Why was Carol Moseley Braun's candidacy not "historic" ?

Vanity | 6/7/2008 | Me

[libh8er]

Carol Mosley Braun ran for the Democrat nomination and lost. Hillary Rodham Clinton ran for the Democrat nomination and lost. So what's the difference ? Leave aside the fact that she got a few less votes than Hillary because she didn't have her last name.. but even then, why is CMB's candidacy never talked about as "historic" ? If anything, her's should have been even more so in the liberal world view given she was black AND a woman trying to accomplish in one throw what neither Hussein nor Hillary could individually. So why this hoopla about Hillary's historic candidacy ? What has she done that Carol Moseley Braun hasn't ? Of course I only ask rhetorically..

[PatrickF4]

She was a joke in the worst way. She wasn't articulate like the Messiah, she was not the “Magic Negro” because she didn't embody the anti-black male character that is required. She was a disaster, and the Dems dumped her for some nobody.

[PatrickF4]

She was a joke in the worst way. She wasn't articulate like the Messiah, she was not the “Magic Negro” because she didn't embody the anti-black male character that is required. She was a disaster, and the Dems dumped her for some nobody.

[Jean S]

Maybe because Braun didn’t have a chance and Hill did?

[Charles Henrickson]

Because Mostly-Fraud won no primaries and won no delegates, that’s why.

[JavaJumpy]

Well, Obama tried to make it historic. This was one of the community organizing jobs he did - working to get voters registered and to vote for her.

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

Because she never got within striking distance.

[Charles Henrickson]

Here's your answer:

[HAL9000]

So why this hoopla about Hillary's historic candidacy ? What has she done that Carol Moseley Braun hasn't ? Of course I only ask rhetorically..

The hoopla rightly belongs to Shirley Chisholm.

[LS]

That’s exactly it. She was “too black,” and obviously too black to get elected to a national office.

[Traveler59]

The hoopla rightly belongs to Shirley Chisholm.

I am impressed that someone else remembers Shirley Chisholm's run for the presidency in 1976. Most democrats don't even remember her.

-Traveler

[martin_fierro]

Why was Carol Moseley Braun's candidacy not "historic" ?

Nobody remembers.

[martin_fierro]

G M T A !

[Paleo Conservative]

I am impressed that someone else remembers Shirley Chisholm's run for the presidency in 1976. Most democrats don't even remember her.

Jackasses are known for stubbornness not their memory skills. Elephants on ths other hand are reknowned for their excellent memory. Still Shirley Chisholm ran in 1972 not 1976.

[papertyger]

Because Pat Paulsen did it first.

[Non-Sequitur]

but even then, why is CMB's candidacy never talked about as "historic"

Because it was a joke.

[Traveler59]

Yes, you're right. I realized that just as I hit "post".

-Traveler

[Paleo Conservative]

Yes, you're right. I realized that just as I hit "post".

-Traveler

One of my pet gripes about Free Republic is that there is no provision for editing a comment after it has been posted. Airliners.net allows members to edit their comments up to 30 minutes after they were originally posted.

[Jacquerie]

Braun was a walking, talking example of why the 17th Amendment was a horrible idea. Street level thugs should not be Senators.

[Redbob]

Her candidacy wasn’t “historic” for the same reason Pat Paulson’s wasn’t: it was joke, and she didn’t have a prayer of being elected.

[Erik Latranyi]

You are all wrong.

The reason why Clinton’s run is “historic” is to cover up the fact that Obama has been selected by the party leadership, not the rank and file.

It is a means to try to quell the simmer taking place among Clinton loyalists.

[river rat]

Illinois seems to have a habit of sending unqualified, inept, incompetent, corrupt black racists to Congress.....

[Jet Jaguar]

Mosley Braun has more political experience than Obama.

But she is a kook.

[SlapHappyPappy]

Because people have to vote for you for it to be historic, and family members don’t count.

Hell, remember her press conference to announce the campaign? Only one person showed up and he appered to be a homeless guy trying to stay out of the snow!

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

It's that plausible thingy.

[weegee]

Because Democrats, like Stalinists, use hyperbole (lies) and revisionist history to push their latest propaganda.

Socialists lie. Always.

[Carley]

Patsy Schroeder ran for president

Elizabeth Dole ran for president

It’s as tho those women didn’t exist at all.

The constant mantra from the MSM that she was the frontrunner is a joke. Once the voting began she was NEVER the frontrunner.

[Ouderkirk]

Let’s look at the d’RATs candidates over the last 50 years

Obama - Community Agitator. (Harvard)

Kerry - Congress Critter/ Senator (Yale)

Gore - Congress Critter / Senator / VP (Harvard)

Clinton - Attorney General / Governor/ President (Yale)

Dukakis - State Assembly Critter - Governor (Harvard)

Mondale - Appointed Attorney General / Appointed Senator ( U-Minn)

Same for Carter, McGovern, Humphrey, Johnson, Kennedy

Not one of these S.O.B.’s has ever held down a real job. They have all been suckeling at the government teet their enitire lives.

[BillyBoy]

>> Braun was a walking, talking example of why the 17th Amendment was a horrible idea. <<

The British House of Lords is a living, acting example of why the 17th amendment was an excellent idea. Every single country that currently has an unelected "upper house" of elites that hold office for life and leach off the taxpayers want to get rid of it, but have been unable to do so because the elites there don't want to lose their cozy appointed jobs.

You "abolish the 17th amendment" crowd remind me of the "enact universal health care NOW!" gang in continuing to push America to do something that has failed miserably in every country it's tried.

Braun is an example of why the Illinois GOP screws up America by running laughable "opposition" that give the Dems freedom to elect whoever they want.

