Please don't tell me that race and gender "shouldn't matter." The fact is, they do.

[pnwmom]

They have ALWAYS mattered -- the unwritten but unbroken rule has been that only a white non-Hispanic male could be President. Or even Vice-President.

Women weren’t even given the vote across the U.S. until 1920 – less than 100 years ago. And today women comprise only 16 of the 100 members of the U.S. Senate, less than a fifth of the House, and only one of the nine members of the Supreme Court.

Never, in the history of the U.S., have we ever had more than two women on the Supreme Court or a single woman or non-white man EVER in the White House, as President or Vice President.

We’re not so enlightened, so tolerant, that we’re beyond issues of race and gender. So let’s not pretend that we are.

If either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama is elected, we will have taken a major step forward as a nation.

[Zenlitened]

1. K&R

[nickgutierrez]

2. Unfortunately, I have to agree.

However - the very fact that a woman can be the candidate to beat, and the #2 candidate a black man, is a small step forward. We're not there yet, but we see there's a problem and I think we are taking steps as a nation to address it.

[Grandrose]

3. I agree....however

We need to bump it up with the two-step, the catastrophic mess the Bush/Cheney cabal has saddled this nation with...time seems problematic!

If we are attacked again or blunder into war with Iran, woman or black man will be pushed back quicker than you can say....national security!:)

[Chulanowa]

36. Where aren't we, yet?

When we elect our first female or non-white president... then what? Where exactly are we supposed to be that having Obama or Hillary as president will get us?

The way I figure, it'll just get us an extension of what we already have - tokenization.

[Sparkly]

37. It'll get us indisputable examples of several things that too many people still doubt.

It'll SHOW people that non-whites and women can be capable leaders, AND that they can get elected.

It'll show children of all colors and genders that when grownups say, "You can be anything you want to," it actually does include President of the United States.

It'll present role-models. It'll set precedent. It'll disprove the notion that women are too "emotional" to be trusted with power. It'll signal the world that we've evolved, at least in some regard. And I trust that Obama or Clinton would champion policies that promote fairness and justice for all.

I don't see any of these things as "tokenization." A "token" doesn't have real power. The POTUS does.

[Chulanowa]

61. I hadn't looked at it that way, thanks! (nt)

[Grandrose]

43. Not a token.....

Token Meaning and Definition. (n.) Something given or shown as a symbol ...

You need actual votes to become president and presiding over the most powerful country will not be given to anyone, lest of all...woman or minority.:)

[pnwmom]

64. If Obama or Clinton is elected, we will have moved beyond

the unwritten law that for more than 200 years has limited the Presidency and Vice-Presidency to white males.

And we have to have our first before we can ever move beyond the issue of "tokenization."

[Captain Hilts]

39. I really like Richardson. He was my top guy for a while...

but he's not been a good candidate.

[Grandrose]

41. I am sorry...no disrespect to Richardson was intended.

I should have said multi-culture, rather than black man, that would be more inclusive.
Thanks for the reminder!:)

[NMMNG]

4. I love the idea of a female president, a black president,

a gay, Hispanic, atheist or whatever president.

But if the person is not right for the job then they'll only make matters worse. Electing someone just to make a statement is the wrong thing to do.

[pnwmom]

12. The opponent will be Ghouli, Freddie, Mitt, or McCain.

NONE of our candidates are capable of doing a worse job than that crew.

[hijinx87]

24. mccain and romney have no chance

their numbers have tanked. the opponent will be either
fred or rudy.

and I think either hillary or obama could probably take
either one of them.

[sufrommich]

5. I so agree and this is what gets me about

people ragging on H. Clinton for speaking about gender or Obama speaking about race in politics. Does nobody understand the historical chasm that has already been successfully crossed by having these two as our frontrunners?It would be odd for both race and gender issues to not be discussed in this election . It's being talked about privately by people across this country,and positively too,I might add.Why do so many have an issue with it being addressed by the candidates? Race and gender will only stop being a presidential political issue when we stop electing white men exclusively.

[pnwmom]

13. I think the people that raise this issue tend to be ones favoring other candidates.

But I like them all, and I don't have a problem with HRC or Obama or Richardson, for that matter, trying to build on what should be a strength -- but in much of their lives has been a disadvantage.

