Nice post. I'm with you until this point: "The next time there is a serious candidate who is African American and/or a woman, it won't even be an issue." Nice sentiment, but doubtful, in reality. As long as identity politics works as a way to fragment the electorate, then candidates will attempt to use it. I suspect this is an evolutionary process, rather than a revolutionary, abrupt change. But, again, overall, I like what you have to say here...
Posted by at February 1, 2008 09:52 AMI see all positives for Obama. If he somehow wins...good on him. If Clinton gets the nod, I see Obama becoming the voice of the Democratic party for a long time, supplanting Bill Clinton. I also see the following: Hillary wins the nomination and Obama blows her out of the water with his final address to the Convention, on national TV, leaving everyone to wonder if they got the right person.
As for Mondale and Ferraro- they were horrible candidates, period.
"The next time there is a serious candidate who is African American and/or a woman, it won't even be an issue."
It would be easier if the White House didn't have that damn bullet-proof glass ceiling.
I'm still laughing at Blitzer getting booed for trying to instigate his petty talking head-lice crap into the debate.
Posted by TIKI AL at February 1, 2008 10:14 AMIt's hard to deny this.
And it really is quite an accomplishment for Hillary, Obama and the Dem party. A sea change.
Many would have never thought to live to see this day. It's a mini-Berlin Wall Fall feeling. Sort of.
And it's being done without the feeling that we're clearly going to get thrashed, or that it was a "stunt" pulled by certain losers.
Posted by euzoius at February 1, 2008 10:29 AMThe next time there is a serious candidate who is African American and/or a woman, it won't even be an issue.
I made a similar comment to the wife last night. "One day it would be great if it was just the candidate. Gender, race, sexual orientation not even mentioned by the media. Like how the men in the republi-con party get introduced everyday by the pundits. It's not even a second thought."
Funny though, I would like to see that introduction: "Senator from Arizona... John McCain... elderly, white christian male."
Posted by Seven of Six at February 1, 2008 12:16 PMTPM has a blurb about a potential Gore endorsement..I'd forgot about old Al...I wonder what would happen with the vast Gore fan club if he was to endorse Obama? That might derail the Hillary Express overnight....but it seems he's in no hurry to do that before next Tuesday, and after that it probably won't matter. Question for the smart folks: can a person be vice president more than 2 terms?
Posted by T2 at February 1, 2008 12:20 PMI don't see it as a sea change in American politics. It is in fact a condemnation of American politics that at this point in our political evolution we have to say "Look, a black man and a woman are running for preznit! Ain't we special?" I'm not trying to denigrate their candidacies, it just points out to the world that we have much more in common with Islamic theocracies than we do with the rational principles associated with a democracy. I wish we were debating the merits of someone like Ilona Staller as a serious candidate. We'll know we've arrived when that happens.
Posted by phidipides at February 1, 2008 12:25 PMI believe constitutionally, that Bill Clinton could be elected vice president but he would be prohibited from succeeding to the presidency for any of the reasons that a vp would do so.
The 22nd Amendment doesn't even mention the office of vice president if I'm not mistaken.
Posted by snark at February 1, 2008 12:25 PMThe bottom line is that two major racist, for lack of a better term, attitudes have been been damaged here. The Dems showed that both blacks and women are as equal as the white male who dominated forever. These two racist attitudes are the two columns of the society as we know it. There are, however, less important racist attitudes that this election has not damaged. The old anti union racism and the wide spread hatred of the Clintons practiced daily and heavily by the whole political spectrum from the extreme right to the extreme left. The latter is a major factor in Hillary failing to bring her perspective across and a major boost for the Obama campaign who uses it cynically.
Posted by Koshembos at February 1, 2008 12:47 PMI'd like to respectfully argue that, in fact, at this juncture, it is not a good thing for us to "get beyond race, or gender or sexuality." I think the key thing is HOW we discuss these issues, because they definitely do matter. So, in this campaign, as in most, race and gender (and sexuality) have been played overwhelmingly as negative/divisive wedge issues. But there are important conversations to be had about the persistence of racial inequality (just take a look at any of our major cities) and gender inequality. For instance, in Omaha, Nebraska, 60% of all black kids live in poverty. In Milwaukee, Wisconsin, between 2000-2005, the rate of industrial job lose among black men exceeded that of the Great Depression. These and similar patterns are repeated across urban America. Throw in the War on Drugs and the prison industrial system, which both target poor communities of color, let alone Katrina, and we have real reason to confront race directly and constructively. Yet, this election has not (I know Edwards tried, but...) I could make a similar argument along the lines of gender and sexuality...
