" -- do you mean Affirmative Action?

Why yes, you do.

[sandnsea]

15. I guess you missed the point

I'm really disappointed in that response. Affirmative Action is to make sure minorities get a chance because it is too easy to think "best" means someone "like me".

[IndianaJones]

18. nobody is missing any points. nt.

[skooooo]

19. Some people don't get it...

There's a chance for change, and it needs to be made. Now is the time. One of the two candidates absolutely should be either Hillary or Obama. Get over it.

[jillan]

24. And I am really disappointed by your response - skin color or gender should not matter.

If someone votes for Obama because he is black, or for Hillary because she is a woman, or Richardson because he is Hispanic, or Biden because he is bald - and not vote for the candidate that they think is the best for the job, that is a sad, sad commentary on our society. We are not picking a candidate - we are picking a President - someone that is going to have to represent the US for the next 4 years, someone that is going to have to make the hard decisions. And that is more important than the color of their skin or their gender.

[sandnsea]

25. There are plenty of people who are qualified

And bringing a female or cultural perspective to the job is just as valid a qualification as any other. It's sad you don't see it and I'm glad you were required to have "quotas" so that you were forced to include everyone in your department, not just your perception of "the best".

[jillan]

26. This is not just a job we are talking about here.

[SteppingRazor]

2. Given that a woman and a minority are the No. 1 and 2 candidates...

I doubt that it'll come to this. But if it did, I think Obama would make good VP material. The big knock against him is his lack of experience -- what better way to gain it than eight years as the Veep? In 2016, he'd be an ideal candidate.

[TwilightGardener]

4. Yep, it'll work out for him, just like Al Gore!

[SteppingRazor]

9. Precisely. Gore did win in 2000, after all. n/t

[TwilightGardener]

10. Yeah.

[nyc 4 Biden]

5. I agree...

Obama would be great as VP for 8 years and then he can take the lead role.

[TwilightGardener]

3. No. I'm not out to make racial or gender history--I want a good, competent President.

[skooooo]

17. Think.

The question is for Pres. or VP. And you don't think there's an impetus on us to break the monopoly of white men in power. Absolutely one of the two must be a woman or black person, imo.

[Kucinich4America]

22. What about the Latino guy?

Who is more qualified than the woman and the black guy combined.

I mean if "not a white guy" is your argument, then why not go for the best qualified non-white guy running?

If I was looking at the election ONLY in these terms, I'd go with Richardson.

But I'm going with Kucinich on the ISSUES. And I couldn't care less whether he was a white straight Catholic, a black Jewish Lesbian, or a triple breasted whore from Eroticon Six, as long as he's correct where it matters.

[skooooo]

27. Fine...

Who's the VP then?

I think it will look really backwards if at least one of the Dems. candidates is not Hillary or Obama. Both of them are qualified and viable, moreover, it is TIME for a change. There is no reason why white men have to continue holding power in what is supposed to be the progressive party. There is something inherently wrong without allowing other perspectives to have real voice, imo, even if I (or you or anyone else) don't agree with them 100% - especially if those perspectives have been lacking.

[slick8790]

30. Yeah, it'll really look backwards.

I mean, people would look at our nominee, and then look at the handicapped black lesbian atheist woman that the republicans nominated, and think "Wow, the dems sure are backwards!".

[zanne]

6. It's circumstantial that the best candidate is a minority member. nt

[rucky]

7. I'm not going to pretend that it won't make a difference.

because it will.

[skooooo]

14. yep...

I have to wonder who are the people voting "it doesn't matter?"

[rucky]

20. "Race doesn't matter" is a noble sentiment...

but it is also a cop-out. a failure to address inequalities that very much exist.

I'm not saying it should be the only criteria, but when you have a field as talented as this one, there's no reason not to have one of them on the ticket.

[skooooo]

21. yep...gender too

nt

[sandnsea]

11. Since we're in such good shape to win, YES

It's time. Affirmative Action is all about going against the status quo and seeking out women and minorities because it won't get done unless the conscious decision is made to do it. Now is the time.

[Colobo]

13. Yes. It's about damn time.

[IndianaJones]

16. I voted yes. nt.

[rucky]

29. kick