[rucky]

6. No doubt about it.

This is (one of the few reasons) why I'll support Hillary if she were the nominee.

We need re-distribution of wealth before we get a re-distribution of power. The rich white guys who created the game of checkbook democracy have made that extremely difficult to achieve.

[mondo joe]

7. Funniest thing I've seen on DU in many months is the sudden shift in opinion that race and gender

suddenly don't matter - well, for Hillary anyway.

[beaconess]

8. Sudden shift?

Where've you been? Race and gender DO matter and they always have - in the real world and right here on DU. It only seems to be that when a woman or a minority raises it as a positive factor - usually to counter the grossly negative implications everyone has grown so used to hearing and repeating that they often don't even realize they're buying into it (e.g., "can a woman be an effective commander-in-chief?" "is America ready for a black president?") - that some people start insisting that they DON'T matter.

[Zenlitened]

9. I think that's what Mondo Joe was saying...

I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I read his post as expressing sentiment similar to what you summed up so powerfully:

It only seems to be that when a woman or a minority raises it as a positive factor... that some people start insisting that they DON'T matter.

:toast:

Ain't life grand? The oh-so-very conveeeeeenient "Principled Purity" :eyes: that seems to crop up every time women, people of color, GLBT folks, etc. step forward to claim a little power. And cite their life experiences while doing so. Good heavens! ***swoon***

:D

[pnwmom]

10. Exactly, beaconess. Except that I think this is also what mondo joe was saying.

For most of her life, Hillary's gender has been used against her in various situations. Same with Obama, and his race.

But now that HRC's trying to use it as a positive factor, she's accused of "playing the gender card." Even by Obama.

If Obama is the nominee, I hope he'll do the same thing HRC is doing -- using his difference as a positive, not a negative (or even invisible), characteristic. And I won't consider that to be "playing the race card."

[Sparkly]

15. I agree with you and beaconess 100%.

I had some thoughts about that early in the Summer fwiw:
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Sparkly/58

But recently, it's become clearer to me from the rightwing-echoing posts on this "liberal" board, and from debating it. The "gender card" and the "race card" can only be played from ONE side. But there are whole decks of other cards that are played and accepted without a second glance. (Male, southern, Christian, tall, white, etc. etc.)

Speaking of rightwing echoing, check out Media Matters if you haven't. Which side of the debate is too much of DU espousing?

http://www.mediamatters.org/items/200711020002?f=h_latest
http://www.mediamatters.org/items/200711020012?f=h_top

[pnwmom]

19. You're right. Much of DU is parroting the arguments of Tucker and Tweety.

Can you believe Carlson comparing HRC to Lorena Bobbit -- and saying he felt he had to close his legs when he was near her? What a creep.

Oddly enough, I found myself appreciating Pat Buchanan's comments. As right-wing as he is, I don't think he's the utter slime that some of the others are.

I agree with your essay, Sparkly. And isn't it ironic that many of the same people who say the country isn't "ready" for a white woman or black man as President -- meaning that being white and male should be an essential qualifier -- are now saying that, in the case of HRC or Obama, THEIR gender or race shouldn't matter.

[Sparkly]

20. Exactly!

It only matters when and how *they* say it matters. And, it's a whole different set of "matters" when it's about people who've traditionally been discriminated against and/or less empowered. It's incredible to see such hypocrisy here of all places!

I think Craig Crawford has been sane and objective in his commentary, also.

[beaconess]

58. You all are dead on!

And, sorry Mondo Joe - I realize that you weren't saying what I thought you were saying.

It's nice to see some DUers who actually get it. It gets pretty lonely around here sometimes!

[Andromeda]

63. Craig Crawford has been right on

in his commentary! He's expressed wisdom whereas some of the others like Tweety, Tucker, and other talking heads have shown themselves to be two-faced hypocrites.

Barriers in Washington, D.C. do exist and the good-old-boy network is alive and well.

[ginchinchili]

11. ONLY if they're the best candidate.

We always take a step back if we elect someone who is not the most qualified candidate. No one should vote for Clinton or Obama simply because of their gender or race.

[pnwmom]

14. What's wrong with it being one of the factors?

We've always in the past made race or gender an excluding factor. We can't say we're beyond caring about race or gender until we've actually achieved the goal.

