| Well I'd have to disagree with that.
Let's put it this way. You have three types of people in this country.
Those who would vote for a candidate they AGREE with who actually had the guts to express their views in public. (Almost every single person I talk to says they are tired of "politicospeak". They want straight answers and they don't want a candidate who modifies his views for public consumption or is ashamed of them.)
Those who would vote for a woman/minority BECAUSE they were a woman/minority.
Those who would vote AGAINST a woman/minority because they were a woman/minority.
I'd submit to you that the first group is the largest in this country. Most people will vote for the competent candidate whom they agree with regardless of race/gender.
So if a party were to run a woman/minority candidate who held the views of most Americans and had the guts to express them in public, the drive-by media be damned, most of the first group would vote for them. All of the 2nd group, by definition, would vote for them and the combination (#1 & #2) would be a majority of the votes cast.
Hillary and Obama's problems are not their gender or race. Their problems are their views which most Americans disagree with. Immigration, health care and taxes are just three examples.
Some people who come to mind as POSSIBLE candidates are JC Watts, Walter Williams, and down the road Condoleeza Rice (she is a little too close to Bush right now and thus would galvanize the "move-on" crowd against her). I'm sure there are many others that I don't know about. |