Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Barbara Boxer for President?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Sandpiper Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-19-04 05:36 PM
Original message
Barbara Boxer for President?
Senator Boxer just crushed her Ahnuld endorsed, former Sec. of State, opponent by 20 points.

She's smart, she's tough, she's a fighter, and she is proudly and unabashedly liberal.

If we're wanting to take a different tack in 2008, how 'bout the golden girl of the golden state?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
davidinalameda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-19-04 05:37 PM
Response to Original message
1. uh no
she would have to move to the right too much
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-19-04 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. I like her just where she is.
We need her there. So many goofy things being submitted in the Senate these days.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
havocmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-19-04 05:53 PM
Response to Original message
3. would be better to have a contest between snowball
and hell
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU9598 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-19-04 05:57 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Nominate a Governor
How about her taking out Ahrnuld in 2006 - then she is the top of my list.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
havocmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-19-04 08:32 PM
Response to Reply #4
12. All for letting her take on Ahrnuld
But don't put hopes on her nationally. The nation just won't follow her.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Diotima Donating Member (6 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-19-04 06:07 PM
Response to Original message
5. As much as I would like to see how that would actually play out...
She's far too controversial to make a legitimate bid for the presidency in the final stages of a campaign.

And in fact, I wouldn't doubt that she would have a tougher time than Hillary with swaying voters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newyawker99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 10:41 AM
Response to Reply #5
21. Hi Diotima!!
Welcome to DU!! :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CityDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-19-04 06:20 PM
Response to Original message
6. Increase in red states
I like her policies, but she would be a very polarizing figure and would lose by 55-45%.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lefty48197 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-19-04 06:51 PM
Response to Original message
7. I'm sold! Boxer for President
or Hillary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fujiyama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-19-04 06:54 PM
Response to Original message
8. I wish
I like Boxer and think she would make a good president.

But let's get real. It's not going to happen. This country isn't progressive enough to vote for a liberal woman from CA. It's just not going to happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maxsolomon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-19-04 07:38 PM
Response to Original message
9. NO SENATORS
no one from inside washington culture can win. Veep, fine.

only governors or generals can run against washington.

will we have the foresight to pick wes clark in 08? because he would have won in 04.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-19-04 07:46 PM
Response to Original message
10. She'd lose because she is a woman.
Yes, that's a sad outlook on our current society, but it's the truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-19-04 07:53 PM
Response to Original message
11. And she is wrong about Israel/Palestine conflict
If we really want to address terrorism, we must begin by changing our Middle East foreign policy, and that means to stop enabling Israel's post June-1967 cruel occupation of Arab lands and its people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberal democrat Donating Member (155 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-19-04 10:35 PM
Response to Reply #11
15. We will never win a race if we do not run a pro-israeli candidate...
Edited on Fri Nov-19-04 10:36 PM by liberal democrat
Bush gained 5 points among Jews almost entirely for his strong support of our closest friend, Israel. With so many Jews in Florida and a good amount in Ohio suburbs, that may have swung the election to Bush. In New York, I know many people who voted for Gore, Clinton (2x), and even Dukakis and Mondale, who voted for Bush becasue of his support for Israel. One of our biggest constituencies is the Jewish people.
I laugh as you say there is a cruel occupation of Arab lands. Do you know that Arafat and other leaders convince family that if you die while killing other Israelis, you will go to heavan. Arabs are willing to die so that they can terrorize Israelis. I think one reason as to why Dean lost was his anti-Israel stance. Many of the biggest donors are Jewish and they did not want to give to someone with a flawed view of the conflict.
The United States has no better friend than Israel. If our candidate was anti-Israeli, I would seriously consider abstaining from the presidential race.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-19-04 11:19 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. We will never regain the moral high ground, or reduce terrorism, if we...
We will never regain the moral high ground, or reduce terrorism, if we persist in denying the Arabs their inalienable right to get back all of the land Israel took from them in the June 1967 war.

How can we protest our occupation of Iraq while we look the other way at Israel's occupation of Gaza, the West Bank, the Golan, and East Jerusalem?