[ginchinchili]

18. Yes, but you don't achieve that goal by electing someone not fully qualified

to the presidency. That would surely backfire. I find your argument insulting to women and non-Caucasian races, as if they can't be the most qualified person available. They both can be and will be. I believe that if Obama proves his medal, stays smart and gets more experience, he'll be president some day. Problem right now is that he doesn't have enough experience and the Republicans will remind Americans during every day of the election that A.) we are currently at war, B.) the terrorists are still a threat to our national security, and C.) Obama has zero foreign policy experience. It would work and the Republicans would be right back into the White House. But my liking Obama is not because he's black or despite being black. I like him for the man he is. If he was white or fuchsia I wouldn't care. Hillary has a lot going for her, but I don't support her presidency, and it has nothing to do with her gender. That's exactly the kind of attitude I think we need to be getting away from, or it simply never ends.

[Sparkly]

21. But if others believe they are qualified, what then?

Is it wrong somehow for them to factor race or gender in their decision?

[pnwmom]

22. All of our candidates are fully qualified. Obama's experience in the Senate,

in the Illinois Congress, teaching Constitutional law and working as a community organizer all qualify him.

HRC also had a lifetime of experience before her Senate years, using her skills as a lawyer to work for the causes she cares about.

Until now, race and gender have been key to being elected President -- you had to be a white male. This may still be true. And that attitude will never end until the unbroken succession of white males in the Presidency and Vice-Presidency is FINALLY broken.

[ginchinchili]

25. The Republcians would just love to see the Democrats embrace that idea

It would be the death knell for the Democratic Party. I certainly wouldn't join the Republicans, but I couldn't identify myself with a Party that requires a race and gender based litmus test. If you want to make the Republican Party the reigning Party for the next 50 years, keep promoting your racist and sexist ideology. There's no place for it in a free society. You'd think we'd have learned that lesson by now.

[Sparkly]

28. "Racist and sexist ideology?"

The point is, racism and sexism EXIST and need to be actively addressed sometimes in some ways (whether or not you believe it's enough to sway your vote). Do you believe in affirmative action, for example?

[ginchinchili]

30. I certainly hope you're not suggesting that we apply affirmative action

in selecting our presidents.

It depends on precisely what it's applied to. In some situations yes, some no. Generally, I think economic-based help is a better approach. It disproportionately helps minorities without perpetuating racist thought. Believe it or not, there are a lot of whites who struggle too. Are you suggesting that they don't matter because of the color of their skin? Haven't we heard that before?

[Sparkly]

31. Considering gender and race in selecting our presidents has been done a long time.

Even in this race, don't think it's not a factor in selecting white Christian men.

So if someone WERE to factor gender and race in the opposite way, I wouldn't judge them. There would be a LOT of consciousness-raising to gain in finally having a minority or woman president.

(I think you've made a leap to introduce economic struggle, point out that many with economic struggles are white, and then ask whether it doesn't matter because they're white. That is three steps outside of what we're discussing here.)

[ginchinchili]

40. Yes, it has been done for a long time. Do you think that's good?

Is that the way you wish to continue?

[Sparkly]

44. No, it hasn't been.

Yes, it will continue to benefit white Christian men until that ceiling is broken.

[ginchinchili]

46. "No, it hasn't been."??? You're the one who says it has been!!! I'm agreeing with you!

You are the one who posted that race and gender has always been a factor in the elections. I say, yes it has been, then you turn right around and contradict yourself saying "No, it hasn't been". I said I agreed with you and asked you if you thought it was a good thing and you respond by just trying to throw a curve ball, but it was a bad pitch.

I don't think race and gender should be a factor and you do. We both know where each other stands. I suggest you try something my grandfather taught me a long time ago. He said when considering a problem--and this works especially well with social problems--consider it in the abstract and decide if you think it's right or wrong. Then apply it consistently that way in the real world. It helps to take the subjectivity out of deciding where you stand on issues. Helps you to decide on the basis of what is right or wrong rather than what is best for me. I recommend you try it. I've said all I'm going to say on the matter.

[Sparkly]

48. I was answering, "Do you think that's good?" "No, it hasn't been good."

I don't live in an abstract world; I live in the real one. In the abstract, race and gender should be neutral factors; in the real world, they are not neutral factors at all.

