Is is sexist/racist to keep electing white men as President - or is it just "normal"?

[bloom]

150 years ago - all of the voters were white men. Now white men comprise app. 37% of the population.



(If you want to give a different response - post it below.)

[BoneDaddy]

1. LoL

A loaded poll? We only have 2 choices.... Seems the outcome of this has already been predetermined and decided on. Not surprised.

[bloom]

3. If you want to give a nuanced response - you are welcome to do that.

[Nye Bevan]

2. According to the Tradesports odds...

There is roughly a 70% chance that the 2008 Democratic nominee will be not be a white male.



See http://www.tradesports.com/aav2/trading/tradingHTML.jsp?evID=23190&eventSelect=23190&updateList=true&showExpired=false

[bloom]

5. Those are pretty good odds.

Thanks Math Guy.

[BlooInBloo]

25. Bullshit. The last election CLEARLY illustrates the difference between...

... mob opinion and probability.

Sheesh.

[Nye Bevan]

39. Thank you for those insights (nt)

[Mountainman]

4. Hell you wore this topic out over the weekend.

[bloom]

8. That's your opinion. It looked like from that thread....

that a lot of people did not recognize the sexism/racism inherent in the system - so I wanted to see in a poll.


You are welcome to ignore/hide.

[Don_1967]

6. What would you suggest not to let white men

run for President. The people choose sooner or later a woman or a minority wi il be elected but they will be held to a higher standard ,fair ? hell no ,but life is not fair.

[bloom]

9. I've never said anything about not "letting" white men run.

But I would like for people to consider the sexism and racism involved. It's the collective mindset that needs to stop assuming that we need a white man in charge. Or that "those other people" will only vote for white men.

[ThomCat]

36. It's not the voters.

You have the issue of who donors are willing to fund. The prejudices of the big donors rarely gets discussed but it's one of the prime factors that shape elections. Given that the vast majority of wealthy people are white men their prejudices are going to favor white men.

Then, even if money was not an issue, if white men are in charge of the party machinery and the primaries then it's difficult for anyone who isn't a white man to get on the ballot's for any of the mid-level positions. If there isn't a pool of qualified people who are not white men in those mid-level positions then they can't exert much influence over that party and over the primaries. It's a circular system that is only slowly changing its racial/gender character.

Then, you the prejudices of the media establishment. White men are never pigeon-holed into representing all white men, but women often field questions that limit them to commenting on "women's issues," and black men often field questions that limit them to commenting on "minority issues." The media makes it very difficult for anyone who isn't a white man to be a serious contender because, unlike white men, they have to prove that they have any expertise or standing to comment on the big scope of issues.

After overcoming all of these obstacles, only then does a candidate get to deal with the prejudices of the voters.

[bloom]

43. That's a good post.

"The prejudices of the big donors..."

"white men are in charge of the party machinery..."

"Then, you (have) the prejudices of the media establishment..."


It is certainly not just the voters and the voters perceptions of other voters - but the perception of the whole system. It's also why I think people need to recognize this - if some people do not make a conscious effort to level the playing field (donation-wise, respect-wise, etc.) - we are going to have much of the same old, same old for a long time.


I think that the Republicans are really working on being the sexist, racist party. (Exhibit A - http://mediamatters.org/items/200610270014). I hope that the Democrats don't start trying to compete with that.

While I don't think the Democrats should give up the white, male vote (37%) - we don't need to be courting the white, male, sexist racist vote, either. Let the Republicans have that - that's what I think. I think the white, male, sexist, racist vote is probably not more than 10% anyway. (Add a few other sexist and/or racist people and it might get up to a total of 15% tops).

[Sapphocrat]

68. Bingo.

Well said!

[LeftishBrit]

7. It's not sexist and racist as such that white male presidents keep getting elected

It is, however, due to sexism and racism in society at large that it tends to be only the white males who ever get into a position that they might consider running for president.

Having a female or non-white president is not, on its own, necessarily going to change the situation in society as a whole. Just remember Maggie Thatcher.

[melody]

10. "Normal"? What is that?

It's the hard-wiring of Alpha primates to "elect" a male Alpha to lead them. Is that "normal"? It's the norm,
but I don't think it's the *desirable* state of thinking human beings.

>Now white men comprise app. 37% of the population.

Yes, but ALL men are voters and, according to studies, males (no matter the ethnicity) will tend to vote gender over ethnicity. Many women will vote for men over women, for similar, hard-wired reasons. That doesn't mean we can't be educated beyond that perspective -- clearly, we can -- but it's a battle that must be waged. To think otherwise is just wishful thinking.

[bloom]

12. As a "battle that must be waged" we ought to be waging it.

That's what I'm doing.

[melody]

24. All such battles must be waged with information

Not with rhetoric. To narrow all possibilities down to two, is to exclude the middle. It isn't that it's consciously "racist" or "sexist", it's that it's an attribute of our primate minds with which we must deal.

[bling bling]

78. Other countries have women leaders, for example. Why can't we? n/t

[melody]

84. Those countries have different histories with different populations

And I'm not saying that we CAN'T have female leaders, just that it's not likely, imho.

Believe me, I wish I could see a female President in my lifetime.

[bloom]

85. I actually think that if we are going to do it - we better hurry up

It seems to me that things are going down hill in that department - women's rights.

I can see a woman being elected in 2008. I think it figures that a woman who was in college during the 60's - and the whole feminist thing then - to be president coming up in the next term. Whether Hillary or someone else.


And really - it seems to me that you Have been arguing against a woman being the president - because of anthropology, or whatever. And that doesn't hold up in light of women leaders in other countries. I don't think that people in those countries are all more enlightened than we are. I think that is selling us short.