Israel is no friend of ours, and neither are the other despots that we keep in power in the region, including Mubarak of Egypt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberal democrat Donating Member (155 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 12:15 AM
Response to Reply #17
19. Simple.
The Palestinians/Arabs are the aggresors. They do not recognize the sovereign state of Israel, set up by the UN. Us Dems love the UN, so why do you not respect their decision to set up a state for the suffering Jews.
Iraq never attacked us.

It's like comparing apples and oranges.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 01:12 AM
Response to Reply #19
20. "Iraq never attacked us."
And the Palestinians were not responsible for the Holocaust, the Germans were.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #19
26. The Palestinians are aggressors on their own land?
Are rape victims to blame? How about those who are robbed at gunpoint?

And, more to the point, they HAVE recognized Israel. Happened years ago. Google is your friend, if you're actually here because you're interested in the truth (jury's still out on that, IMHO).

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 03:28 PM
Response to Reply #17
25. "How can we protest our occupation of Iraq while we look the other way..."
It's called "intellectual dishonesty" and hypocrisy.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
baltodemvet Donating Member (529 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-19-04 08:35 PM
Response to Original message
13. I'm open to the possibility
Edited on Fri Nov-19-04 08:36 PM by baltodemvet
If she wants it, let her make the case. I'd like to hear from Pelosi, too
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PurityOfEssence Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-19-04 08:46 PM
Response to Original message
14. Insanity
She's my Senator and I love her, but this is ridiculous.

She's female. Although a woman may well be elected in the next few decades, the cavemen are so ugly in their lock on power that the only one who could be elected is a reactionary.

She's shrill, liberal and short. Yes, fuck all of the mindsets that have any problems with any of those issues, but it's reality.

I loathe the concept of sucking the dick of the Nazis by moving to the "respectable" middle--and yes, that includes Clinton for his shattering of the soul of the Democratic Party through foolish appeasement--but we can't put our hopes behind a galvanizing figure like this.

May she be a Senator forever, but I hope that's enough for her. She's a tireless fighter, and she deserves a feeling of success; hopefully that's enough for her.

Somehow a middle ground must be found, because we can't surrender everything to find someone "acceptable", and we can't dismiss the points of contention that demand someone who's electable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Retrograde Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 03:48 PM
Response to Reply #14
27. I reluctantly agree
She's grown on me over the years, and I think she would make a respectable president (although given most recent ones, standards are pretty low). However, a liberal, Jewish woman from California is probably not going to play well in the Bible Belt.

Diane Feinstein, on the other hand, is more centrist, almost to the point of Republicanism. She's also a deft politician. She's also a Jewish woman from California, or, as it's known in large parts of the red states, the land of fruits, flakes and nuts.

It's interesting that the Dems are the only major party to have put a woman and a non-Christian on a national ticket so far.

linda

BTW: Boxer is not short - she's taller than me :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leesa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-19-04 11:02 PM
Response to Original message
16. None of the Senators have fought for us.
She's OK with environmental stuff but very wimpy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ArtVandaley Donating Member (419 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-19-04 11:39 PM
Response to Original message
18. If it's between her and Hillary, I choose her
Hillary is a DLC repub-lite Democrat who will be branded a far far left wing liberal and lose royally, while still appeasing to the right.
Boxer would be branded a frisco liberal and would lose royally. However, she IS an unabashed liberal and wouldn't be afraid to speak her mind on the campaign trail and give the issues a good airing. I'd pick her in a heartbeat.
But, I'd still like to go with someone I think could win and I have some confidence in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greenohio Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 10:55 AM
Response to Original message
22. I'm beginning to get used to losing.
We're getting plenty of practice at it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greenohio Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 02:30 PM
Response to Original message
23. Shes not Howard Dean.
No way she could win.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 03:25 PM
Response to Original message
24. I'd have a real hard time voting for her, and she's my senator.
She voted to confirm John "Death Squad Fan #1!" Negroponte to be ambassador to Iraq. Considering his past in Honduras, I can't understand her vote on that issue.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DrGonzoLives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 04:26 PM
Response to Original message
28. Sure, if you want to lose big
Go right ahead.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zulchzulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 04:39 PM
Response to Original message
29. You have got to be kidding me
I like Boxer as senator and voted for her when I lived in California, but she is not exactly presidential.

She does a great job as senator in California...let her keep her job.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 02nd 2024, 12:13 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC