Can we call this "electability" nonsense the code word that it is?

[Chovexani]

"Electability" = "a n****r can't win and neither can a b***h"

This shit is beyond tired. I don't support Obama or HRC because I don't agree with their positions on the issues, lest someone accuse me of shilling for a candidate. This is about something bigger than a particular candidate, and I wish the people who keep posting this bullshit in the name of bashing a candidate in favor of theirs would understand this. This is about shameful bigotry hiding behind a code word, and I'm more than little tired of hearing that someone who looks like me will never be in charge. Yes, America is racist and sexist. Anyone with a functioning pair of eyes or ears (or the ability to read braille!) and who has been here longer than five minutes understands this. The proof is in the constant barrage of articles asserting a black or a woman won't ever be elected. This analysis is not particularly new or enlightening. It brings absolutely nothing of substance to the table. All it does is reinforce how fucked up this country is, and I question the motives of the people writing these articles and the people who continually post them. It's this attitude that ensures that things will never change. If we shrug our shoulders in apathy nothing will ever change.

And before some racist asshole screams "are you calling for affirmative action for president", I'm not (putting aside the fact that rich white men have enjoyed affirmative action in politics from the nation's inception). Like I said, I can't stand Obama OR HRC and I wish we had better standard bearers for the first black and first woman candidates who really have a shot at winning. But to deny them the chance to go for the gold because people are racist is in and of itself racist, not to mention engaging in the politics of low expectations. Have y'all seen the Repuke field? You won't find a more cynical person than me, and I generally believe the American people to be the most prejudiced, simple minded, hateful and fear-driven collection of humans on this planet. But I don't think even they would go for another 4 years of Bush Republicanism. I truly believe that, BBV aside, we could run a ham sandwich against any one of the Grand Oil Party candidates and win handily.

How we discuss things is extremely important. Hell, I happen to think the process is ultimately more important than the result, because elections only happen every 2 and 4 years. This, incidentally, is why so many GLBT DUers are unwilling to "let go" of the McChickenhead issue. The way it was cynically exploited by some of the rabid Hillary koolaid drinkers, the way the Obama fanboys/fangirls were dismissing any criticism of their beloved candidate--you were treating it like it was on par with any of the myriad bullshit "issues" in this campaign, like Edwards haircut or some crap.

People, please think about what you're typing in the name of your candidate. For many of you, racism, sexism and homophobia are abstract issues that you don't really have to confront on a daily basis, but for some of us they represent daily realities. Please don't be part of the problem in the name of pumping up someone for President.

[Mythsaje]

1. It should be about the issues first.

Sidestepping them to focus on personal details strikes me as a deliberate attempt to obfuscate, or, at best, evidence of a lack of concrete awareness about what's facing us as a nation and as a species.

Of course, that's just me.

[Chovexani]

2. "People won't vote for a ______"

"black/woman/New Englander/whatever" smells like desperation and is the last refuge of the coward IMO.

It also contributes to the problem, ironically. I completely agree with you, too.

[demnan]

3. I remember the first black governor

whom I voted for and he won in Virginia, of all places. I also know Virginia's first female Representative, she was from my District and I campaigned for her. I really think a black or a woman could win and I agree with you, that shouldn't be an issue. I mostly have issues with the voting records of many of the candidates, especially all the ones who were in the Senate, and not just the top three.

I wish someone would discuss how a potential candidate is going to be different in the White House than their voting record in the Senate. To me that is the crucial issue.

[Chovexani]

9. Now that is something I can get behind

To tell the truth I'm not really thrilled with any of the big three, though I'm liking what Edwards is morphing into so far. When DK gets out of it I honestly don't know who I'm voting for.

[sniffa]

4. and off to the GP you go

:hi:

there's even better code words than that though.

[jus_the_facts]

5. "You won't find a more cynical person than me......

....and I generally believe the American people to be the most prejudiced, simple minded, hateful and fear-driven collection of humans on this planet."

:hi:
I believe this too and think it will be our doom...not only as Americans but as a species.

[Chovexani]

8. I think so too

I hope and pray that the hatemongering sheep will die off in favor of the sane ones, but some days I just don't know. :(

[bicentennial_baby]

6. There you go making perfect sense again...

:spank:

I agree %100. :hug:

:loveya:

[DarkTirade]

10. Yeah, I didn't think that was allowed... :P

[Chovexani]

15. I'll be waiting in the woodshed then

:D

[Andy823]

7. I agree

It should "not" be about race or gender, it should be about the issues, if the candidate has a "real" plan to make changes, and the big one for me, are they in the pockets of "corporate" America!

I want "REAL" changes, and I don't care if the person who can do that for this country is black, white, female, male, spanish, or any other race. If they have the right message, if they can show me they are going to stand up and fight for the people instead of being controled by corporate America, they will get my vote, and that's the way it should be.

