Is America ready for a minority president? Options

[MiSSxMELON]

The 2008 election marks a milestone in history - minorities are running for presidency. There's the woman - Hillary Clinton, and the African-American - Barack Obama. We have never had a woman or a minority in office. Is America ready for it? Or should things stay the way they have been? Some argue that if a woman is president, then other countries - specifically those that look down on women - will lose respect for America. Others argue that it's about time for some major changes; we need reform!

What do you think?

[Joss-eh-lime]

this brings to mind the movie with Chris Rock "Head of State" and as soon as he won, the body double gets shot..
but maybe Hilary will win. I'd love to see anyone there EXCEPT Bush.

[Dwdrums1111]

Dave chappelle, Black bush. hahahaha very funny man
I think it is time for a minority.

[MiSSxMELON]

To answer my own question, I think it's more a matter of how qualified the person is for presidency, not whether or not the president is a woman/man or a certain ethnicity. Whoever is fit for the job deserves it.

[*WHIMSICAL 0NE*]

I don't think someone's gender or race should implicate their ability to run for, an achieve a position in, office. I think it's been proven in our history of presidents (Nixon comes to mind) that even if you are a white male with previous background in law that it doesn't mean you'll make a good leader.

Race or gender doesn't determine if you can lead a country. And I'd hope that if we had a good leader other countries wouldn't have an issue with it. I think that they'd use it more as an excuse to have an issue.

[HakunaMatata]

I don't think someone's gender or race should implicate their ability to run for, an achieve a position in, office. I think it's been proven in our history of presidents (Nixon comes to mind) that even if you are a white male with previous background in law that it doesn't mean you'll make a good leader.

Race or gender doesn't determine if you can lead a country. And I'd hope that if we had a good leader other countries wouldn't have an issue with it. I think that they'd use it more as an excuse to have an issue.

Ah, I agree, but if only it was true. I guarentee that hundreds of thousands of people will vote for Clinton or Obama solely because of their gender or ethnicity. It's upsetting and true.

How many countries left in the world would look down on America for having a female president? Only a handful at most, so I doubt that that's a credible concern. And as far as a minority, yes, we're ready. But why should it matter? Like Dee's said, just because they are a female or a minority it doesn't guarentee failure or success as a President

[sweetangel2128]

I think that it shouldn't matter what color or gender the person is who wants to run, it should be based on whether they do there job or not however I do have to admit any black person "would" and probably does have a high percentage of getting murdered if they were to become president because of the kkk. But I don't think it should be banned, everyone should have there own choices. As for women...I think a woman can do just about anything a guy can if they have faith and put there minds to it. But I also believe that even as a white person your life is still in danger if you become president...look at John F.K.

[MiSSxMELON]

I guarentee that hundreds of thousands of people will vote for Clinton or Obama solely because of their gender or ethnicity.

That's one of the predicted outcomes - maybe a higher percentage of Americans will vote in 2008 to get a woman/minority in office OR to keep them out. Although Clinton&Obama might "encourage" more Americans to vote, I do not see it as a positive thing because they would be voting for the wrong reasons (gender/race).

How many countries left in the world would look down on America for having a female president? Only a handful at most, so I doubt that that's a credible concern.

I think we should not underestimate other countries opinions on America. Yes, we are a very powerful country, and yes there are countries who already do not like us, but it's still important to look at the possible outcomes. Best scenario? We inspire other countries to be more like us, and we evoke change. However that's unlikely for countries that view women as inferior because of religion. Worst scenario? More countries join the ones that already dislike us, creating a greater rift in the UN, etc. America is sort of "shunned", so to speak.

It's established, of course, that the quality of a president does not rely on the person's gender or race. I think the real question now is the impact it would have on the rest of the world.

[flaymzofice]

Countries in which women are looked down upon generally have little respect for the US anyway; communication and co-operations between the US and states which do not share a similar ideology to the former, are conducted on a grudging tolerance basis - governments the world over acknowledge the military and technological stronghold of the States, and realise that it would not be too intelligent to pose an outright challenge to that. So if Clinton were to win office, I doubt it would impact much on the position occupied by the US on the international front. And also do not forget that you've got a black woman as Secretary of State and nobody could argue that she is more than highly competant in her ability to do her job.

As for whether American is ready in itself, well, that's basically saying when is a good time for a minority individual to accede to the Presidency? Define what a 'right' time would be? Is there ever a 'good' time for such an event?

