I know it's a little late, but why NOT Braun?

[rucky]

Looking back, I really don't see why her campaign never took a foothold. It is historic to have the first African-American woman running for president, yet that angle never really got picked up by the media. Her platform is strong & she has a hellova single-payer healthcare plan. She's the only one to put women's issues at the forefront of her agenda. She shines in every debate & interview. She can't draw fire from the right without it having the potential to backfire as racist or anti-woman.

I can't really think of anything negative to say about her. I suppose we could have the electability debate, but why? She's not controversial... she wouldn't alienate her base... she may not take any votes away from *, but she'd get a hellova lot more non-voters to the polls. She is qualified: having served in the senate, state legislature, US Attorney's office, Dept of Education, and as an ambassador. That's not to mention her real-life experience & perspective that no other candidate has.

Despite all that... Even in my mind, I have to admit she was almost automatically cast down to the bottom tier with minimal consideration. Why is that? I'm having trouble justifying it & it's making me think right now.

Is it because she is a black woman?

[democratreformed]

1. Maybe I'm wrong

but I think WOMAN is the key word, here. I don't think the majority of Americans are ready for that yet. I'm not saying that people have the right attitude, but I really think that's the way it is.

[Skittles]

4. they are ready for Dubya but not ready for a woman

f***ing sad

[democratreformed]

5. Agreed

[rucky]

7. I'm not talking about them...I'm talking about US

the one's who are supposed to be fighting for equality.

I'm thinking that if this election weren't so crucial, and we didn't have this stupid war on terr, CMB's presence would have us talking about issues that we're brushing to the side right now.

but if they can talk about gay marriage, why can't we bring up race, class & gender?

[democratreformed]

16. I completely

agree with you on that. I like Carol very much. She says some great things that ring very true. And I sure admire her spunk. I really liked in when, a couple of debates ago, she pointed out the civilian casualties in Iraq. To me, it showed that she is a caring person - one who cares about all of humanity.

And, I'm sorry to say, in different times, she could very well be at the top of my list. But, the war and international relations are the most important issues to me right now. That's why I have to support someone else.

[Tom Rinaldo]

2. She was voted out of Office

She lost her seat in the US Senate after only one term, under some controversy. Rightly or wrongly, that gave her the "look" of a vanity candidate, rather than a real challanger with a winning record and a political base. She was seen to have "alienated" her base, rather than expanding it. It would have been interesting to see how she would be perceiveed now had she handily won reelection in Illinois

[Pale Blue Dot]

3. I'm not giving up yet

"Lost causes are the ones most worth fighting for"

[Brewman_Jax]

6. Braun is not the first

Shirley Chisholm was the first black female Presidential candidate in 1972.

Is it because she's a black woman that she is almost automatically cast down to the bottom tier with minimal consideration? Yes.

[Silverhair]

8. Carol has two problems:

1. Way too far left.
2. Baggage

Of all of our candidates, I think that only Clark stands a chance of beating Bush.

[Pale Blue Dot]

9. I won't deny the first one, I think it's a good thing

What's the baggage?

[Silverhair]

13. Baggage.

There were ethics problems when she was ambassador to New Zealand, and a problem involving Nigeria & human rights. She is accused of helping Nigeria continue violating human rights.

While you may admire her far left stance, the brutal fact is that a person who holds those views is unelectable for POTUS.

[Pale Blue Dot]

21. Moseley Braun explained this to the Foriegn Relations Commitee

http://carolforpresident.com/content.php?page=newsroom_justthefacts&mode=print

Look at the additional responses, page 7. This was a personal trip to meet the family and friends of her former fiance.

ALL of the candidates have baggage. If we choose not to support a candidate that has baggage, we will support no one, and the one who has the most baggage (Bush) will win for sure.

[Neecy]

19. far left?

I have yet to hear her propose anything particularly leftish, unless you consider a single-payer health care system - the only sensible solution to this mess, in my opinion - just far our whacky.

I'm impressed with her. She's articulate, she doesn't get down in the mud brawling with other Democrats, I think she has a positive vision and good policies.

She only served one term in the Senate and was voted out, but what about Edwards? He's a one-termer who would have a real problem getting re-elected next year if he ran.

I hope she stays in the race, and if she doesn't make it, she's in the next cabinet.

[AG78]

10. Of course it is

America just isn't ready for that yet. It took 100 years from the Civil War to the Civil Rights Movement for black's to be considered human beings in this country. That was after hundreds of years of slavery. It's only been 40 years since MLK and what he was trying to do.

She's not part of the system. Neither is the one middle-aged white man that gets no press in Kucinich.

We're still an overly divided country. We have a two-party system that is basically the same party, because it's supported by the same corporations on either side which keeps each side in business. Pick a Dem, get your taxes raised. People get pissed because they have less money to buy the crap that the other side of the corporation owned country owns, the commercial side, and vote Rep, and get the taxes lowered. People have more money to buy more crap, but then all the things taxes pay for start to fall apart. People get scared,, then kick the Rep out of office, and pick a Dem. And the system starts over again. It can be a 4 year cycle, it can be a 20 year cycle, but eventually it just starts again. It's a self-perpetuating system that is addicted to the power that it's guaranteed, no matter what party is in office.

