Why can't race or gender be considered as positive qualifications for the presidency?

[EffieBlack]

The presidency is not a meritocracy in which we measure candidates against a set of agreed-upon objective qualifications. People vote for president for a variety of reasons and apply all manner of tests to determine who they think is the best person for the job.

While I think it is wrong to vote for or against anyone solely because of their race or gender, I think it's perfectly reasonable and fair to consider the same thing as a positive factor when weighing all of the considerations. It is particularly reasonable in the context of our history and the symbolic importance of the presidency.

This country's history of slavery, discrimination, racial degradation, Jim Crow, voting rights violations and other reprehensible practices imposed upon blacks, with the full faith and credit of the U.S. government has put a blot on this country's reputation, institution and psyche that is hard to erase. It affects us in so many areas that it are hard to calculate, both domestically and internationally. There is no doubt that the election of a black president, while it won't erase that stain, would go a long way toward sending a powerful and positive message.

Now, if the presidency were merely a functionary position, messages and symbolism would not really matter. But a significant part of the presidency IS message and symbolism. So, in my view, considering the symbolic impact the election of a particular person is a reasonable thing to do. We have done this throughout our history, so this is nothing new.

If I, as a voter, wish to consider how much it would mean to all of the black men who are struggling to avoid the cradle-to-prison pipeline, with little hope, few job prospects, poor educational opportunities, when selecting my candidate, I take into account the powerful impact seeing a black man who managed to find his way through the complicated maze to become the Leader of the Free World might have on these men who might need just a little bit more incentive to make one more try, that is perfectly reasonable.

This does not equate with voting AGAINST someone because they're white or discriminating against a white candidate.

I really don't understand why people seem so upset that race or gender may be a positive - although not the only - qualification in this context. Frankly, given the tenor of some of the discussion, I'm beginning to suspect that some of the turmoil is because some people who have always had the field to themselves and were perfectly comfortable applying subjective criteria that only white men could meet, are uncomfortable or unhappy at the possibility that a minority or a woman might benefit by the application of even one subjective criterion that a white man doesn't have.

[2rth2pwr]

1. Would you have voted for Alan Keyes or Liddy Dole?

How about Condi?

[EffieBlack]

2. Of course not - because race or gender is not my ONLY consideration

Your question helps to illustrate my point.

I didn't say that I would vote for someone just because they are black or are a female. I said that their being black or female is a reasonable consideration to weigh with all of the others.

In Dole's, Rice's and Keyes' case, the other factors would weigh so heavily against my voting for them that even if I thought their race or gender was a positive consideration, they wouldn't come even close to outweighing the other negative characteristics.

In fact, their race and gender would actually hurt them in my eyes to some degree - For example, I think Alan Keyes is a pathetic, misguided, self-hating man. I would never vote for anyone - white or black - who has the views and attitudes he holds. But the fact that he is a black man and, thus, his election would have strong symbolic meaning, I think he would be a terrible, negative role model for many in my community. His election, in my view, would send the message that if you are a confused, self-hating black man, you, too, can reach the highest heights.

Understand my point better now?

[BlueStateGirl]

3. Hillary and Barak have changed the face of American politics

forever. I have already admitted a significant reason I am inclined to support Senator Clinton is because she is a woman. I look at her and I see that now it is possible. When I was a child, it didn't seem like a possibility that we would ever have a woman president. And I know that when I look at my six year old niece, she is going to grow up in a world where it will always be possible. I imagine it is the same for African Americans. It is an emotional response. I think it is natural.

And now, we as a party, have two amazing candidates, that inspire us, and will inspire future generations. Two candidates who are shattering the notion of what is possible for woman or an African American to achieve in this country. And instead of celebrating it, some of us would rather spend our time tearing the other down.

I guess the more things change, the more things stay the same.

[MediaBabe]

7. Three cheers!

I will openly admit that I am a Clinton supporter partially because she is woman! If I were black I am certain little would deter me from voting for Obama. They are both well qualified (though Clinton much more so) and I will be proud to cast my vote either way come November. If they were not qualified or of the same political persuasion as I then nothing would cause me to vote for them. C Rice is a good example of such a person.

