That being said, I would love to see Bill as the shadow of Hilary in the White House now! Though, the first African-American president is not a bad idea either.  

You're right and I agree. But he's made a big issue out of it, which I think was the question/comment I was responding to.

The popular move in the Dem Camp now is to backtrack on Iraq (of course...). Edwards has already come out and apologised for voting "yes" to the invasion, and Obama is touting the fact that - although he wasn't in office - he wouldn't have voted for it (easy to say that, isn't it?).

That's why I don't really have a favourite candidate yet - because no one really stands out from the crowd. It's easy to point fingers and blame Bush (and, let's face it, we all do it), but that's not going to actually solve anything at this point. Someone needs to step up and lead. Shocking concept, that. 

True happiness, we are told, consists in getting out of one's self, but the point is not only to get out, you must stay out; and to stay out you must have some absorbing errand. -Henry James

Dennis Kucinich most certainly supports LGBTQ equal rights including same sex marriage. 

Visit this page at his website for more info:

http://kucinich.us/issues/gayrights.php

There is also a discussion board for this topic in the Forum.

Also, Dennis is the only candidate who has voted against the war since Day 1.  He was the only candidate who was not duped by bogus intelligence on WMDs.  He is the only candidate with a legitimate plan to end this nightmare.  You may read his 12 step plan at kucinich.us

I'm not sure who I'm going to vote for yet, but I love that this time around, it is a matter of deciding between candidates who all seem to be both 1) competent and 2) like they might actually get elected. I have to admit that I did not feel particularly enthusiastic about our choices in the last election (Kerry seriously lacked communication skills and I just don't like Edwards).

It is also about time the top contenders included a latino candidate, a black candidate and a female candidate. I'm not going to make my decision based on ethnicity/race/gender, but I'm glad to see a little diversity, and hope we see more of it in future races.

I know this discussion is about Democratic candidates, but I'm not sure a Republican candidate thread would take off here.  I just wanted to say not to discount Rudy Giuliani.  On social issues he extended NYC benefits to same-sex couples, is for gay rights and was against Bush's Marriage Proposal.

I don't agree with his support of the war in Iraq and I do not agree with him on a 'road to citizenship' for illegal immigrants -- But on social issues he is a Republican I respect can stand by.

I would like to say thanks for even talking about voting, I have a youth program and its amazing how many people believe that voting doesn't change anything..

Anyway, I don't think America is ready for a black president and i may sound a little racist, but people keep saying he isn't qualified and i just feel that underneath it all they're saying, he's black he's goin to get assassinated...He's my first pick...with him comes history and change, and i have a good feeling about him when he spoke i had shivers up my spine..

Hillary, I love her, she's a Clinton after all..I believe she has the biggest chance to win.. She's been there, she's calm and colleted, and she'll kick ass...

Honestly, I haven't done enough research on all the candidates and I feel that before I make a decision that's what needs to be done, with everyone, bcuz this is the future of America and itz either gonna get worse or a whole lot better..I'm voting for better..

~I got that remedy~

You would want to think that we are beyond all the superficial things such as race/sex/religion... and as u said we will soon get that answer. I just hope America doesn't let us down.

~I got that remedy~

...would be a done deal for me (at this time, anyway).

Truthfully, I'm still waiting for the real issues to be addressed, but the more the mainstream media attacks Hillary, the more I want to vote for her. (It's the same reason I cheer for Pelosi ... not because she's a woman, but because the mainstream loves to tear down strong women. Or they let themselves be taken down ... Condi, anyone?)

And LesKidd, I agree with you on much of what you said. I have seen the same kind of horrible, racist/sexist talk in the Midwest. One way I see to overcome such obstacles is to have Wes Clark as VP on the Hillary or Obama ticket. Either one would be wise to team up with him. (But Hillary can put Bill Clinton on the cabinet, and has said as much. What a coup!)

Someday, I hope my man Russ Feingold gets a run for the big ticket. That is a man who truly speaks his mind. I'm proud to have him represent Wisconsin. Whew.