[ginchinchili]

50. As I said, you support racism and sexism when it works for you.

I don't support it under any circumstance.

[Sparkly]

52. Oh that's right -- "reverse racism" and "reverse sexism"

in understanding how and why people might choose to support women and non-whites, as opposed to deny rights to white men. Is that the same thing? Are you afraid of white men being discriminated against, treated unfairly, and perhaps becoming oppressed if people choose to support non-whites and women?

[pnwmom]

54. You don't seem to have any problem with an endless procession

of white males in the Presidency, as long as we all pay proper lip service to the importance of gender and race equality.

[pnwmom]

49. As long as we only have white and male Presidents it will continue.

You seem to think that even though we have never reached the point of gender and race parity, we can leap over it. By your reasoning, we could keep having white male Presidents for another couple hundred years, and that would be fine because race and gender shouldn't matter.

But they do, and they always have. And we can't get beyond issues of gender and race until we have breached the barrior to women and African Americans that has always existed.

[iverglas]

42. I certainly support affirmative action

As a matter of fact, it's constitutionally permitted in Canada, and I support that (see below).

There are different considerations in different applications of affirmative action, however.

This site addresses different forms of affirmative action:
http://www.understandingprejudice.org/readroom/articles/affirm.htm
and it might be said that the one sometimes argued in favour of political candidates who are people of colour or women is:

Selection among comparable candidates.
A somewhat stronger form occurs when female or minority candidates are roughly comparable to other candidates (e.g., their college entrance scores are lower, but not by a significant amount). The logic here is similar to the logic of selecting among equally qualified candidates; all that is needed is an understanding that, for example, predictions based on an SAT score of 620 are virtually indistinguishable from predictions based on an SAT score of 630.

It isn't quite the same as an "all other things being equal" selection of the woman/minority candidate, who should be chosen to redress historical disadvantage / reflect the population and promote future opportunity.

An SAT score differential of 10 points is unlikely to make any difference to academic success. And the difference between 5 years' experience and 10 years' experience is not likely going to be relevant for a large number of jobs, particularly if the job could be done perfectly well by someone with two years' experience, for instance. The most qualified person is simply not always needed for the job.

That isn't the case with the job of President of the US, really. Seemingly small differences could have large effects. It would seem wise to look for the most qualified person. And I would say that class and sex and race/ethnicity/cultural group do need to be factored into qualifications, since being qualified to lead 300 million people and have an enormous influence on the world as a whole does involve having the ability to understand the problems of disadvantaged groups and a desire to do something about them. Rich white men lose a little, and women and African-Americans gain a little -- so long as the woman and the African-American man in question aren't standard-bearers for rich white men's issues, and the rich white man doesn't come with a proven history of action on behalf of disadvantaged groups, anyway. Even then, the factor of reflecting the population / promoting future opportunities is something to be considered.

"Qualified" is, of course, a matter of opinion. Everyone will factor in whatever s/he thinks is relevant: years of experience, kind of experience, dedication to particular policies, place where the heart seems to be.

If Clinton weren't as obviously right-wing as she is, and if Obama's relevant experience weren't as obviously minimal as it is, I (irrelevant as I am, as a non-voter in US elections) would give them points for being a woman and an African-American that might outweigh some factor on which they were slightly less attractive than the white male candidates.

But having a woman or African-American as president, for all the good it would do, in the US and in the world, would not help if she is going to perpetuate imperialist policies and he is going to be ineffective.


______________

Just for interest -- from the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the Canadian constitution:

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

[Sparkly]

45. I don't disagree with anything you've said.

Thanks for a thoughtful and informative post!

[pnwmom]

47. Both parties have always required a race and gender litmus test: white and male.

I'm not suggesting a litmus test. I'm saying that it will be a major step forward when the litmus test that has ALWAYS existed is finally destroyed.

And we won't know that has happened until a woman or an African American is finally elected.

[beaconess]

60. To some people, elimination of the litmus test = discrimination

in other words, it's perfectly fine for white men to have the whole pie to themselves, but if they have to share the pie with anyone else, it's somehow unfair to white men (despite the fact that, even though they now are expected to share their pie, they STILL have a significant portion of the pie to themselves).

[fishwax]

65. what a crock

keep promoting your racist and sexist ideology
:eyes:

None of the top democratic candidates are unqualified to be president.