[TexasObserver]

4. "If I ... wish to consider how much it would mean to ... black men"

Effie, your vote is yours, and no one else's. If that is your issue, then vote it proudly. Your point is a good one, and one I've thought about a great deal.

I can also understand why there are many women in America who feel similarly about Clinton's candidacy. They want to see a woman president. I think that's why women over 60 are heavily voting Hillary.

I try not to rain on anyone's choice. It's their choice, not mine. I get to choose what to do with my vote, for my reasons. For my reasons, it's Obama. I worry about the Democratic party becoming a party that cannot win a presidential election beyond 2012. I think Obama can change that, and do more. I think the reasons you cite are sound ones.

Obama and Hillary both pass the threshold question. They're qualified to be president, whether one likes them or not.

[EffieBlack]

35. Your point about passing the threshold is a critical one

When people talk about whether someone is qualified, they're rarely actually talking about qualifications - they're really talking about various preferences, likes and dislikes that they, not the candidates, have.

Every one of the Democrats who ran for president this year was qualified - in fact highly qualified - to be president. They met the basic constitutional requirements - native-born Americans, older than 35. They also all had substantial experience in various areas that made them all likely to perform well as president.

But over and above that, we're getting into our own preferences - whether they were for or against the war, whether they are as liberal, moderate or conservative as we want them to be, etc.

Part of those subjective criteria are things that help us determine how we FEEL about them, things that determine whether we connect with them, whether this is someone we feel will make us feel good and proud and secure when they're in the White House. What part of the country they're from, their background, their economic status growing up, whether they seem like nice people, what they're spouses are like and, yes - their racial background and gender.

It is disingenuous for people to pretend as if their decisions about who they will vote for for president are based purely on "qualifications." In fact, qualifications have little to do with it since all of them have passed that test.

Thanks for making that point.

[NastyRiffraff]

5. Good, thoughtful post

We, as humans, tend to gravitate towards those who are most like us. That's perfectly normal and natural. The qualities we look for include, but are certainly not (and should not be) limited to, sex and race.

When judging whom we like or dislike, it only becomes negative when sex and/or race become the only or chief, qualities that affect our judgment. Someone who says "I would never vote for a woman (or a black)" is equal to someone else saying "I will only vote for a woman or black if that choice is available."

In the presidential race, we do have two historic candidates, because one is a woman and one is a black. Although neither is my first choice, I think that's exciting. Currently, I'm making my decision, and one factor that I do consider is the fact that like me, Hillary Clinton is a woman. Because that's not the only (or most important) factor, I'm having a hard time making up my mind.

Either way, either a woman or a black will be our Democratic nominee. The good thing is that either one will be a good president. However much I disagree with some of their policies, a good part of me will be thrilled to vote for either one in the general election.

[MediaBabe]

6. Why do you hate America?

You know you could get stoned here in the good old US of A for even mentioning gender or race. We're pretending to be color blind and all that.

My own opinion is that Obama's race and Clinton's gender are part of their qualifications. On a world view I think both of those are important and this white male thing is getting a bit tiresome for the preponderance of brown etc people on the planet who are doing just fine in their own countries, thank you.

Healing the diplomatic damage that the Bush Administration from Hell has caused is going to be very difficult. Either a black or a woman would be a very nice start.

[jackson_dem]

9. At least we now know why Edwards did so poorly

A lot of people have come out and said such things after he dropped out.

[jackson_dem]

8. Because it is racist and sexist to vote for someone based on race and sexism

I like the two step both celebrity candidate's campaigns have played all year. On the one hand they declare they are signaling a breakthrough regarding race or sex and on the other hand they implicitly, or explicitly in the case of one candidate, argue folks should vote for them because of the content of their melanin or gender. Pathetic. They should be ashamed of themselves.

[EffieBlack]

11. You apparently don't know what "racism" and "sexism" are

And you also don't seem to understand the difference between a "Keep Out" sign and a "Welcome" mat.

