Presidential Election Poll--THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES. Don't just look; vote!

[bluenoter]

The poll is self-explanatory, I hope. It will run for 30 days. I decided not to include an "Other" category, but you can always post a message about your Other choice.

[mke]

I assume non-Americans can't participate in the poll?

[Gary Sisco]

You forgot Junior!

[Gary Sisco]

Why not? BNer didn't specify in her rules.

[mke]

Originally posted by Gary Sisco
You forgot Junior!

Maybe we should also add that proverbial monkey you keep on mentioning.

[mke]

Originally posted by Gary Sisco
Why not? BNer didn't specify in her rules.

No, but she was against foreigners voting in US elections in the debate we had maybe two months ago. As were you, if I remember correctly.

[bluenoter]

People who probably or definitely would not vote in the election should choose the first option in the poll if they want to participate in the poll. That includes non-Americans.

No, I didn't include Junior, and rather than include Junior, I changed the name of the thread to indicate that it includes the Democratic candidates only.

I can't figure out how to edit the poll. Can someone help? When I choose "Edit the poll--for moderators only," I get a "You are not eligible" notice.

Mke--Just for the record, the discussion a few weeks ago was about whether people who aren't natural-born U.S. citizens should be allowed to run for president, not vote for president.

[Gary Sisco]

You remember wrongly, M. Of course I support any citizen's right to vote in the US, native citizen or naturalized citizen, matters not. The discussion you are referring to, as BNer has remarked, was about the constitutional law in the US that prohibits all but native-born citizens to hold the office of president. I support that clause and would vote against changing it. Just as I would support such a clause in any country -- if we're going to continue to have nation-states. That's a huge qualifier for someone with a politics like mine, by the way.

[bluenoter]

Gary--The current qualification for a presidential candidate isn't "native" born--i.e., born within the United States. It's "natural" born--i.e., born with U.S. citizenship, such as by virtue of a parent's U.S. citizenship, regardless of where.

[Tanager]

Clause 5: No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

From the text of the US Constitution.

[bluenoter]

Clause 5: No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

We've all missed the boat for having been citizens at the time the Constitution was adopted, so now we have to be natural-born citizens.

[Tanager]

Originally posted by bluenoter
We've all missed the boat for having been citizens at the time the Constitution was adopted, so now we have to be natural-born citizens.

Speak for yourself, young mortal.

[bluenoter]

I forgot that Birds live eternally.

[mke]

Sorry for my mis-recollection of the conversation. I must upgrade my memory banks sometime.

Not to re-ignite that debate, but theoretically a naturalised Frenchman can become president, and this has not threathened the concept of the nation-state. In fact, Germans can become British sovereigns. I don't take the concept of nationality, and its importance, for granted, as it has varied over time and place.

Okay, back to the poll.

[Gary Sisco]

Forgive my nomenclature. The point remains, however. Obviously, one's a citizen by American law if one is born in the US or born to parents who are citizens. Of course, the latter is more honored and respected than the former, in most cases, by the powers-that-be, many of whom would prefer that immigrant children not be entitled to citizenship because they were born here. Nevertheless, they are and should be.

[mke]

I selected the first option, mainly so I could view the results without having to click on the excited "View Results!" button.

Kind of skews the results though, doesn't it?

[bluenoter]

Mke--If this were a real poll, there would be qualifying questions, and people who couldn't vote or didn't plan to vote wouldn't even make it as far as the main poll.

I figured that nonvoters would participate, so we might as well isolate that category.

[Gary Sisco]

M -- I agree with you. My point is that the Constitution exists and so do nation-states and so it ought to be either followed or changed, for which it provides measures and procedures, precisely to account for the changes wrought by history and the changing will and desire of the people. I would still oppose a constitutional change of that kind so long as the US is politically organized in the way it is today -- something that I've learned to live with but spent most of my life trying very hard to change.

In my own political world, there would be neither countries, nor borders, nor states.

And personally I don't think the French would much approve of an American ex-pat running ting in France. Or an Algerian. Or a Turk. Or a German. Or whoever. The law might theoretically provide for, alright, but we know it won't be happening.

And Germans were made "sovereign" in Britain, true. Centuries ago. Before there was a German state at all, in fact, so the analogy doesn't quite hold up. I doubt very much if the Brit parliament or, more importantly, the population today would go for it.

And I've known way more than enough Germans to know that they wouldn't stand for an American running ting there under any imaginable circumstance.

This is not an issue of American closemindedness. It's a matter of fact in the world as it exists, that's all.

[Gary Sisco]

I was also one of the ones who chose the "wouldn't vote" option, purposefully. I don't knowingly vote for anyone, for any office, who opposes either abortion rights or Second Amendment rights, and I vote for no one who brings their religious views into the public sphere. Therefore, there's no one in that list for whom I would vote.

