The White House has been too white for too long.
Anybody but Bush in '04. Democrats are united behind this mantra. Luckily we have a field of well-qualified candidates primed to make that wish become a reality in November. The beginning of the primary season marked the first time that a Democrat polled higher than President Bush in head-to-head contests, suggesting that victory is not as illusive for the minority party as it once seemed. John Kerry's surprise victory in the Iowa caucuses and decisive win in New Hampshire has made him the new "Frontrunner." Each of these men would enhance the Democratic presidential ticket. But why is the field of potential veeps so narrow? More importantly, why is it so devoid of color? Why not have a Black running mate? | Continue Vincent Jones' "Why Democrats Need a Black Vice-President" (via TalkLeft) posted in articles on February 9, 2004 5:14 AM | t (0) « Previous phile: I'm afraid my reaction was less than positive. » Next phile: Those people who see that their family comes in all skin shades. Comments
"More importantly, why is it so devoid of color? Why not have a Black running mate?" Did you notice that he didn't propose a single African-American as a potential Democratic veep? He mentioned Sharpton, but not in that context. And he speculated on Powell and Rice as Republican potential VPs. So maybe, by omission, he answered his own question -- there are no obvious candidates. Incidentally, that doesn't mean one won't get picked. Dick Cheney wasn't exactly in the spotlight any more when Bush selected him. Joe Grossberg, February 9, 2004 5:32 PM
What about John Lewis, representative from Georgia and Civil Rights stalwart?! Of course, his stand for marriage equality is in sharp contrast to John Kerry's. ABBBNK = Anybody but Bush, but not Kerry. ronn, February 9, 2004 6:41 PM
Return to top of page |
|