Do y'all realize how much the Joe Biden "frontrunner" talk smacks of white male entitlement?
Not only is it premature to be labeling a frontrunner this early in the game before anyone has even gotten in the race, but I seem to recall lots of griping about Hillary Clinton expecting a "coronation" even when she was in the race fighting like hell to win the nomination.
Moreover, many of the reasons given for Biden's supposed superiority over any other possible candidate are the same reasons used to diminish Hillary Clinton - his experience (her experience made her too establishment), longevity (she'd been around too long), political acumen (her acumen meant she was calculating), toughness (she was harsh), spontaneity (WHY did she SAY that? NOT HELPFUL, Hillary!), etc.
This can't be viewed in a vacuum, but must be considered in historical and social context. White men have historically been a given credit for things that minorities and women are not credited for; in fact those same attributes we laud white men for are usually seen as deficits in women and minorities. And often they get spotted extra points for just being the white guy (couched in other, more innocuous gems like, "he's so competent!" and my favorite "he just a regular guy."
Joe Biden could be a great candidate. But so could Eric Holder and Elizabeth Warren and Cory Booker and Kirsten Gillibrand and Kamala Harris and Deval Patrick. Let's not ignore them, put them at the back of the line or make them play catch up because we've decided to give Joe Biden the white guy head start.
I'm urging my fellow Democrats to take a close look and think about whether privilege is coming into play and helping to shape some of your opinions about this race. Be clear, I'm not calling you a racist or sexist nor do I assume you are. But we all have biases (I know I do) and unless we are willing to look at them, recognize and try to overcome them, we're not going to make any progress.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Their preference for Joe Biden says more about what they think 2016 voters wanted, than it does about themselves
I want a perfect candidate too. I'd LOVE 
to see more women & POC in highest offices. But more than all of that, I want to win.
And the minorities and women need to sit it out until the next "open" presidential race?
White guys lose to incumbents all the time.
The incumbency argument doesn't even make any sense.
I haven't heard that he is, but maybe he's keeping quiet while he explores the possibilities.
Speaking for myself, I'm totally committed to getting a Democrat into the White House. I'll back our Dem candidate no matter what. But it's maybe too soon to tell who's interested in going in next time. I'd rather focus on the Midterms, which is urgently needed right now. If Holder is planning on a 2020 run, we'll see him helping other candidates get elected this year. (Same with Kamala Harris and the others.)
Can anyone imagine a black candidate running for president in disheveled suits, unkempt hair, speaking loud and stridently - and being taken seriously?
No? Well, picture Cornel West on the campaign trail and consider how well he'd be received by the same people who think that Bernie Sanders*** is a breath of fresh air.
Your point about "coloring within the lines" is spot on perfect. Unlike white men, women and minorities have to consistently prove that they're NOT out of the mainstream and that they are part of and comfortable in the establishment. But when they do - as Hillary found - they are attacked precisely because they have finally clawed their way into the establishment.
Again, think of how well a female Bernie Sanders - a 70-something, curmudgeonly politician claiming to be an outsider, railing against "insiders," and "the status quo," on her second marriage with a child out of wedlock, no less - would have done. Hillary Clinton spent the first part of her career fighting back charges that she was too non-traditional (what with the wanting a legal career instead of staying at home baking cookies and that whole keeping her maiden name thing). Barack Obama had to be damned near - not even damned near, actually - perfect in every way and he STILL caught hell from every direction with GOP calling him everything but a child of God and Democrats accusing him of being to careful and cautious.
So glad you posted this - you nailed it!
*** Please don't start with any "Why are you attacking Bernie Sanders" posts - this is not a criticism of Sanders, just an illustration of the double standard and privilege that comes with being a white male. And I can't believe I even have to say this, but you know I do ...
he could take positions, even make gaffes, that would have really hurt someone without his charisma. I mean it's sad to say, but that ineffable thing of charisma is kind of like being tall in the NBA or big and strong playing football. You only have one candidate a generation come along like that. And his message was simple and consistent, as was Trump's. Very simple - 'hope and change' and consistent. Trump's 'MAGA' worked; you could put it on a T-shirt or even a hat.
