A member of JU posted an article a while back about what it would take to put forth a genuine candidate for the Presidency. Or, if in fact, could it be done. I believe it could, with certain criteria.
Notoriety: The candidate, while not being a household name, must have done something beneficially significant in the past such that a large number of people know about it and could convert others to liking the individual by passing on the information. Notice I did not say vote for, just like. “Vote for” is what the campaign is for.
Money: The candidate should be well heeled. Not enormously rich, but they must have a significant amount of capital on hand. It is assumed that the notoriety will aid in the securing of public monetary support.
Message: Something different, but still within the realm of the mainstream. The populous may want something different but will not give up the comfort of what is recognizable. The message cannot attack any group or business concern. The “restructuring of the Mega-Corps” is not going to happen. You can scream David and Goliath all you want, and say “Power to the People” from the rooftops, the fact is that legally the corporation is a people, and they are not going away. It may be unfair. Life’s unfair. Get over it.
Gender: Probably male. Yes, women are equal and have done great things for society; it took you how long to get the vote? While it could be possible to put a woman on the ballot I don’t think would play well.
Race: While there are still biased elements on the land, I do not know if this is an issue. While I do not think that most people would vote for Al Sharpton, and maybe it is naïve of me, but I think people would vote for Colin Powell. He is a soldier, commander, statesman and he survived the UN “evidence” presentation unscathed. He won’t abandon Bush though; either out of respect for his father or Powell’s loyalty to his president and party.
Just my thoughts.
IG