[asjr]

11. What it boils down to for me

is which seal performs better. All the candidates are trained seals, some better than others. Being seals I guess they will not have a swimsuit competition. That is so yesterday. Narration is brought to us by so-called journalists and/or pundits who have their own agenda. Sometimes one seal stands out and barks louder than the others and is instantaneously cheered on by the media because he or she gives them fodder for their coverage. I am utterly disgusted and have stopped watching TV coverage. I'll just get the news from DU and HGTV.

[Chovexani]

23. Amen.

I watch the Daily Show online and check out LBN and that's it, otherwise I would be even more disgusted than I already am.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

12. I'm afraid I disagree.

The reason we have legislation against discrimination in most jobs is to protect the interests of the employee, at the expense of the interests of the employer. In most employment, obligations cut both ways - an employer owes loyalty to their employees as well as vice versa.

However, I don't think that's the case in politics at all. Politicians should be chosen purely in the interests of their constituents, without any thought about the interests of the people trying to become politicians.

Politicians are there purely to serve. They have no right to be treated fairly or humanely. A politician who can't win election, even if it's through no fault of their own, should not be selected just because it's fair to them. One obvious example is the politician whose reputation is tarnished through accusations of adultery - even though that has nothing to do with their ability to do their job, if it will render them unelectable then they should be deselected.

This is doubly true for a post as important as President of the US.


I guess what it boils down to is that I disagree with you about the process being more important than the result. If nothing else, who becomes president will have a massive effect on legislation concerning equal opportunities in employment over the next four years.

And I certainly don't think that victory is a shoo-in. With a sane electorate it would be; in America I think it's more likely than not that the Republican will win.


For what it's worth, I don't think that either women or blacks are unelectable - I think that Obama has a decent chance of winning if selected, and Hillary a non-trivial one (and that she is female is not the main reason her chance will be low). But I think that arguing to the contrary, while mistaken, is not sexist or racist.

[Chovexani]

14. Way to miss the entire point of my post

And incidentally, prove it. Why on earth are you bringing up anti-discrimination laws? WTF does that have to do with the price of tea in China? We're talking about election to a public office.

Positing that the result is more important than the process leads to the politics of the ends justify the means, which is what we're at now, and is probably a big reason why half the country has chosen to opt out altogether.

Politicians do have the right to be treated humanely and fairly, as the last time I checked they are still human beings. And what you and your ilk keep missing is that there are an awful lot of human beings on this board and in this country that look like Obama and HRC, and that every time you repeat this tired argument, you are sending a message that we are utterly irrelevant in this process and shouldn't even try.

Fuck that noise. Run bell hooks, run George Lopez, run MFing Oprah, run SOMEBODY until this country gets the hell over itself.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

18. Try actually reading my post.

I said that I *don't* think that women or blacks are unelectable to president (I do think that atheists, muslims, homosexuals and plenty of other groups who I wish weren't unelectable are), but that I don't think that those people who thing that they are are ipse facto racist or sexist, and that claiming otherwise is shooting the messenger.

"...you..."

Not me, as I clearly said.

"...are sending a message that we are utterly irrelevant in this process..."

Not true; you get to vote same as anyone else. The message being sent is that you women and blacks are discriminated against, not that they *should be* discriminated against.


There are lots of atheists, lots of Muslims, lots of homosexuals etc in America. Many of them would make very good presidents. Unlike women and blacks; membership of any one of those groups really would make someone unelectable at present. That doesn't mean they're irrelevant to the political process - they get to vote the same as anyone else. It *does* mean that I won't support giving up the only chance of preventing four more years of Republican governance in the cause of giving one of them a fair chance.

The Democrats have to choose a candidate who can win, not just a candidate who could win if things were fair.

Trading off America's future for the next four years in the cause of treating politicians humanely and fairly is not sensible.


The relevance of anti-discrimination laws is that not employing someone because their race or sex would render them totally unable to do the job would, quite properly, be illegal in most jobs, but I don't think politicians should receive the same protection.

[KamaAina]

13. The ability to read Braille!!!

:thumbsup:

The leading contender for first President who is (legally) blind would appear to be NY Lt. Gov. David Paterson (who was my state senator when I lived in uptown Manhattan).

http://www.ny.gov/governor/index-ltgov.html

http://www.ny.gov/governor/ltgov/bio/index.html

(He's African American, too!)

[IndianaJones]

16. thats a hard one for me. but I love your bluntness. nt.

[Freddie Stubbs]

17. Two white guys who are running are the most unelectable:

Gravel and Kucinich.

[Blue-Jay]

19. Correct.

:thumbsup:

[AspenRose]

20. Word

"For many of you, racism, sexism and homophobia are abstract issues that you don't really have to confront on a daily basis, but for some of us they represent daily realities."


No lie.

[info being]

21. Too bad it isn't that simple

If the candidates were similar on the issues, I'd have to agree. But they aren't and I don't.

[Chovexani]

22. No, it really is that simple

Either you are part of the problem or you're part of the solution. Either we discuss these candidates on their merits and stances on the issues, or we contribute to the very atmosphere the naysayers are supposedly decrying.