And yes it should all come down to the ability of the individual to conduct their role but we were debating this in my jurisprudence class yesterday. We were talking about the tiny percentage of ethnic minorities and women among the judiciary in Britain. Nobody could say either class were less able to exercise the duty required of judges and yet it is dominated by white males in their late 60s (at youngest) coming from very conservative, upper middle class backgrounds. Why is this so?

At the end of the day, while it should be about ability, it's actually more concerned with how certain individuals are perceived. It'd be as wrong to vote FOR a woman/ethnic minority BECAUSE they are so, as it would be to vote AGAINST them for the same reasons. But in an age where we are so aware of the right to equality, it becomes increasingly difficult to distinguish between a person's ability and the minority they represent. Because it's also very important to remember than ultimately, a person's class/racial origin/gender WILL affect the decisions they make; because being unable to detach one's personal opinions and feelings, is the very flaw of human that makes politics so interesting.

[silly ol' man]

The more interesting question to ask is this: what will happen first -- a black president or a female president?

Nuke your noggin with that brain buster.

[ps -- the whole point of this post is to show that any response to this thread will be pure speculation, and hence, unable to argue without a magic crystal ball]

[*kryogenix*]

The question is also, are the minorities ready to be President? Neither Obama or Hilary have what it takes in my opinion. All they have going for them is hype. When people say "I can't wait for Obama/Clinton to run," I ask them why they think so. Most people just say healthcare for Hilary, and for Obama, people usually shrug their shoulders and say something along the lines of everybody likes him and he's popular.

[*WHIMSICAL 0NE*]

Well, in my unbiased opinion, people like Obama because as a Senator he's displayed that he can work mutually with both Democrats and Replubicans. He also supports gun control measures, which might help improve the safety and violence that happens. He's also been noted to support plans helping veterans.

There's other things, but I can't think of them at the moment.

[flaymzofice]

The more interesting question to ask is this: what will happen first -- a black president or a female president?

I don't understand how this is a more interesting question.

The question is also, are the minorities ready to be President?

Now this does raise some interesting points but it's more reflective of the ambiguity due every candidate for a post such as Presidency of the US; nobody can ever tell how the abilities (or perhaps, lack thereof) of any individual will measure up. Somebody could have the most impressive resume possible and still come up short to a rival who doesn't impress quite so well on paper; politics is more encompassing and pragmatic than it is possible to state from the start.

For whatever reason that whoever is successful, gets voted in for, it's as good as starting from scratch as soon as they set foot in that Oval Office - past experience in similar environments may help, but as far as Presidential success goes, it's anybody's guess how they'll fair.

[MrStrife]

I think so. It should be for the people, by the people, and one the people. Make sense? But America as a whole is ignorant, fat, and lazy. So who's to say, I mean it's been a long time coming right?

[sporadic]

It seems that whether or not Americans are ready for a minority president, they're going to be forced into it. The chances of a Republican getting elected are pretty low, even when the only other options are historically inconsistent with other presidents. Out of the top contenders, John Edwards is the only one whom I would consider... competition... for lack of a better word.

[*I Shot JFK*]

Whether or not te country is ready for their administrations or not, I don't think either Clinton or Obama will win the White House against, say McCain. Which is why I say Edwards for The Democrat Nomination, as much as i would LOVE to see Hillary take the reigns

[Kontroll]

No they aren't ready. THe south is gonna try and receed again. HAHA. No, seriously. If you look at England, one of their best rulers was Queen Elizabeth or Victoria...I don't know, I'm not that smart. But it was a woman none the less. But, I'm not in favour for having a liberal in office. No offense, but it's just my stand point. Do you really think the war is going to be over by the time Bush leaves? I don't. And if we have a leader who is opposed to war, they might evacuate our troops immediately. That's not gonna be good for Iraq. THat's how Vietnam and North Korea are now communist.

Secondly, about war. Most liberals and democrats are opposed to violence. Violence is the only solution here to end the war. We can't negotiate peacefully cause we are fighting terrorists. They hate Americans and anyone who isn't Muslim. They aren't going to stop if we ask them. The only way to do it is to pound there asses into submission.

So, I don't think it's a good time for Democrats and Liberals to come into office. I could be wrong. Most of you probably disagree with me. WHatever, that's how you see it.

[pandamonium]

I dont see anything wrong with hillary or obama, usually religion gets more in the way other than race or gender.