[Logansquare]

11. One point, she is not the first black woman to run for president

I remember the great Shirley Chisholm, and there may have been someone before her. Here's more on this legend:
http://nh.essortment.com/shirleychisholm_ruol.htm

[Ficus]

12. She just doesn't excite

many people. No "Fire" in her, or so it seems. But I like her a lot, controversial or not.

[Blue_Chill]

14. How can someone who just lost a election be a front runner for POTUS?

I just don't see it.

[Walt Starr]

15. She's tied with Sharpton and Dean on my list

I liked her when she was my senator and I still like her now.

[Hep]

17. I love braun

Whether or not it's about her race and sex, I don't know. I'm pretty cynical, but I don't know if my theory is based in fact or whatever institutionalized prejudice I grew up with.

All I can say is that she hasn't mobilized a ton of people, gained a lot of endorsements or raised a lot of money. Her platform is very strong, and I consider her to be a valuable contributor to the discourse, but I just never saw her as electable. I hate that word.

[redqueen]

18. Speaking for myself...

the reason I can't support her is her signing to pass the Securities Litigation Reform Act (not sure but I think that's the name) over Clinton's veto in 1995 (I think).

This Act did more to enable Enron & Worldcom Scams to go unpunished than any other law... Clinton was wise to veto it. Too bad some Democrats sided with the Repubs.

[WhosNext]

20. Because she is a black woman who was voted out of her one senate term

Let's be real.

[Cocoa]

22. how hard is she campaigning?

Serious question, is she out there as much as the others and just not getting coverage?

She gave an evasive answer recently about her campaign strategy, which states she is targeting, etc. I got the idea, though I don't know it's true, that she doesn't really have a strategy.

[Walt Starr]

23. She is not the first black woman to run for president.

Shirley Chisholm sought the Democratic Nomination for the presidency in 1972:

http://nh.essortment.com/shirleychisholm_ruol.htm

[tritsofme]

24. Because she was an embarrassment to Illinois, and lost the state to a puke

I supported and really got behind Braun in her Senate campaign in 92 and 98, I donated thousands of dollars to her campaign, and all she did was disappoint. I wouldnt vote for her for dog catcher.

She lost a state, that went to Gore by a larger margin that California and now has almost, if not every state-wide office in the Dem column. I still get angry when I think about her blowing that campaign, and I cringe when I see her in the debates. She should have absolutely no affilation to the new Democratic administration, and all the candidates should stay as far away from her as they can.

[Pale Blue Dot]

25. Exactly what do you think her behavior was

that lost her that race?

[Undemcided]

27. From Slate

Looks bad to me.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2078924/

[AmericanDem]

26. because she is Braun

She is in this for one thing, to get her name out there for advancement in her career, nothing else. She is using the process and at the same time making the debates more of a debacle then an informative program.

I say GET OUT now. Do the career jumping on someone elses watch , not mine.

[Bonobo]

28. Yeah, sadly it is because she is:

1. A woman
2. A black woman

She is about as electable as a Jew (and don't flame me cause I'm proud to be a Jew. I'm just a realistic Jew)

[Blue_Chill]

29. Well there is also the fact she recently lost and this....

http://slate.msn.com/id/2078924

[Armstead]

30. A mix of things I think

I do believe the Democrats and the nation are ready for a serious presidential candidate who is Black or a woman candidate or a black woman. Or at lest a vice presidential candidate.

However, whoever it is would have to be beyond reproach and be personally appealing and politically acceptable to a majority in political terms. That's unfair, but it's the nature of breaking down barriers.

Unfortunately neither Braun or Sharpton fills that bill. In terms of personality and political position, Braun could be that person, but there's too many questions and problems in her past, and she lost her Senate election. And Sharpton is polarizing and scares too many people.


These would be problematic in a candidate who fits the white male mold, and for a moinority candidate they are deal breakers to too many people.

It's a shame that a candidate who is politicaly viable who would break those barriers isn't in the race. But if wishes were fishes....

[Frangible]

31. I am indifferent to the fact she is a black female

It makes no difference to me. I judge her on her political views and voting record and don't agree with them. Her views are out of line with most voters so this should be no surprise.

Sure, it would be interesting to see a black and/or female president. But I think it's more important to just elect the best person for the job regardless of gender or race.

[kwolf68]

32. NO

For the health of this women lets not nominate her.

I honestly believe that the health of the first black President (especially women) would be under tremendous peril.

Yea...that's what I am saying. I believe an assasination attempt would take place against a black President of the USA at this time. Sorry I feel that cynical and jaded, but that's the way I feel.

I like Carol and believe she'd do great, but lets elect a white guy so the right-wing militias won't hold that "against" us at least.