[jackson_dem]

12. I know what racism is very well from personal experience

And I don't like a candidate using it to his advantage instead of trying to win on the merits. Vote for who will make the best president, not based on color or gender. That is why I supported Edwards.

If Obama plays this card in the general we are done. This cute game may work at a place like DU where somehow a millionaire with the most elite education possible like Obama can be transformed into embodying the struggles of millions of ordinary folks and representing the struggle of the past 400 years but it won't fly in the real world. It will be seen for what it is and undercut one of his main arguments: his appeal the swing voters.

[EffieBlack]

13. it must have driven you crazy

to hear John Edwards say over and over again "as a Southerner, I . . ." since his being a Southerner has absolutely nothing to do with merit. Given your concern about only talking about qualifications, the fact that he did this in just about every speech must have been really irritating to you.

Did you ever let him know that he needed to stop playing the "geography card" and, instead just talk about his qualifications for the presidency?

[jackson_dem]

15. Being a Southerner deals with electability

Who was the last Democrat to win the White House who wasn't from the South?

[EffieBlack]

18. So, it would be ok for Edwards to say

"We've never elected a black person or a woman, so you need to vote for me because as a white man, I'm more electable?"

Or, on the other hand, if Obama said, "Poll after poll shows that America is ready for change and because America has never had a black president, I'd be a bigger change than anyone else, so because I'm black I'm the most electable" you'd be ok with it?

[jackson_dem]

19. No. He never did. He never played the race card unlike Hillary and Obama

And look at where it got him. :(

When is the last Democrat not from the South won the presidency? There is a reason for that.

[EffieBlack]

26. LOL - you're running around in circles.

1. You claim it's wron to consider race or gender because they have nothing to do with merit.

2. But you think that it's ok to consider that a candidate is a Southerner, even though THAT has nothing to do with merit, because it goes to electability and, since only Southerners have been elected lately.

3. Then you claim that it wouldn't be ok for a candidate to say they're white and therefore more electable, even though that goes directly to electability;

4. And then, of course, you start yelling "race card" again;

5.Now you're twisted into knots hoping someone will buy your convoluted, inconsistent but oh-so-predictable argument. I doubt that too many people do.

Your logic makes no sense, but I do give you credit for trying.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MediaBabe]

17. Southerner.

Dang, we forgot to include that on the "playing the wrong card" word list. :rofl:

[EffieBlack]

21. It's easy to forget . . .

Because if it's a card that's used only or almost excluvely for the benefit of white men, it's not CALLED a card and and if it's played by a white man, it's not "playing a card." - it's an "asset."

Only women and minorities "play cards" and only when that"card" perceived to give them an advantage that white men can't automatically enjoy.

[MediaBabe]

28. Isn't that the truth!

I tire of living in a world run by white men. But it's the only one we've got. Change. It sure is slow.

[ginchinchili]

46. What you should be saying is...

that you're tired of living in a world run by fools. Assuming it's "white men" makes you part of the problem. Consider Africa, for example. Or China. Or the Middle East. Your statement exposes a racist attitude. You really should work on that.

[ginchinchili]

40. Then you would support Hillary? Because she's a woman.

And, frankly, more experienced than Barack.

[MediaBabe]

16. "I'm black and I'm proud!"

I remember when that had a huge impact on America. It wouldn't turn me away from Obama to hear him say it now. I doubt it would lose him a single vote. And why should it? Every photo of the man shows his skin color. Is that playing the race card?

[jackson_dem]

20. Only on DU would this question be asked

If he said that, or Hillary said "I'm white and I'm proud!" their campaigns would be over in a New York minute.

Is he playing the race card? Both Hillary and Obama did in the lead up to South Carolina. They finished first and second so I guess it pays...

[MediaBabe]

22. "I am WOMAN and I"m proud"

Clinton can say that any day of the week.

Is it playing 'the gender card?' No. Every photo of her already shows her gender. Is that playing the gender card? Saying this would merely reinforce the view people already have of her good OR bad. Some folks will despise her no matter what. I'll adore her no matter what.