[libh8er]

Well.. some would argue Gore has a ‘real’ job now in the pvt sector (selling carbon credits and making movies)

[dennisw]

Carol Mosley Braun..... She was a mega flake. She talked a lot of smack. She got involved in office romances. She now runs an organic food company of some kind

[dennisw]

http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett200405120748.asp

[aruanan]

Carol Mosley Braun ran for the Democrat nomination and lost. Hillary Rodham Clinton ran for the Democrat nomination and lost. So what's the difference ? Leave aside the fact that she got a few less votes than Hillary because she didn't have her last name.. but even then, why is CMB's candidacy never talked about as "historic" ? If anything, her's should have been even more so in the liberal world view given she was black AND a woman trying to accomplish in one throw what neither Hussein nor Hillary could individually. So why this hoopla about Hillary's historic candidacy ? What has she done that Carol Moseley Braun hasn't ? Of course I only ask rhetorically..

CMB was a nutcase in the tradition of Meeks, John Lewis, and that fruitcake who thought the Mars rover could be driven over to see where the Apollo astronauts had planted the US flag. As far as her stature as a presidential candidate is concerned, she didn't even rise to the level of that midget with the red haired chick that's about two feet taller than him or Richardson. Barack, even half-black, trumps her because she didn't--and couldn't (without a LOT of surgery)--have that schwing! Besides, how many white and other chicks, including Chrissy Matthews, would ever have started breathing hard over CMB? I mean, come on!

[Jacquerie]

Senators used to represent state interests, as appropriate since the states created the federal government.

Today's senators are nothing more than three term congressmen, always grubbing for votes purchased with our tax money. The founders had it right. Our country has suffered greatly with two legislative chambers subject to the whims of the masses.

I'll ignore your gratuitous insult regarding universal health care.

[BillyBoy]

I'm a conservative because I believe in less government and letting people make their own decisions without government bureaucrats deciding what is best for them. The idea that we need politicians to pick our Senators FOR us means you support big government. I don't. My state legislature is notoriously corrupt and gerrymandered to give Chicago control of our entire state. I wouldn't trust them to pick out what I eat for breakfast, let alone an important issue like who represents me in Washington.

IF you had abolished the 17th amendment in 1993, the only thing you would have accomplished is ensuring Carol Moseley Braun was Senator-for-life. Peter Fitzgerald would never have replaced her her in 1998, because Republicans don't have a majority in the Illinois General Assembly, and the Chicago machine was quite happy with Braun. The Illinois State Senate is run by Emil Jones who specifically groomed Obama as a successor to Braun because he couldn't just unilaterially get a "progressive person of color" in the U.S. Senate himself. Therefore the ENTIRE premise of your arguement is false. An appointed upper house would have helped Braun's career, not hurt it.

In Germany, their "upper house" uses the same outdated system "the founders" of the U.S. envisioned, in which federal Senators are appointed by state governments. Guess what? The system has failed MISERABLY there as well. What an amazing coincidence, eh? Here is a decscribtion of how the German Bundesrat works:

"Observers note the increase in backroom politics, where small groups of high-tier leaders make all the important decisions and the Bundestag representatives only have a choice between agreeing with them or not getting anything done at all. The German "Federalism Commission" was looking into this issue, among others. There have been frequent suggestions of replacing the Bundesrat with a US-style elected Senate, which would be elected at the same date as the Bundestag. This is hoped to increase the institution's popularity, reduce Land bureaucracy influence on legislation, make opposing majorities less likely, make the legislative process more transparent, and generally set a new standard of democratic, rather than bureaucratic leadership. It remains to be seen if existing party leaderships are willing to support such a step. "

In EVERY country its tried, an appointed upper house FAILS to work (please feel free to name any existing country where the appointed upper house is considered a great asset to government and a beloved institution), but I guess the USA will be the first exception ever. Nevermind the fact that if HAD been working well in 1912 (check editorial cartoons at the time if you think it was), there wouldn't have ever been massive public support to change it.

Again, I trust the INDIVIDUAL to make decisions in life, NOT big government. You can trust big government to pick your Senators for you but I suggest you check your local state legislature you love so much if you're naive enough to think they do "what's best" for "state interests". My state legislature sure as hell could care less about serving Illinois, they only serve Chicago. The founders in preindustrial society c. 1780s could have never envisioned gerrymandered state legislators and megapolis centers having undue influence over an entire state, so they wrote up a section of the constitution intended to make it easier to convince a Senate from the 13 states without having to go through (what was then) an extremely complex and time consuming process of holding 26 statewide elections and counting votes by hand. "The founders" also "envisioned" a country where only white male property owners could vote and the second place Presidentical candidate becomes vice President (which means we'd have Vice President John Kerry right now if we return to the electoral system "the founders" wanted), but fortunately some people along the line changed that.

That's why we have constitutional amendments, what worked in 1789 isn't necessarily the best system for 2008.

[Jacquerie]

I don't give a rip about the German and Brit houses, they are meaningless as applied to the American experience. Thus, the ENTIRE premise of your argument is MISERABLY false. That an upper house doesn't work is FALSE as it worked well in the US for almost 150 years.

The states created the federal government. The founders rightly found, after long debate that the states should have a say. As for corruption in IL or LA, that is their problem, to be handled within the state, as Gov Jindal of LA is doing as we speak.

I say democracy is not a good idea. Two legislative houses selected by the mob is a bad idea, just as popular election of the President is. Had appointment of Senators been left to the states, we would not have big GOVERNMENT.

[Non-Sequitur]

It’s as tho those women didn’t exist at all.

How many primaries did Dole win? Shroeder? And how many did Clinton win?

When it comes to serious female presidential candidates then no. They didn't exist.

[Squantos]

Carol or the Hildebeasts efforts weren’t first’s nor did they crack any glass ceilings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_United_States_presidential_and_vice-presidential_candidates

Stay safe !