Look, our history is what it is. We cannot run from it, or just "get over it." (it's usually white or male people who say things like that) Rather, we need to be willing to genuinely face it and talk about it. I forget which Supreme Court justice said something to the effect that the only way to overcome race in the U.S. is for the nation to reckon with it directly. We have not. Ever.
And, finally, we have to be careful. "Colorblindness" has become a conservative trope since the civil rights era in order to avoid doing ANYTHING about the persistent legacies of inequality in our society. The goal isn't colorblindness. The goal is justice. Martin Luther King, Jr., didn't want people to ignore his race. I don't want anyone to ignore my personal experience and background. Most women I know who have been victimized by sexual violence or gender discrimination don;t want to "get over it."
Anyway, I like the sentiment and understand where people are trying to come from on it, but I think the whole "let's get over it" is a bit naive and fails to grasp the magnitude of terribleness in our collective past and in the present, too.
Posted by at February 1, 2008 12:55 PMtechnically, is a VP elected?
Posted by T2 at February 1, 2008 01:00 PM...but I think the whole "let's get over it" is a bit naive...
Who even suggested that?
Posted by snark at February 1, 2008 01:03 PMI know there has been a lot of defense for Hillary on gendered grounds, and much of it rightly so. That said, I found this article interesting. It explores the fact that many feminists are, in fact, going for Obama and suggests that this is because the Clintons have treated him like women are often treated: "patronizing him as merely a 'good speaker,' trivializing his accomplishments, minimizing the importance of his early judgment and risk-taking in opposing the war in Iraq, and using surrogates to demonize his morality."
Check it out:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ellen-bravo/why-so-many-feminists-are_b_84482.html
I'd be interested to hear what folks think.
Posted by at February 1, 2008 01:05 PMsnark. It was my paraphrase of the pervasive sentiment expressed here that candidates race, gender, sexuality, etc., be considered or "seen" in upcoming elections. Uh, that is "getting over it," I think. Anyway, how about the actual substance of the post... geesh. Why always so defensive? I'm not attacking anyone, just pointing out what I and other people of color see as an important distinction to this type of conversation. Apparently, you aren't willing to hear me.
Posted by at February 1, 2008 01:08 PMtechnically, is a VP elected?
From the 12th Amendment;
The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;
Posted by snark at February 1, 2008 01:09 PMI meant "NOT be considered or 'seen'..."
Posted by at February 1, 2008 01:12 PMIt was my paraphrase of the pervasive sentiment expressed here that candidates race, gender, sexuality, etc., be considered or "seen" in upcoming elections. Uh, that is "getting over it," I think.
You took comments in a post specifically about candidates for national office and extrapolated it into a discussion of the history of race/gender discrimination as a whole in this country. No one commenting here even remotely suggested that African Americans or women need to "get over it".
Why always so defensive?
I asked a question? You are the one being defensive.
I'm not attacking anyone, just pointing out what I and other people of color see as an important distinction to this type of conversation. Apparently, you aren't willing to hear me.
Like I said, defensive.
Posted by snark at February 1, 2008 01:14 PM"The next time there is a serious candidate who is African American and/or a woman, it won't even be an issue."
I think the only way we can make this a non-issue is if there is a Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton ticket that wins in November. Otherwise it'll be "Now, as it was back in 2008, America just isn't ready for a chick or a black dude."
Posted by w2 at February 1, 2008 01:17 PMt2,
tpm says they contacted gore and that they were told there is no plan for any endorsements before tuesday.
Posted by Turkana at February 1, 2008 01:22 PMTurkana, I agree that this has been a very historic election, and our MSM is to definitely be condemned for failing to convey that. Just one small quibble with your article. In 1984, I believe Jesse won 11 primaries/caucuses, not 2 dozen. Which, incidentally, means that Obama has not yet won anything historic, beyond being considered a serious contender.
Feminists are backing Obama because they felt she was "patronizing him as merely a 'good speaker,' trivializing his accomplishments, minimizing the importance of his early judgment and risk-taking in opposing the war in Iraq, and using surrogates to demonize his morality."
"For me and many others, the key attraction is Obama's vision that people need to be eager, desirous for and participants in the change we want to see (the very strength the Clintons either don't get or deliberately misstate)."