[jackson_dem]

24. Yes it is playing that card

And it is shameful that she has done it during this campaign. Edwards and Obama could have played the male card but chose not to.

[ginchinchili]

43. Saying that she's proud to be a woman is fine.

But saying so and then accusing Obama of being sexist if he claims to be proudly male would be hypocritical and just plain wrong. Obama often remarks that it is an historical election with a woman and an African American, but then accused Bill Clinton of playing the race card when he said the same thing. That is wrong, and Obama should be called on it.

[ginchinchili]

41. Pssst. They aren't looking for the truth.

[stillcool]

10. I think a person's total experience...

should be weighed when making a choice for any position. Race and gender can not be separated from an individual's person's experience in life, and add depth and breath to their perceptions when dealing with social issues. I think one thing this election has brought out, is that experience and leadership are not confined solely to the proximity of the higher echelons of power.

[Prefer]

14. YES, WE CAN!

[stray cat]

23. Is it then right for white and male to be worthy considerations?

[EffieBlack]

30. They always have been

and continue to be. That's another reason that the fact that a candidate is black or female is a fair consideration.

And I have no doubt that if the next four or five presidents is black - a tiny fraction of the number white presidents we've had consecutively - most of the peopke who are now screaming "Race Card! Race Card!" will INSIST that whiteness be not only a valid consideration, but a CRITICAL one.

[scheming daemons]

25. Oh... I dunno... a certain guy with the initials MLK talked about being judged...

...solely on the content of one's character.

Skin color and genitalia have no bearing on the content of a person's character. To even CONSIDER them as an issue... even if only 10% of the decision... is to be a sexist or racist.

CONTENT OF CHARACTER is all that matters.... and that's all that SHOULD matter. That's what Dr. King was trying to teach us.

If you take into consideration a person's race or gender when you vote, then you are a sexist or racist. It's just a matter of to what degree.

It should be of no consideration at all... either positive OR negative.

[EffieBlack]

29. Notwithstanding your laughably out-of-context

distortion of Dr. King's words and message (I sure wish the people who throw this line around as a wapon whenever it appears to them that a black person just MIGHT possibly get a fraction of something more than a white person gets would be as interested in Dr. King's teaching in every other respect), I assume then that you believed that John Edwards' consistent reminder of his Southern roots was out of line since his geographical background has NOTHING to do with the "content of his character?"

[scheming daemons]

32. Didn't say it was out-of-line....

...but Edwards' southern roots should have no bearing on whether someone votes for him...... except in how they accent the "content of his character."


Feel free to vote for someone based on their skin pigment or whether they have a penis or not. That's your prerogative. It's also shallow and vacuous.

[EffieBlack]

34. Don't you understand that a person's race or gender

can inform their character just as much as their geographical background can?

As I noted earlier. I don't think race or gender are in and of themselves relevant - they have to be viewed in context. But there is nothing wrong with considering those factors in some circumstances, just as you think it's appropriate to consider Edwards' Southerness in certain contexts.

[ginchinchili]

27. Because attitudes like yours perpetuates racism and sexism.

You want the person who can do the best job. Period. I realize that such a position stands in the way of your agenda, but either race and gender bias is wrong or it isn't. It's not wrong when applied to these people but right when applied to those. Otherwise, you perpetuate racial and sexual biases. This would not be good for African Americans, for example, who will see the majority in this country go from Caucasian to Hispanic. It shouldn't matter. Unfortunately, for too many people it does, which will eventually lead to the end of our civilization.

[EffieBlack]

33. right

And until now, only white men have been the most qualified people to be president and we have never considered anything other than objective standards that we all agree upon. And what would those standards be?

And while I appreciate your concern about what African Americans should be concerned about, it seems to be that it's people with views like yours who are most frightened by the prospect of a shift to a darker demographic. It's very interesting how many people with such views look the other way and even defend racism and sexism when practiced by white men and, in fact blame minorities and women - not the people who have and continue to this day to perpetuate it - for its continued existence, as you regularly do.

