2008: Condi vs. Hillary - For Whom Would You Vote?

Scenario: It's 2008. The Draft Condi Movement has been successful and the GOP has nominated Condi Rice for president with Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty as her running mate. Hillary Clinton has beaten all Democrat challengers and won the Democratic Party nomination and has New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson as her running mate.

For whom would you vote based on your knowledge/feelings today?

 

I like her position of being for parental notification, being against partial birth and late term abortions, being against government funding on abortion.

I have no problem with affirmative action being taken into account in hiring/promoting/admissions within reason as long as quotas aren't used.

 

1) No anti-abortion amendment to the federal constitution. I have previously noted her support of restrictions on abortion.

2) No.

 

Except that they didn't do the registering. It is my understanding that anyone can register a candidate with the FEC.

 

What I previously explained.

 

"Affirmative action began as corrective for past governmental and social injustices against demographic groups that have been subjected to prejudice. Such groups are characterized most commonly by race, sex or gender, or ethnicity. Affirmative action seeks to increase the representation of these demographic groups in schools, in work place, and in society in general.

A certain minority group or gender may be less proportionately represented in an area, often employment or education, due predominantly, in the view of proponents, to past or ongoing discrimination against members of the group. The theory is that a simple adoption of meritocratic principles along the lines of race-blindness or gender-blindness would not suffice to change the situation for several reasons:

- Discrimination practices of the past preclude the aquisition of 'merit' by limiting access to educational opportunities and job experiences.

- Ostensible measures of 'merit' might well be biased toward the same groups who were already empowered.

- Regardless of overt principles, people already in positions of power will be likely to hire people they already knew, and/or people from similar backgrounds.

In such a circumstance, proponents believe government action giving members of the minority group preferential treatment is necessary in order to achieve a proportionate distribution.

From its outset, affirmative action was seen as a transitional strategy, with the intent that over some period of time—variously estimated from a generation to a century—the effects of past discrimination would be sufficiently countered that such a strategy would no longer be necessary: the power elite would reflect the demographics of society at large.

Though affirmative action in the U.S. is primarily associated with racial issues, the American civil rights movement originally gave as its purpose the correction of a history of oppression against all working-class and low-income people, and women have figured as prominently as ethnic minorities among its beneficiaries."

- LINK

 

Whatever floats your boat, Joseph, when it comes to descriptons.

Affirmative action can degenerate into quotas but it doesn't have to.

 

Race, or gender, or any number of things, can/are taken into account when hiring.

 

MLK supported affirmative action.

Gotta head for bed so I can get up early in case Judge Alito is nominated early tomorrow morning to the SCOTUS.