He certainly doesn't support marriage equality for same-sex couples and sorry to be an one-issue voter but...oh well.

At least Clinton supports civil unions and the race for president is pretty much between her and Obama...IMO.
And as a African-American, I'm pretty sure Obama wouldn't have much hope with white voters if he were more dark-skinned...but that's my own personal opinion.
He's not "too black" for whites and not "black enough" for blacks.
::eye roll::
When I vote, my issues are going to be:
1) Iraq
2) The environment
3) Same-sex marriage/marriage equality

**Courtney**

LesKidd ... I've also asked that question -- which would come first, a black man or a white woman as President of America? -- for probably 10 years now.  It sparks interesting debates about the way people experience both racism and sexism in social and political life.

My perspective has always been that misogyny and sexism are latent, implicit, and so deeply embedded in culture that in fact a woman would have a harder time than a man of colour being elected ... *but* that if one or the other were to be elected, the black man might be vulnerable to an attempt on his life, as racism has a more vocal, focal, densely antagonistic sub-sect. 

Does this make sense?  In other words:  sexism might be more subtle, so a woman would find it harder to be elected.  But racism can take a more explicitly violent reprisal, which would mean that a black man as President might be at greater risk than a white woman.  I honestly don't know -- am just trying to think through these things.

But overall ... many countries around the world have had female heads of state.  I think it's about time America followed suit.

(http://womenshistory.about.com/od/rulers20th/a/women_heads.htm)

Tom Vilsack is out already, citing lack of money.

AP article here

True happiness, we are told, consists in getting out of one's self, but the point is not only to get out, you must stay out; and to stay out you must have some absorbing errand. -Henry James

Clinton and Obama are sell outs. First, Clinton voted for the Iraq war. and she has always voted to fund the war. How can u claim to be anti-war and continue to vote for bills that fund the war and keep it going. hypocrite. and at a recent meeting with AIPAC (American Israeli Public Affairs Committee), which is very strong lobby group in Washington, she told them that no options are off the table when dealing with Iran. How could anyone even believe all this propaganda about iran supplying the "insurgents" with weapons. uh, hello, remember when that same propaganda was going around about sadam having weapons of mass destruction? but hillary is too chicken to stand up. Obama had about the same answer about Iran as Clinton did and he has continued to vote yes for funding the war. Kucinich and Gravel are the only Dems who voted no to going with war with Iraq. And they have always voted no on funding the war. Plus, Gravel was in office during the vietnam war and was only one of 4 or 5 senators to fillibuster the draft. He was a key senator in ending the vietnam war. Plus, Kucinich has a 12 point strategy to get the troops out fast and SAFE!! Clinton and Obama have no vision. They just have a lot of money and get a lot of press. And that always wins the race.

Hillary qualified her support for the war - saying she supported the resolution to send troops to Iraq because she felt that bipartisan support of the resolution would encourage action by the UN, and possibly avoid the need for conflict:

I believe the best course is to go to the UN for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq. I know that the Administration wants more, including an explicit authorization to use force, but we may not be able to secure that now, perhaps even later. But if we get a clear requirement for unfettered inspections, I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is inherent in the original 1991 UN resolution, as President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998.

If we get the resolution that President Bush seeks, and if Saddam complies, disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. Regime change will, of course, take longer but we must still work for it, nurturing all reasonable forces of opposition.

If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, then we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.

----

Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore, war less likely, and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go way with delay will oppose any UN resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.

full text of speech here

I've been trying to get through Obama's book, "The Audacity of Hope," but it's been a struggle. I just don't see anything that enlightening in it. He's a dynamic speaker, but his lack of experience does concern me. Just as an aside, I believe he did say at some point that he was in favor of civil unions.

Hillary - I want to like her. I would probably vote for her in the general election. I'm just not that enthusiastic because I feel that she's a sellout as well.

I voted for Dennis Kucinich in the 2004 primary. I will again, although realistically I know his chances are pretty much non-existent.  

