A Race Indeed
Hillary Clinton? Barack Obama? John Edwards? Bill Richardson? Al Gore? John Kerry? John McCain? Rudolph Giuliani? Sam Brownback? Mitt Romney?
Strangely, I’m actually starting to get a bit excited about the 2008 Presidential Election …
Since 1998. On WP for 953 days.
Post feed | Comment feed | Photo feed
January 22nd, 2007 at 2:34 pm EST
o geeze… its that time of year isnt it.
just seeing that first name on the list makes my skin crawl…
January 22nd, 2007 at 9:58 pm EST
Why?
January 22nd, 2007 at 11:53 pm EST
you need to ask why?
January 23rd, 2007 at 12:15 am EST
eeexactly
January 23rd, 2007 at 12:51 am EST
Of course I do … you don’t? Are you avoiding the question?
January 23rd, 2007 at 1:15 am EST
ok. i’ll step up to the plate.
it makes my skin crawl because i dont want to live in a socialist country and that is what will happen if that woman ever becomes president.
plus, i really dont think that this country is ready for a woman president… no matter who it is.
January 23rd, 2007 at 1:32 am EST
A socialist country? Now this is getting interesting … especially to a guy living in China. Do you mean that the country will focus too much on social problems? Or do you actually mean socialism … the overthrow of our capitalist system for a communal economic structure? Perhaps I’m really in the dark about Hillary’s beliefs or platform.
And I don’t really see what her gender has to do with it … what kind of preparation does our country have to do to “get ready” for a woman president? I’m assuming that you mean more than just hiring some more women on the Secret Service …
January 23rd, 2007 at 1:55 am EST
Speaking of Barack (sorta) …
In regards to the “socialist” aspects of beliefs of some of America, we need to examine countries that have carried out socialist ideals to see what it does to a country (not morally; but more or less economically). The mentality that “we can do it better” doesn’t fly unless we can see the fundamental flaws of that which we believe — and EVERYTHING has flaws.
I think there’s idealism and realism at play. I think there’s a lot naivety to how things run down the line of economy, sustainability, industry, production and the burdens of enacting idealogical polices.
January 23rd, 2007 at 4:23 am EST
ok so i’ve been looking at websites and such. and socialist was probably the wrong word to use so i apologize.
but i do stand by what i said about a woman president.
women are, as a gender, more emotional than men are and tend to make decisions emotionally. while im not saying that women cant make decisions without emotion playing into it, i am saying that a woman is more likely to let her emotions sway her. i dont want to be thrown into WWIII just because she got mad and had the power to declare war… very extreme example i know, but you get my drift.
of course i am coming from a woman’s point of view, so personal experience kind of plays into it (making decisions based on emotion i mean).
as for hilary herself, i am personally opposed obviously based on the fact that im conservative and she’s very liberal. but after researching a little, im finding that she waffles on issues just as much as john kerry did… whatever way the political wind blows… thats the stance she takes. the stands that she does take are ones that i am morally opposed to like her stance on abortion and gay marriage/unions (two important ’social’ issues).
soooo yes. that is why seeing Hilary Clinton in the race for the presidency makes my skin crawl.
January 23rd, 2007 at 4:42 am EST
May I issue a challenge, Angie? Don’t let it make your skin crawl, but as someone of legal voting age, let it make you excited to get involved in our political system. If you are vehemently opposed to Hillary Clinton being our president, join the College Republicans and see what they’re doing about it. Or perhaps find a way to join a “grassroots campaign” for your favorite Republican candidate. So I guess my challenge to you is to be excited and be involved!
January 23rd, 2007 at 4:45 am EST
My skin crawled a long time ago……so soon we forget
January 23rd, 2007 at 4:52 am EST
thanks mom
and bethany i plan on at least voting about it now that i can
January 23rd, 2007 at 5:00 am EST
You all knew that I would eventually have to say something about this… right?
*thinks*
I will attempt to be brief.
Angie: About your last post regarding the honroable Mrs. Clinton throwing us into WWIII- many (most) will say that it is no different from what President Bush has done, and in alot of way, this war agaist terrorism is, or will protentially become WWIII…. the only thing is that we have about 1 friend to help support the US.
Like Bethany said, do something about it.
To anyone else… I vote for whoever based off of two stances: Whoever is Anti abortion, and Anti same sex marriage.
Regarding the war in iraq…. i don’t think civilians (unless they are married to soldiers) should have much of a say in the matter because it really doesn’t affect them. I mean we got people who ultimately know very little about warfare and have no real strong connections of concern about the war stating some hard core criticism against my Commander in Chief. That bothers me.