[beaconess]

59. Of course - we've ALWAYS elected the most qualified white people to be president

Until Obama and Hillary came on the scene, politics was a pure meritocracy and white men had to compete fair and square, with no advantages, no privileges and only the most qualified was ever elected.

Oh, wait a minute . . .

:sarcasm:

[Sparkly]

62. Those 43 white males in a row?

Purely coincidental. :sarcasm:

[beaconess]

70. Yes - they were all the clearly the most qualified people for the jobs

And now that a woman and a black man are knocking on the door, it's a sign that our standards are slipping and, if one of htem is elected, it's because "affirmative action" caused the election of a president who is not THE most qualified person for the job!

Horrors!!!

[Captain Hilts]

16. Height matters. Being overweight matters. A lot of those things matter. nt

[mzmolly]

27. That's far from the point,

sorry.

[Captain Hilts]

38. No, it's not.

Who here has done focus groups for presidential candidates?

I have! I have!!

[mzmolly]

55. The OP is not about focus groups.

:hi: I'm certain you could add baldness and bad breath to your list, but again - the point of the OP would be lost in your superficial distractions.

[BootinUp]

17. I will tell you!

you're absolutely correct.

[pnwmom]

23. LOL. You got me! n/t

[Stinky The Clown]

26. If either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama is elected, I shall be celebrating them for what they are

... a black man or a woman. If either makes it to the pinnacle of American power, I shall be happily celebrating their 'firstness'.

My song of the night will be my new composition "It's About Damned Time!"

[Sparkly]

29. Are you threatening to sing?!?

Oh noooo..... :yoiks:

[Stinky The Clown]

35. .

.

[baldguy]

32. They SHOULD matter.

The majority of Americans are female. Within 10-20 yrs, the majority of Americans will not be white. Why should our leaders be selected from only the favored 25% of the population that are white males?

[The River]

33. The GOP WIll Make Race / Gender

the main issue if either Hillary or Obama is the nominee.
What other issue can they run on?
It will be very subtle prior to the election.
It won't be covered by the MSM as a "reality" until after the election
when they drag it out as the reason why the electronic vote totals,
contrary to all the polls, didn't add up to a Democratic victory:
"To many Independent and conservative Democratic voters just
could not vote for someone different".

Remember, these are desperate Republicans we are dealing with.
What other hope do they have other than vote theft and a
plausible cover story?

[pnwmom]

51. So that will always be the argument for maintaining the safe status quo --

the country isn't "ready" for it. Let's pander to the lowest common denominator and keep the racial/gender litmus test in place.

[The River]

71. Did I Not Say

That this is all the REPUBLICANS have to run on?
I'm not inventing their strategery, just anticipating it.
What do you think they won't stoop to?

[robcon]

34. Those who say "Don't tell me..." give themselves away.

Closed mind - not worth arguing with.

[pnwmom]

53. Funny, it's never stopped anyone before. n/t

[mzmolly]

56. Indeed they do matter

pnwmom. Thanks for making me feel "good" about the two front runners, if they win an election - indeed it will be a victory. One can only hope that such a victory will be a victory for progressives as well. :hi:

[calteacherguy]

57. You make a point that cannot be denied. nt

[dugggy]

66. Why not elect the MOST QUALIFIED regardless of gender or race

Besides, Israel (Golda Meir), India (Indira Gandhi), UK (Margaret Thatcher), Philipines,
Germany, Canada etc have all ALREADY HAD A WOMAN HEAD OF STATE. We are way behind when it
comes to women.

[fishwax]

67. "most qualified" is so subjective as to be pretty much meaningless

on anything but a fairly personal scale. what counts as qualified or as a qualification? Clearly it's not just political/administrative experience, but also includes things like ideology, personal perspective, etc., which might differ for different voters ...

[dugggy]

68. What? You don't think qualifications matter? Or..

qualifications are difficult to gage? Here are some of my requirements:

1. Executive experience which means making single handed decisions, balancing budgets
2. Excellent familiarity with world geopolitics. Very critical in today's fluid situation.
3. Proven honesty & Integrity.
4. Likeability, trustworthiness.

[fishwax]

69. It's not that I think qualifications don't matter, it's just that

not everyone's list of qualifications will be the same as yours.