Hillary was/is a policy wonk, with immense credibility and deep knowledge, but - and this ties in to what we need in '20 - never seemed to ENJOY the rumble of a political campaign; she eviscerated Trump in the debates on every single point, every time. I kind of fear that Holder might fall into that category - bright as hell but can he keep it *simple* and catchy? Lots of very smart people have lost throughout history.
A candidate just simply can't count on the support Obama had even with the exact same positions and experience; sad to say marketing is a big part of the game 
...or criticize his suits.
Because it's not only white Democrats who are influenced by what I see as a frame based on bias.
Also, I don't assume that the views of white Democrats are necessarily born out of white privilege. My point is that white privilege often frames the presentation of the "facts" that shape those opinion and it often provide the cover and comfort to not see the bias.
For example, I don't think that every white person who thinks that Biden's experience makes him a better candidate for president since I don't think all white people make every decision based on their privilege. I do, however, believe that the frame they've been presented externally is shaped by a narrative that is based on biases and privilege. So when cable tv commentators push Biden as the frontrunner, telling us how wonderful he is, how he has so many great attributes that have earned him a place at the very top of the pyramid - when they have used similar attributes to beat up on women candidates and they don't even consider the potential of minority candidates - that influences thinking, even among the most astute observers.
As for your question about white privilege in general, privilege is not the same as bias or racism. Not even close. Privilege is the advantage that being white or male confers on white folk and men that minorities just don't enjoy. That privilege/advantage is not asked for, it's not your fault, it doesn't mean you are a bad person or don't like black people or think women are inferior, or don't want everyone to have the same rights.
Privilege is the fact that you are more likely than I am to be able to get a cab on on any city street in American. Privilege is not having to hold your breath every time you hear about a shooting or bombing, praying that the perpetrator isn't someone who looks like you since white people don't have to live with collective guilt. Privilege is going through your work day not having to read every word, every gesture and make instantaneous decisions about what they mean and how to respond or not respond - and then be criticized or end up kicking yourself because you may have made the wrong choice
I'll give you an example. Remember during the debates when Trump stalked Hillary around the stage? In her book, she talked about how she ran through all of the possible responses - she could either ignore him, stay focused on what she was saying or she could turn around and tell him, "back off, you creep!" In the end, she decided to ignore him. And then she was criticized mercilessly as weak for not confronting him. But, of course, had she done that, she would have been criticized for letting him get to her, allowing herself to be pulled off focus, overreacting, etc.
When I read this in her book, I actually started to cry because I knew she was feeling exactly what I and many women and minorities go through every day of our lives - only she had to do it on national television and had so much riding on it. When confronted with various micro-aggressions that come up constantly in meetings, in conversations, in other interactions, we are constantly having to read everything in the room, weigh the situation, consider our options and the ramifications ("If I say something and push back, will I be seen as over-reacting, race-baiting, playing the gender-card? But if don't say anything is it going to keep happening, am I allowing myself to be abused, and will I be a sellout and make it harder for everyone else in my position" - all while continuing to think and talk and keep our wits about us.
Hillary had to stand on a national stage while her ignorant thug of an opponent - an unqualified, boorish ass who should never have ever been allowed anywhere near her orbit - lurked behind her in a threatening way and not only speak intelligently and coherently and calmly, but also run through a series of calculations and predictions, knowing that whatever she did would be criticized and run the possibility of letting down millions of other women. In her book, she said that she probably should have said something - in other words, a year later, she was still second-guessing herself. Something white men rarely, if ever have to do.
This, on a smaller, less visible scale, is what women and minorities have to do every day. Most men and most whites never have to do this - at least not on such a consistent basis that it just becomes like the extra job we have to go to every day while doing our regular job. And when we DO say something, WE are accused of playing the gender card or "making it all about race." And, of course, of being racist or sexist ourselves since somehow pointing out racism or sexism is seen by some as racism and sexism itself.
I hope this is helpful in clarifying my point.
And apology accepted.
And we all know where that got him don't we.
There you go playing the gender card. You must be a sexist.
based on his white male privilege?
the polling for 2020 is pretty sparse and there aren't any declared candidates yet. Biden has an exploratory committee so he's always in those polls and as a consequence he's the "frontrunner". Get the media to include Kamala Harris and Castro and Gillibrand, etc in their polls and maybe we will see a more rounded calculus.