[Gary Sisco]

No, I didn't, BNer. My syntax is correct. Do you really think the powers-that-be in the US (with very few exceptions) actually approve of citizenship for children born to, say, Mexican field workers sans papers? I don't think they do. They just have to live with it because that's the law and they'd not dare raise the issue of changing it. So far. The Bushists have in fact treated people who were born in the US as if they are not citizens when in fact they are, like it or not, for life, regardless of where their parents choose to live or whether or not their parents are citizens.

[bluenoter]

Gary--Sorry. More coffee for me. I deleted my post.

[Uli]

I cheated.

[Gary Sisco]

Why? I took no offense, I just wanted to make sure I was clear in my statement, as it can be a volatile subject. I happen to agree and totally support the idea that anyone who is born in the US or to American citizens is an American citizen by right and law, and should be. If the person chooses it, of course.

I've had several Irish friends who can legally carry both passports, having been born Irish and naturalized as American citizens. I'm glad they're citizens. None of them would vote in both places, though, and I don't think they should be able to. Politics, minimally, requires making choices and where one chooses to live ought at least to be a part of that equation. I always admired, at least for practical reasons, that ability to switch passports, though, so far as traveling goes. No one to my knowledge has tossed a dead Irish guy out on the tarmac.

Just kidding of course. Sort of. The truth is that I've had to make these choices in my own life, so have given these questions much thought. I was offered citizenship in Nicaragua but chose not to. I'm not Nicaraguan. I wouldn't be Nicaraguan no matter how long I lived there, or how much I loved the place (which I did -- and do). And American passports in Central America in those days (circa 84-85) were going for five large, no questions asked, in American cash. Swiss passports were going for 15 large, same rules. I kept my blue passport, for consciously decided reasons.

[clinthopson]

People who didn't vote in '02 are the reason we're stuck with that fucking Bush.

[Noj]

I voted for Clark, I like what I've heard about him so far. Opinions?

[jesus marion joseph]

Hmm, "stuck with a fucking bush".........................

[GregM]

Originally posted by clinthopson
People who didn't vote in '02 are the reason we're stuck with that fucking Bush.

I don't get it. Bush ran in '00, not '02. The '02 elections should have been a wake-up call. Democrat "agendas" are driving the country further to the right because the candidates (except for Lieberman and Gephardt) are totally out of touch with the bulk of the electorate.

Nader is as big a reason for dubya's presidency as anything.

[frankpop1]

Carol Moseley Braun
Wesley K. Clark
Howard Dean
Sen. John Edwards
Rep. Richard A. Gephardt
Sen. John F. Kerry
Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich
Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman
Al Sharpton

boy, u look at that list and i ask myself who could resist voting?
remember when lieberman was regarded as a god here just
4 yrs ago.

sorry brethren i may stick with that fuckin' bush.

[GregM]

Originally posted by frankpop1

remember when lieberman was regarded as a god here just
4 yrs ago.

Compared to those others, he is a G-d.

[Monte Smith]

It is a little weird how marginalized Lieberman is in this race when he was the Number 2 guy on the last national ticket. Most Democrats I know regard Lieberman as a Republican--and thus beyond the pale, naturally.

I was listening to O'Reilly yesterday in the car, on the Radio Factor. I don't know how much I trust Bill's political acumen, but he was talking like Al Gore--the Number 1 guy on the last ticket--was going to get into this race, no two ways about it. That was Bill's admitted speculation. Al has been making a lot of speeches to the George Soros bought'n'paid for far-left MoveOn.org, but I don't know if he's really poised to come in as a savior should Dean look like he's going to get the nomination. I don't know that Gore is prepared to do that, and I don't know that Gore would generate more appeal than Dean, frankly.

Noj asks for opinions on Clark. My honest opinion is that Clark has little going for him. Maybe he looks good in uniform. But he's a media creation with no organic support, no base, no money, no organization. Certainly the people who know him best--the military--are not excited by his campaign. He was fired from his last command, after all. Not, apparently, getting the military vote is as indicative as Gore not getting the Tennessee vote last time around. Bad news. Clark isn't going anywhere, but he does have the wild card of the media. The media made him and it can push him forward, but it's doubtful. Contrary to a lot of advanced academic doctrine, the media is not so powerful that all you have to do is buy a commercial and you can be president, it doesn't work that way.

Bluenoter's poll (which is a good idea, thanks for posting it BN) has too many options. No need to put Kucinich or Sharpton or Moseley Braun up there. The candidates that are viable are Dean, Kerry, Gephardt, Edwards, Clark, and Lieberman. In that order. As per usual this is just my indisputable opinion.