January 23rd, 2007 at 5:46 am EST
Nothing personal, Angie, but:
As far as women being too emotional as a rule to be a President who makes logical, not emotional, decisions - women, like men, come in all personalities and temperments. To make a sweeping statement like that based on “experience as a woman” only speaks to your own experience governing your emotions’ effect on your actions. I’m in the same boat - I’d make an awful President, but there are women out there with the ability to be a very good President. Are any in a position to run in 2008? That’s the more pressing question…
I know a good handful of men who are emotional decision makers. I hope the majority of voters has moved past the age-old image of a female President nuking a foreign country because she’s felling PMS-y
January 23rd, 2007 at 6:04 am EST
I think I’d welcome a President who makes at least some emotional decisions…. Recent administrations have focused much more on foreign affairs and trying to protect us from bombs — without paying much attention to protecting us from hunger, homelessness, and poverty.
January 23rd, 2007 at 6:49 am EST
So good … so so good. Thanks for being willing to share so openly and also for keeping this place respectful and appropriate for all. And Angie, thanks for stepping up to the plate. You guys are all awesome.
Woman president: I still don’t see the relevance … as Will alluded to, George W. is about as emotional of a person as possible in office, and in his passion he has thrown us into WWIII. Hillary, on the other hand, seems to be the “man of the house”. Perhaps Angie’s original argument, that “this country is [not] ready for a woman president”, is the most appropriate after all … it’s not that a woman can’t govern, but that we’re not ready to accept the fact that women can govern. So interesting … it’s us that have the problem!
Social Issues: It’s about time that some pressing social issues be tackled in our country. Hunger and corruption abroad, guns and guns and more guns, political lobbying, the pharmacy and food cartels, our own empirical and wasteful military system, health care … the list goes on and on. I’m not saying that we should become a Marxist nation … but I am saying that the token social issues in this country (abortion, gay marriage, etc) have become a distraction from the bigger picture … seeking justice. We need to stop our silly playground arguments and really enact some change.
Paul: Totally. It’s way beyond me … and a good reminder of why I’m not in politics.
Sarah S-W: You’re wrong … you’d make an awesome President. In fact, you’ve got my vote in 2012.
Personally: I’m ready for a change. The Republicans, and the backlash against them, have together torn our ideals and reputation apart. The Democrats have become little whiney brats with little authority or trustworthiness. Our country is actually run by big business … the policy and legislation are controlled by those with deep pockets and lots of “guanxi”. I’m looking for a leader with wisdom and compassion and foresight, one who isn’t a slave to the bloated and ingrown institution that we currently call The United States Government.
January 23rd, 2007 at 8:16 am EST
I’m happy to vote for someone who lead - someone who can rally Americans and restore America’s direction. Black, white, brown, yellow, red - it doesn’t matter. And, I’d happily vote for a woman - as long as she’s pro-life of course. I think this country is ready for a woman president. But Lord God in heaven, please don’t let it be Hillary!
The thing about Mrs. Clinton’s campaign is - what can she really do or say that she hasn’t already? Everyone’s already got their mind made up about her and whether they’d vote for her or not. Not much will change that. She doesn’t have wide appeal outside perhaps California, NY, and Mass. And, Romney probably saps her Mass. votes. Her image is one of a political “player” - someone who is fake - a predator always trying to gain advantage - cold - calculating. And, any attempt to change that image will only be seen as more of the same - political posturing. Blech. And, she’s pro-choice.
The current list is as motley a crew as ever there was. I need someone who’s not a career politician. Someone with vision. Oh, and did I mention pro-life?!
January 23rd, 2007 at 10:06 am EST
I miss the days when the President was respected…because he was the President. Not that I’ve ever really seen those days but I hear they did once exist. My political opinion runs only as far as this…the President must be against abortion not because it is the way of the Republican but because He understands that life is worth more than that. He must be against same sex marriage for the sake of our sexual morality as a people, and finally he must have some real sense of sincerity in compassion for the people of the United States. Is that too much to ask?
Oh…and it would be a nice bonus if I could pronounce his name too.
January 23rd, 2007 at 12:43 pm EST
What no one wants to admit to is the fact that in a society where the people elect their leaders, the leaders they elect truly reflect the type of people who elect them. All of the social ills you mention, Lance, from hunger to as far as you want to make your list, are the result of everyday ordinary people living their everyday ordinary self-centered lives. In their attempt at self-justification, they blame “government” for not solving the problems. One of my heroes, Pogo ‘Possum, summed it up over half a century ago, when he said, “We have met the enemy, and he is us.”
