Dannon's Journal: Race and gender (and stupid news media)

Okay, first annoying thing: Thursday's front-page in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. The online version of the article has a different headline, but the Best of the Web has a photo of the dead tree version.

"Should I Vote for OBAMA Because of My RACE? . . . or Vote for CLINTON Because of My GENDER?"

The article is about the Young Democrats of Spelman College.

And this morning, found from Drudge: An Alabama County Commissioner (who is apparently black, guessing from the context of the article) is voicing support for Hillary "mainly because she's white", and he thinks a black man can't win in this country.

Okay, second beef first. So maybe a black man can't win in this country. My glass-is-half-full self would like to think that maybe that's not the case these days. And even if it is the case, he still deserves support, if he is the best candidate for the job. Not based on whether or not he can win, but based on his personal qualification, and that's it. It's the same argument that keeps us in this two-party trap. "Because this guy can't win, I won't support him." Well, yeah, if you never support him, you're right, he'll never win. Self-fulfilling prophecies are great, aren't they?

Now, back to that Spelman thing. My wife is a Spelman grad. And she's not inclined to vote for either of them. She says it would be fantastic if a woman or a black person got to be President in this country, but only if they were qualified. If they got into office and made a mess of things, it would do more damage to women and black folks who maybe are qualified.

And notice: Neither one of those articles said anything about Hillary or Obama other than "he's black" and "she's a woman, but white". Nothing on the issues. Nothing on the qualifications, experience, or skeletons in the closet. Nothing useful. As if their physical qualities were the only thing useful in a decision to vote.

If I declared, in the media, that I was only going to vote for pale-skinned, blond-haired, blue-eyed men, because I'm a pale-skinned, blond-haired, blue-eyed man, can you guess what I would be called?

Outward appearance is critical apparently

[nizo]

Qualifications, not so much. Bizarre.

Some have said this is one of the reasons Richardson isn't doing so well (the guy is a little heavy). Qualification-wise, he is more than qualified in my opinion (he certainly has better negotiating skills that any of them, though I think Obama ranks up there too). And right now, this country needs a president with the ability to negotiate. Side note: nice bumpersticker I saw recently: "Yehaw!!" is not a foreign policy.

All that said, I would love to see an Obama/Richards

Logically extended

[tqft]

Does that mean Condolezza Rice running should be a shoe in?

I am sane for even suggesting it?

Re:

[ncc74656]

Does that mean Condolezza Rice running should be a shoe in?

I can see the libs' heads asploding from the cognitive dissonance that would bring about. :-)