Also amusing is how many of you have been insisting that Obama is "unelectable" because people won't vote for him because he's black. But instead of going after such people, you blame Obama and his supporters for being presumptuous enough to think he can win.

Yet, the minute someone suggests that his being black might be a positive factor, you all are the first to jump into the thread screaming, "Race Card!!!" And attacking whoever believes that for being racist, for defiling Dr. King's "content of their character" line (apparently, the only thing about Dr. King that many of you know).

It is SO transparent. You guys are scared to death at the prospect that white men might not have the entire pie to themselves but might have to (GASP!) share it with someone else - and can no longer depend oin their white man advantage to jump to the head of the line.

[ginchinchili]

36. Views like mine? You mean, treating everyone as equals?

That's racist in your mind?

"And until now, only white men have been the most qualified people to be president and we have never considered anything other than objective standards that we all agree upon. And what would those standards be?"

Do you think that was a good approach? I don't. And that's exactly what you're advocating. Dismissing people simply because they aren't of the same race as you is really a bad idea. It was bad in the past, it is bad today, and it will always remain a bad approach to choosing leaders, employment candidates, friends, or lovers. Sorry if that doesn't square with you, but don't infer that I'm a racist because I don't advocate one race over another. That's lunacy.



"And while I appreciate your concern about what African Americans should be concerned about, it seems to be that it's people with views like yours who are most frightened by the prospect of a shift to a darker demographic. It's very interesting how many people with such views look the other way and even defend racism and sexism when practiced by white men and, in fact blame minorities and women - not the people who have and continue to this day to perpetuate it - for its continued existence, as you regularly do."

You sound obsessed with race. I can understand being concerned, but being obsessed is an extreme that leads to extreme views. "A shift to a darker demographic." You're very strange. I could care less. Why should I? It's not going to effect me any. I'm surrounded by black women every work day for nine hours a day, and frankly I'm more comfortable with this group of co-workers than I have been at other jobs I've had. I don't assume it's because they're black. I assume it's because I happen to work with a nice bunch of people. That's all.

I suppose the only concern I have is that too many people like you might be put into positions where your decision making would adversely effect anyone you didn't like or was of a race you are not fond of in some confused attempt to even some score. The problem with that is that they people you would be victimizing would, for the most part, be innocent. Thus, the problem: you perpetuate hatred. We've tried that before and it didn't work too well.

And I don't "look the other way" or defend racism when confronted with it. I didn't with you, I didn't once when I nearly got my ass kicked by defending a guy who was being picked on by a bunch of red necks--a long time ago, sorry, but it's just not in my nature to do so. Yet, your attitude sounds consistent with people who do look the other way or justify racism by claiming that they had it coming to them, or whatever your excuse of the day is. I've known too many whites like that and it looks the same when those of other races drool the same drool.



"Also amusing is how many of you have been insisting that Obama is "unelectable" because people won't vote for him because he's black. But instead of going after such people, you blame Obama and his supporters for being presumptuous enough to think he can win."

I don't assume Obama is unelectable. I do assume that he'll have a hard time getting elected due to his lack of experience. And arguing that he doesn't have the qualifications to be president has nothing to do with race. I made the same argument about Bush--and I was right!



"Yet, the minute someone suggests that his being black might be a positive factor, you all are the first to jump into the thread screaming, "Race Card!!!" And attacking whoever believes that for being racist, for defiling Dr. King's "content of their character" line (apparently, the only thing about Dr. King that many of you know).

What I was objecting to was Obama and his surrogates accusing the Clintons of playing the race card for saying the same thing Obama says all the time, that this is an historic election because the two primary candidates are a woman and an African American. I found it disingenuous and hypocritical, but he knew exactly what he was doing. You should have a problem with that too, but my guess is that the cries of "race card" only bother you when said by a Caucasian. Maybe you believe that only whites can be racists.



"It is SO transparent. You guys are scared to death at the prospect that white men might not have the entire pie to themselves but might have to (GASP!) share it with someone else - and can no longer depend oin their white man advantage to jump to the head of the line."

