seattle.politics

Paul Mitchum wrote:
> dangerman < @ > wrote:
>
>> @ wrote:
> [..]
>>> Tell you what; let's put some money on who will be Democrat presidential
>>> nominee. I'll take Hillary! and Obama and you can have all the other
>>> "credible" Democrat candidates.
>> Oh. When you say credible candidate, you mean candidate who might win the
>> nomination - which nothing to do with credibility. Credible actually means
>> believable. All the Democratic candidates are believable. But you don't
>> mean credible candidate. You mean potential nominee. Then you're right.
>> Clinton and Obama are the only two declared candidates with a chance. [..]
>
> Why do you think that is?

Looking at it from a marketing point of view, what better way to make a
radical statement without actually changing things radically? Elect a
ticket with the first woman and and the first black. Everyone knows and
feels this change is coming. There will be a woman president soon, and
there will be a black president soon. Let's do it in one swell foop and
make a big radical statement about how serious we are about changing
things without actually changing things all that much. I mean,
Clinton/Obama will, of course, change our policy in the middle east by
actually having one, but it won't be a radical policy. They will, of
course, change our policy on Global Warming, but it won't be a radical
policy. They will reverse some of the draconian domestic spying policies
Bush has forced through, and they will refocus on domestic policies
like health care and schools. These will all be positive changes of
direction without being radical, and we will get both the woman thing
and the black thing out of the way at once.