Jesus said that His kingdom was not of this world. Every time people try to turn this world into what they fancy His kingdom to be, by ordering, legislating, or adjudicating, they set themselves up for disappointment. When they truly do His bidding — loving one another and even those who are their bitterest enemies — every one of those “social issues” ceases to be a problem. The fact that those issues are still with us is testimony to the fact that in general, Christians talk the talk but do not walk the walk.
Don’t blame government. Government is powerless to solve the problem of human sinfulness. Blame the Christians. They have the keys to the kingdom, and they refuse to open the doors. They refuse to obey Jesus, whose first order was, “Repent”.
January 23rd, 2007 at 1:31 pm EST
I see what you’re saying, Willy … and I really like your comment about the leaders reflecting the people … but I honestly don’t understand your logic. If Jesus came to tell us to love each other, how do you propose that we do that? When I stop talking about an issue and pursuing its solution, does it actually “cease to be a problem” (or am I actually just closing my eyes to its existence)?
It seems to me that being an advocate for these social issues does exactly that … it helps us to allocate resources and (perhaps more importantly) our value system to practically love people in need (including our bitterest enemies). This isn’t an issue of blame, it’s an issue of love (the action verb).
After living in China for a mere six months, it’s easy for me to see how vital and amazing our land is. We can dialogue about important things, impact actual legislation and policy through the media, and simply be informed about what’s actually happening in Washington. And unlike in China, when the people care about something in America, we actually do make a difference by our words and choices. That is so huge.
January 23rd, 2007 at 10:22 pm EST
very hard to stay quiet on this one…
a far as being able to vote for Hillary or not, your comment on her being the “man of the house” speaks volumes. there are passages in the Bible about men in leadership vs. women in leadership. i know that they usually specifically reference roles in the church, but there are also sections in there revolving around the topic in the home. i don’t think its a stretch to extrapolate the principle to who we should be choosing to lead our country. God created the sexes to be different, with different roles and responsibilities. just because the feminist movement that started in the 60’s (Hillary’s most formative years, i may add) is marching us closer to where the men on the sitcom are always portrayed as stupid oafs and the women are the brains (they always say Hillary is so smart, but i have yet to see any evidence of this…), doesn’t mean that any of it is true or in line with God’s design when he created two distinctly different sexes. (how’s that for a run-on sentence?)
this is not a sexist statement. if you read it and were thinking all along “how sexist and closed minded,” then you are being influenced more by the world and the feminist movement than by what God’s Word has to say. As much as some of the comments here refer to pro-life and anti-gay-marriage because of “moral concerns” (ahem, its called SIN), a spade should be called a spade (SIN) if it goes against God’s Word, and that goes for women in leadership roles as well.
January 23rd, 2007 at 10:33 pm EST
No, Lance, you are actually DOING something along the lines of what I said. You are teaching a foreign language (English) to people in a culture that will be impacted by the ideas you present with the lessons. It is personal involvement. (Warning : A follower of Jesus must be consistent in EVERY situation.)
Once you begin to look to “government” to do something about the social ills, you fall directly into the trap that all the politicians in the world seem to have fallen into. I truly think that Hillary, Barrack, George W., Teddy, the Grand Wizard from West Virginia, and all the rest, sincerely believe that they have the solution to all the social ills that exist. They simply want to do it with somebody else’s money. People who look to “government” for solutions are nothing more than opportunists who desire to force others to bend to their solution!
Here is the ultimate test of your aims: do they require somebody else’s money? If so, watch out for that little warning about coveteousness, because the Originator of that command did not condition it on whether you have a noble cause.
January 23rd, 2007 at 10:35 pm EST
I find it interesting our differing perspectives on what I see as superfluous things. I think what I wish for most is a leader of conviction, honesty, integrity; and in the climate of politics today I don’t know that such a leader can exist. We get caught up in sexes, races, issues that make us feel better about ourselves. I’ve always believed that the larger political machine exists as an entity; but the power comes to those that do something. Why do “corporations” run things — because they do something. I give money. They impact the community (they generate jobs, employment, product, etc); individuals make impact to — and this is where the church ought to step up — not in a political manner, but in a community manner. The greatest way to affect change is to do something. Knowledge is great, knowing the issues, knowing statistics, knowing political “talking points” is all great; but knowledge is selfish unless you act. Change. Move. As they say “**it of get off the pot”. The grass is NOT greener on the other side, it can be greener where you are, if you try and make it so.