Like I said, I think you're obsessed. The entire pie? What in god's name are you talking about? "Depend on their white man advantage to jump to the head of the line"? What line? What advantage? I wish I had some advantage in something. If a white person expressed him or herself like you are here, you'd assume they were racists. Hell, you assume that anyway. Do yourself a favor a lighten up. Not all white people are bad, rich, and out to destroy you.

[EffieBlack]

37. No - I mean PRETENDING to treat people as equals

knowing good and well that centuries of state-imposed discrimination has so institutionalized racism and white advantage in this country that the playing field remains uneven - and that pretending all of a sudden to be colorblind only ensures that that inequity will continue.

I mean twisting Dr. King's words and using them as an excuse to oppose the very remedies and measures he called for, such as Affirmative Action - which, contrary to those of you so fond of throwing around his "content of their character" line, he fully supported.

I mean completely failing to recognize what Lyndon Johnson understood - that you can't cut off a man's leg, then give a prosthetic leg and then immedately expect him to compete in a race against a two-legged man without giving him some help - no matter how much you claim, "he has two legs just like everybody else! It's not fair to all of the other two-legged racers for him to get any special privileges!!!".

I'm talking about telling black folk and women who have been foirced to watch from the sidelines while all manner of white men, no matter how stupid, inferior, unqualified or just plain unfit, had the entire presidential field to themselves, that now that for the first time, a highly qualified, dynamic, brilliant black man has managed to get on the field, that WE are racist if we even CONSIDER giving the brother a little extra consideration because everyone suddenly has to go all colorblind right at this moment, right at this time, which happens to be the very millisecond in which for the very first time in our nation's presidential political history there's a chance that someone's brown skin might produce even the fraction of an iota more of an advantage than someone else's white skin.

I mean not understanding - or refusing to recognize - the difference between a "Keep Out" sign and a "Welcome" mat.

[ginchinchili]

38. It's obvious by this quote that you have lost all objectivity:

"I'm talking about telling black folk and women who have been foirced to watch from the sidelines while all manner of white men, no matter how stupid, inferior, unqualified or just plain unfit, had the entire presidential field to themselves, that now that for the first time, a highly qualified, dynamic, brilliant black man has managed to get on the field, that WE are racist if we even CONSIDER giving the brother a little extra consideration because everyone suddenly has to go all colorblind right at this moment, right at this time, which happens to be the very millisecond in which for the very first time in our nation's presidential political history there's a chance that someone's brown skin might produce even the fraction of an iota more of an advantage than someone else's white skin."


What you are suggesting is that anyone who is opposed to Obama's candidacy is doing it on racial grounds which smacks of racism and sounds very much like the blind reasoning that white racists use against blacks. In an earlier post you accused me of being someone who turns a blind eye to racism or even endorses it, then you demonstrate that same attitude that you claim to abhor. Well you're wrong about me. I don't turn a blind eye to racism and that is exactly why I'm standing up to you. You're no different from white racists. You're arguing that being black should be an advantage and being white should be a disadvantage. Turn that around and you have a classical white bigot. Excuse me if I don't think it's a good idea to put someone in charge who hasn't had any experience in foreign policy at a time when hundreds of thousands of lives are at stake in two wars. That seems irrational to you because it's in reference to a man who happens to have dark skin. If his skin was light colored, you'd be in agreement. That is called racism and you're blind with it.

Nice of you to skip over my entire response, but I understand why. Like I said, I've seen racism before. No, I don't think Obama is qualified to be president, and that doesn't make me a racist. That makes me someone who is particular about who is running our country. And though it doesn't mean anything to you because she is not black, but I'm not thrilled about Hillary either, or any Republican candidates. But at least Hillary does have more experience than Barack.

[rodeodance]

31. HILLARY embodies womanness: OBAMA embodies blackness. it is part

of each of them. simple as that.

[LiberalHeart]

42. Race & gender as qualifications are as icky to me as religion used that way.

[ginchinchili]

45. You are right.

And there's no room for that here...apparently.

[Bonobo]

44. They can for me.