I am rapidly becoming a Kucinich fan, despite the common belief that he has no chance (I have Utopian dreams that if everyone stops saying that and starts picking the best candidate instead of the biggest name, we might get somewhere. But for everyone who does their pre-vote research there are thousands who don't, so I should probably just wise up already).

True happiness, we are told, consists in getting out of one's self, but the point is not only to get out, you must stay out; and to stay out you must have some absorbing errand. -Henry James

I don't see a great deal of point in voting for a candidate who has no chance of winning.  I've certainly done it before, but at this point I see it as simply a waste.  Most especially in the previous two Presidential elections.  While I agree with much of what Ralph Nader stands for, I'll never vote for him.  Independant candidates take votes away from Democrats much more so then Republicans.  He said he would not run in 2004, yet he opted to go back on his word.

Anyway, I am really tired now so I am probably not making much sense.

This all really goes to show that George Washington was right - A two-party system only further hampers America.

"It serves to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one against another. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another."

I'm really getting tired of talking to people..not here, but other placces who keep saying that barack is not really black because his ancestors didn't go through the hardships of slavery. so how can he relate to black america...first..people need not even vote for a president based solely on race, when that day comes-life as we know it will change..then these stupid ignorant black people need to just start realizing that he is one of the only leaders we have right now and that he's heavily relying on the black vote-but blacks don't really vote...not in the hood n e way.. they feel that things don't change no matter what they do, and until they realize that then we're not gonna c major change as a people..next, i have never seen a president go in the hood, or in areas that need to see change the most, again until that time comes, we're not gonna c change..many blacks feel the government has forgot about the ongoing war in America every day and that not enough is being done to help, then when people like Kanye West tell the truth about what's really going on-they bend over backwards to get him to shut up...so when r we gonna get a president to listen??? 

~I got that remedy~

That's what I tell my friends when I hear the "Obama can't win cause he's black" or "Hillary can't win because she's a woman"...crabs in a barrel, folks, crabs in a barrel.

You think that people are so racist or sexist that they wouldn't vote for a black man, a latino man, or a white woman. Well, okay...I concede that there are those people out there...but there's one thing to remember: what chance does a Democrat have with those people anyway? And I'm not talking about Obama, Richardson or Clinton, here...I mean, Joe Biden, John Edwards or Dennis Kucinich, either. It's not just that these people are racists or sexists...it's that they're racist and conservative, it's that they're sexist and conservative.

Look across the electoral map and point to me one place where Obama, Clinton or Richardson would lose, where John Kerry won in 2004. Simply put, there are none. It's likely that Obama could carry Virginia, which has been trending blue since '04 and has elected a black governor (Doug Wilder) in the past (not to mention other Southern states with high African-American populations, which would be in play). Bill Richardson won his re-election last year by a 36 point margin, so there's a great chance we'd pick up New Mexico if he was the nominee. And Clinton--there are female Democratic governors in Red States like Louisiana, Kansas and Arizona, so her gender's not as much of an issue as people would lead you to believe. Almost any of the aforementioned states wins Democrats the White House.

If you don't want to vote for Obama because you disagree with his plan for Iraq, then fine. If you don't want to vote for Clinton because you think her plan for fixing our health care system is too piecemeal, then good. But if you vote for or against people because of their race or their gender--or because of how you think others will perceive their race or gender--then you're wrong.

On so many fronts, we're given an opportunity to make history in this election, so let's do that...let's make history, instead of (as IC might say), eating our own.

I've found myself moving into the Mike Gravel camp lately, even though he's absolutely insane. :-P

I guess now is the time to love idealist candidates who won't actually go anywhere. Yay, Gravel and Kucinich. 

True happiness, we are told, consists in getting out of one's self, but the point is not only to get out, you must stay out; and to stay out you must have some absorbing errand. -Henry James

Kinda got the Reagan-esque Actor turned politico thingy going for him.  I support him on gun control (not for me, thanks), war (let's try to win the damned things) and immigration(no valid visa no home here).

He's my man!

"Great minds think alike. They just don't always reach the same conclusion" - stolen from the Little Dutch Girl