This sounds like a bunch of hogwash to me. Clinton disagrees with Obama on just a few issues. Their policiy differences are few. Her excuses and the excuses she gives for others for voting for Obama are really lame in my view. It sounds more like, she is an Obama supporter and she is using her status as a "feminist" to batter Clinton over the head and sway other females against her. I'm a feminist and I just haven't bought into the Clinton is a racist, lying traitor to the female persuasion argument yet.
Posted by at February 1, 2008 01:34 PMAnyway, how about the actual substance of the post... geesh.
Poor putupon Patrick! No one ever listens!
Posted by iamcoyote at February 1, 2008 01:35 PMsnark. Again, you are not addressing the substance of my post. I'm not being defensive, just trying to get you to address my post.
Posted by at February 1, 2008 01:36 PMFirst, is it that difficult to sign a name to your comments? When multiple people start commenting without a name it gets a bit tough to keep things straight.
The substance of your post? I don't really have any issue with the substance of your post other than the fact that it misconstrued what people commenting here had to say. Yes, there is massive inequality in our society and yes it needs to be discussed and yes 'colorblindness' in not the answer. But no one was denying any of that. Any self professed Progressive who did would, I think, have to question their own progressiveness.
Posted by snark at February 1, 2008 01:45 PMWhy would Gore endorse either candidate?
Posted by Judith at February 1, 2008 01:46 PMGood question Judith. I don't really see why he would. Although Obama does support liquified coal energy generation so that might tip him towards Clinton ;)
Posted by snark at February 1, 2008 01:52 PMthank you snark. So if the Electoral College elects the VP, it doesn't have to be the running mate of the elected president? It seems to mean several VP choices could be voted on and one the winner, distinct of affiliation with the presidential candidate. Is it simply custom that the VP is always the one chosen by the winning Pres candidate? because your quote sounds like there is latitude there to vote someone else in. That would be state by state, of course.
Posted by T2 at February 1, 2008 02:21 PMSo, I'm driving home early today, which means on Air America it's the Ed Schultz show, with a substitute host. He's talking about how Obama and Hillary's votes are almost exactly the same, with both receiving the same percentage rating from the ACLU. Almost immediately a caller comes on and says "Hillary is a conservative! I can't vote for her." The host agrees! They both launch into a rant about how poor ol' Ed and his sub are attacked constantly for supporting Obama over Hillary. The host whines that he only gets attack calls from Clinton supporters, none from Obama people, and concludes that Hillary supporters are over-aggressive. Then he launches into a story about how he used to work for campaigns in the '70s and he was told that the campaigns assigned people to listen to talk radio and call in to complain when their candidate was talked about unfavorably. He insinuated that all the callers that complained about his constant attacks on Hillary were from her campaign. This, in a nutshell, is the exact MO of the Obama people. It also explains why I can't listen to the Ed Schultz show. The lack of self-awareness is astounding.
Posted by iamcoyote at February 1, 2008 03:14 PMAbout the Ed Schultz show ---
I am wondering how he will be able to pivot his listeners to vote for Clinton if she were to be the nominee? Same thing with AirAmerica.
I've never been so disappointed in Democrats with a microphone in all my life.
Posted by wasab at February 1, 2008 04:00 PMI wonder that myself, wasab. There's been a lot of bridge burning going on. Hope is really not a plan!
Posted by iamcoyote at February 1, 2008 04:19 PMAfter the election, Ed Schultz will be a DJ on a cruise ship.
One of the New York Giants got busted for extreme DUI(above 1.5%) and got sent home. Role model?
Scalping tickets here is legal. $700 tickets are going for $4,000. Free trade!
Posted by TIKI AL at February 1, 2008 04:47 PMGore: If he endorses anyone, it will be lauded / reviled as a sellout for whichever candidate. I think he's going to stay out of it, as I think Edwards will too.
That said, I think that, ironically, he would endorse Hilly. Ironically because in 2000 he tried so hard to distance himself from the Clintons, and yet since then he has become such a firebrand, such a strong speaker about injustice and getting things done, that I think he will probably go for the candidate who has the better fighting skills. That would be Hillary.
But, like I said, he doesn't want to support either candidate, because it will undoubtedly be seen as him getting in the way of the other candidate. He would be villified beyond comprehension.
Posted by blogtopus at February 2, 2008 08:54 AM