[flaymzofice]

No they aren't ready. THe south is gonna try and receed again. HAHA. No, seriously. If you look at England, one of their best rulers was Queen Elizabeth or Victoria...I don't know, I'm not that smart. But it was a woman none the less.

It's important to note the difference between England then versus Britain now, as well as versus the US, since the political systems in operation depending on the period of comparison are vastly different. The fact that Queen Victoria ruled in a much more constitutional form of monarchy, and that the US is in fact a representative democracy aside, don't forget the historical context. You can't really base existing political climate on the history of a completely different set of political contexts.

Secondly, about war. Most liberals and democrats are opposed to violence. Violence is the only solution here to end the war. We can't negotiate peacefully cause we are fighting terrorists. They hate Americans and anyone who isn't Muslim. They aren't going to stop if we ask them. The only way to do it is to pound there asses into submission.

'fighting for peace is like f**king for virginity'
- the crude language aside, this is basically what you're saying. Violence as a means to resolution of conflict, even if successful, is oppression and what is the fundamental justification for this? What right does anyone have to march in and force submission through military means? - rhetorical question. More pressingly, how stable can a 'democracy' borne of violence/oppression really be?

Neither of these arguments address the debate in question though I just wanted to point these aspects out as they were raised.

[Kontroll]

It's important to note the difference between England then versus Britain now, as well as versus the US, since the political systems in operation depending on the period of comparison are vastly different. The fact that Queen Victoria ruled in a much more constitutional form of monarchy, and that the US is in fact a representative democracy aside, don't forget the historical context. You can't really base existing political climate on the history of a completely different set of political contexts.
'fighting for peace is like f**king for virginity'
- the crude language aside, this is basically what you're saying. Violence as a means to resolution of conflict, even if successful, is oppression and what is the fundamental justification for this? What right does anyone have to march in and force submission through military means? - rhetorical question. More pressingly, how stable can a 'democracy' borne of violence/oppression really be?

Neither of these arguments address the debate in question though I just wanted to point these aspects out as they were raised.

Actually we're a republic. Listen to the pledge again, buddy. Also, I think you failed to note my point about fighting for peace. When you're against an enemy that isn't willing to negotiate peacefully, are you then just going to turn the other cheek? Seriously. The only way to get rid of terrorism is to war against them. There's no way around it. They are ready to nuke Israel, but we'll just talk to them. I'm sure it will work.

[flaymzofice]

Sorry, the time for me distinguishing the difference between republic and representative democracy etc has passed. And also, I'm not American so..I have no idea what that pledge is.

And I'm not saying that sometimes violence isn't the only means but my objection was to your rather oppressive wording of the fact

[MiSSxMELON]

Sorry, the time for me distinguishing the difference between republic and representative democracy etc has passed. And also, I'm not American so..I have no idea what that pledge is.

And I'm not saying that sometimes violence isn't the only means but my objection was to your rather oppressive wording of the fact

You know, it's fine that you're from England, and you don't know the American pledge. But really, if you're going to be so decided on your opinions of America, then you should at least know the basics of the country. It's rather hypocritical to claim to be an expert one minute, and then disclaim any connection the next.

[Blaqheartedstar]

The question is also, are the minorities ready to be President? Neither Obama or Hilary have what it takes in my opinion.

if they were not ready then they will not run

it was bush who wasn't ready and look wheres that lead us... he had no plans and lead this country to war... he was a waste of 8 years...

Hilary knows what she wants and knows what to expects for she was at her husband's side when he ran and while he was in office, i'm pretty sure she knows how to do what she plans to do and waiting as long as she did

as for obama i'm not sure... and he isn't doing as thought as he whould... but as i said if clinton and Obama wasn't ready they will not run...

plus its about time a women and a african amercian ran for president... its kinda of a win win on who ever wins... although more pressure will be on the winner with a war on and them being the first ___ but i have faith... and hopefully they will not let us down like bush has...

[Joss-eh-lime]

The more interesting question to ask is this: what will happen first -- a black president or a female president?

Nuke your noggin with that brain buster.

aha...it kinda seems like it will be a woman.
does the name Hilary Clinton bring anything to mind?

[*disco infiltrator*]

We're absolutely ready. I seriously didn't even think about the fact that both of the front-runners for the Democratic parties were minorities until someone mentioned it. Minorities are a regular fixture in the life of almost every American these days and I really don't think it will be a big problem. The amount of Americans who are really strongly racist or sexist is minimal.