January 24th, 2007 at 1:25 am EST
Paul, you said what I was trying to say earlier far more eloquently. The point is well taken; I agree!
January 24th, 2007 at 4:18 am EST
HP -
I agree with you in a spiritual context and in the context of the home. But don’t forget that some of the most influential “politicians” of early church times were prominent women who used their influence and resources to further Paul’s ministry and the local church’s viability throughout their communities… They couldn’t run for political office in those times/in that culture, but they were most certainly “playing the game” we call politics today - making friends and influencing people…
Women have certainly held that role throughout history (not just since the 60s) in political “office” or no (Eleanor of Aquitaine, Joan of Arc, Elizabeth I, Margaret Thatcher), but I wanted to at least point out an example that the Bible shows as positive female leadership.
January 24th, 2007 at 11:34 am EST
in reference to female emotional instability, i can only assume that you are referring to the hormonal effects of menstruation on the woman’s mental state. the idea that an intelligent woman, who is very familiar with the changes that her body undergoes at this particular time in the month, would allow her emotions to cloud her judgment is ignorant and insulting. besides… ever heard of menopause? any woman who would even be considered as a potential candidate is most likely going to have already gone through this.
50 years ago (or even more recently) it would have been incomprehensible for an African-American to hold any kind of political office. 50 years before that an Irishman would sooner be spat on than allowed to vote. How long we will allow our unconscious prejudices to hinder what history has been trying to teach us! VIVA LA REVOLUTION!!!!
(i’m really quite soft-spoken, but sometimes a girls just gotta speak her mind and defend her gender)
January 24th, 2007 at 1:22 pm EST
Molls? That can’t be you. Look out!
Seriously, guys … this dialogue is amazing, the best we’ve had here in a long time. I think we’ve all hit a few nerves … and that’s good, because sometimes that’s the only way to see if we still have feeling!
January 24th, 2007 at 9:03 pm EST
yes. it is amazing all the nerves that clinton woman can touch off.
January 25th, 2007 at 1:07 am EST
I have to say this, though I may regret it later.
I always thought it was more important for a girl to defend her reputation than her gender.
… as he dons his flameproof clothing …:mrgreen:
Youse guys is forgetting what the Scripture has to say about this. Nowhere does it say anything about hormones or emotions. It talks about sin (yeah, I have a one-track mind). Read Genesis 3, then read again what Rabbi Saul said in regard to women preaching and teaching in the church. Then explain to me how that all relates to women in public office. Then read what Saul said about leaders in the church needing to be married ( and I never did buy that stuff about him being a bachelor). Then correlate that with Genesis 2 and write a paragraph of no fewer than 100 words explaining how a married man’s ministry would be more effective than a single man’s ministry.
Then email that to the Pope. (Just had to throw that in for good measure).
… ducks and runs …:mrgreen:
January 25th, 2007 at 5:33 am EST
flameproof clothing may not be enough to protect… (depending on the level of “emotional” restraint any given responding firebreathing femme can muster, of course.)
January 27th, 2007 at 7:24 pm EST
wow…
i think its important to remind ourselves that it is very hard to get an amazing leader. and most of the time half of america wont think its an amazing leader, but the exact opposite. only time proves if they were good or bad. the terrible thing about time is that, without firsthand accounts, we cannot truly know. granted we have more history than ever before on our hands but the amount of time that you would need to study enough to be a good judge of politics and make enough correct decisions to be an excellent judge…
well we better hope for a God send president with the wisdom and discernment that he (or she) needs.
i think the gender issue is strange. i do think a married man will make a better president than a single man. i dont know about women. as is, there have been major politicians in america that have made decisions. in britain they have had queens, prime ministers, mayors and other offices that have housed women.
so they can do the job, but is it a matter of being able to do the job or to do as Will says and follow the bible.
Judging from the abortion and gay issues, america hasn’t followed the Law for that, i dont think a gender issue would do much for them either.
I think its great that we can actually have the ability to vote for any kind of person we want now.
To Will, I dont know how much I trust politicians with their views on anything in an election campaign. You have said that people change, and the worst part is that most of the candidates have huge sponsors who give moeny in exchange for favors in office and changing the campaign field…leaving the reality of whats good for the people out of the equation.
Socrates would be nice now, but he told his closest friends on his death bed that he couldnt be a politician and stay alive for long, so he remained a councilor and a “gnat to the horse”…refering to his ability to bite the council into action by spurring debate and making things that are ridiculous that are made to be serious, become once again ridiculous and bring about the citizens to do whats right.
ok my internet time is out.
later yo’s.