at this point a cardboard box is looking pretty good.

Had we had a few women as president, we would've probably had a lot less money wasted on wars and all the pigs feeding on the MIC trough, for starters.

(well, with Democratic women at least)

and their jobs replaced by women.

House of Cards even had a female president who decided to have an all woman cabinet.

Suffice to say it's EXTREMELY unlikely a woman POTUS would have any history or future of that BS.

Not to say NO woman would do such a thing but a woman POTUS would likely NOT.

The array of Democratic lights who will call the bluffs of the Republicans is what the Blue Wave is. Any bluff that is not called and prosecuted to the fullest extent is by definition not very blue.

Inherently, if the Presidential or Vice Presidential candidate is not a woman, Democrats will lose votes.

The recent pair of rallies in El Paso Texas of Beto O'Rourke vs Trump is the most powerful way to implement the Blue Wave.

Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris and Amy Klobuchar of course are the 3 most visible woman candidates.

We need every major candidate to participate in the spotlight. Outnumbering the Trumpsters at rallies is wonderful and a winning strategy.

And remember we did have "no drama Obama."

.... a candidate who has the intelligence, temperament, and skills as president who will govern, and make the best decisions for the benefit of the American people and this country, which could be a woman, or not.

Excellent post. I emphatically agree.

Logic and common sense.

...and the apparent drive to go for them and work to get as close as possible to those ideas accomplished. Which is something anyone can accomplish regardless of what they identify as.

In early-2007, how many people were talking about Barrack Obama?
In the winter of 1991, what were the odds on Bill Clinton?
In February 1975, who outside of Georgia knew Jimmy Carter?

We sit in 2019, I just listened to a segment on NPR with Peter Paul Montgomery Buttigieg, mayor of South Bend.

At 37 years old, we will be discounted as too inexperienced...even though he has more experience NOW than Trump does still at running government operations...

As a white man, in a year with a lot of momentum for minority candidates or women candidates, he stands out as an openly gay man who (unless you are hate-mongering bigot) you forget about irrelevant sexual orientation issues within his first answer to any question - he simply comes across as a serious, intelligent, thoughtful person who responds to issues with an eye on solutions and a well spoken response.

He is literally the anti-Trump.
Served in the military with honor.
Attended Harvard, Rhodes Scholar at Oxford.
Grew up in and lives in Industrial Midwest with roots and experiences there that resonate in the region.

Peter Paul Montgomery Buttigieg
Just maybe the dark horse that no one is predicting anything for that will follow the mold of our last 3 Democratic Presidents...

I really want the best suited and most qualified person most of all. I'm sick to death of the divide and conquer machinations. We need to win!

Biden-Harris

In my opinion, it's the perfect ticket.

I'm leaning toward Kamala Harris.

someone who will stand up to Trump. Trump won without having any policy agenda. My #1 quality is strength, someone with attitude.

So far I see 2 that fits that bill; Kamala Harris - former prosecutor, former AG, and, wait for it, Tulsi Gabbard - former military.

I am happy with all of our candidates, just my opinion what we should be looking for to beat Trump.

Me too

Maggie Thatcher led a powerful country and got a lot of things done without a lot of tRumpian drama, but not what you like, I hope.

Theresa May leads the same powerful country and was getting things done without a lot of drama until BrExit blew up in her face. Those things were things you don't like, I'm guessing.

The current candidates have issues, a few mis-steps, and have had some drama already.

"gets things done" is not a good guideline. Much more important to get the GOOD things done, with or without drama.



Being a woman is not an automatic charm for being progressive, effective, liberal, or non-dramatic. Women are people like men. Like men they come with all varieties of sensitivity and wisdom. Some men are sensitive and wise and low-drama. Some men are the reverse. Some women are insensitive, brash, and love generating drama. Some women are the reverse.

To want purely on the basis of gender is just as sexist as rejecting a woman on the basis of gender.

Just watch tRump-Pence go down and the RepubliCONs scramble to nominate a woman. You'll endorse that woman because you are so ready for a woman president, right? No, I don't think you would. I don't think you finished writing your post completely before you pressed Post.

The last one we had who fit that description was a man.

Then we were going to get a woman who fit that description. She actually won the election, but the Minority president stole the Electoral College with conspiracy with Russia.

The sex of the nominee is NOT a factor in my mind, but it thrills me that the Democratic Party is demonstrably deploying strong women candidates all over the map. The country and entities within it are strongest when the vitality of all kinds of members of society is tapped.

Keb Mo.

It’s a good tune.

...she said similar to ‘I can finally sit my suitcase down’

I’m tired of being on the outside...a traveler on the US stage...’move along little girl’...

Ready for a woman...to feel part of this country...