[melody]

87. I'm not selling us short -- and I'm not arguing against it -- I'm stating facts

Every single election since the advent of visual media, we have elected the Alpha male to the Presidency. We
don't have a history of female monarchs that we can recall. We don't have a matriarchal society. Women, in the
main, are subjugated and demeaned in our society. And really, the only female PM that the UK has elected might
as well have been a white man.

I'm saying this election is too damned important to worry about the ethnicity or gender of the occupant.
I'd love to see a female/minority President, but that doesn't mean I want Condi Rice in office to foot the
bill. I don't think Hillary can win, and the other viable minority candidates are either less qualified
or too young.

Don't shoot me for being the messenger. I'm just trying to state the record. If we can find a candidate that can
overshoot the boundary, then by all means, lets try, but in a society where female politicians are still demeaned
as gleefully as female politicians are here just for being female, I don't see a female President happening.

With a minority, there are different but similarly difficult problems.

[StrongbadTehAwesome]

92. oh, yay, ev psych.

:eyes:

[melody]

93. If you're going to dispute the argument, please do so n/t

[Kelly Rupert]

11. I think it's pretty obvious that's going to happen

given our cultural/societal makeup. It's not racism insofar as there is no cabal, caste, or code enforcing this trend. It's just a reflection of our cultural preferences. Are those racist and sexist? Yeah. Of course they are. I don't think anyone would attempt to claim that society is free of prejudice.

[bloom]

17. I don't think that there has to be a "cabal, caste, or code"

to make something racist.

I think it's a matter that the white men originally held power in this country (through various means) and that has not changed.

I don't think it's a "preference". It's a preference for some people. For Dennis Miller, for example. http://mediamatters.org/items/200610270014

I think a lot of people just don't think about it. Or assume that it can't be changed. But public opinion is changing - see MathGuy's post for stats.

[bling bling]

81. I think you're right.

A lot of people don't think about it. That's why I think it's great that you've been bringing up the issue here.

And the elected Democrats will need to do more than pay lip service to this issue too. Racism and sexism is also the result of ignoring issues that are important to women of all races and non-white men.

I can't imagine telling a little girl who says she wants to be president, "sorry, honey. You shouldn't even try because the country wouldn't vote for you since you're a girl."

But that's EXACTLY, EXACTLY, what I see here on DU every single day.

If this party doesn't believe in us enough to support us 100% in a run for the president then it will be at the party's peril at some point. I'm sure of it. The Republicans will figure this out and sell their party on the idea that the Dems are the prejudiced/sexist party and THEY are the pro-people party (or whatever frame) and they'll win. And the Dems will be left standing in the dust scratching their heads and seeing all the opportunities they let slip away in hindsight.

[RethugAssKicker]

13. It is accepted Racism which is Normal here in America.

[bloom]

20. Some people accept it as accepted and some people don't. nt

[RethugAssKicker]

33. My point !.. of which I don't.

[bigtree]

14. It's a reflection of folk's confidence in white males

as opposed to others.

Racism and sexism in society have contributed to eroding that confidence in others.

[Captain Hilts]

29. Remember they always used MEN as announcers for BRA commercials...

because people think of men as inherently more authoritative.

Even when selling bras.

This has changed only recently.

Now we get whispering women's voices.

[Lilith Velkor]

15. Yes to both answers.

On edit: I accept that racism/sexism are normal, not that they are OK or make the system anything other than a travesty.

[johnnie]

16. I've also noticed that they haven't elected a short person either

That's just plain bullshit. x(

[Captain Hilts]

32. GWB is the first shorter candidate elected in decades. nt

[gollygee]

18. It is an extension of racism and sexism

like, it isn't racist or sexist to vote for a white man. But the fact that white men are the people who always get put in that position is caused by racism and sexism.

[bloom]

21. "white men are the people who always get put in that position"

See that's the thing that DU and other Democrats could work on changing.

[cali]

19. I'll vote for the person I think is best

thank you very much. Having said that, of course there's racism and sexism involved in why national politics is dominated by white men.

[bryant69]

22. I think it's just a coincidence that white males are the most qualified

Seriously this is a stupid way of asking this question - because when you put it flat like that of course the asnwer is obvious. The problem is that people make their decisions about who should be president on a subconscious level. They are looking for a set of signs or signfiers that say "This guy is a good leader." And white males, particularly priviliged white males, give off those signals more regularly. I think we are closer to being able to elect a black man or a woman president, but it's still a hard row to hoe.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[bloom]

23. And I would like for more people to be more conscious.

That's the thing.

[BlooInBloo]

26. Now that they're not "allowed" to be racist/sexist anymore, white men...

... have no interest in the matter. In particular, they have no interest in helping to fix things. They take a special glee in having no interest in the matter, as their extreme indifference provides the only "permissible" vehicle to "get back" at all those (especially the original recipient of the evil) who continue to remind them of the evils that were/are done.

"What? I *thought* you wanted society to be colorblind??? (heavy sarcasm) I'm just going along with *your* request to be colorblind in being against anything that helps repair the societal imbalance white men instituted between themselves and black folks/women. (snicker, snicker) Sheesh, those women and black folks sure do complain a lot. (ha! got 'em good there!)

People can wish/pretend it were otherwise all they like... If wishes were ponies yadayadayada...

[bling bling]

83. I don't know about that.

I think a lot of white men agree that there really is still rampant racism and sexism in our society and would like to see it end. Not all white men feel the way you describe.

But that's still an important point and valid to some degree. We're not doing ourselves any favors if we turn-off white males from this issue.

[BlooInBloo]

89. LOL! "turn off white males" - gee, that would be soooo different from status quo.

[bryant69]

27. The complicating factor is this - I don't want Hilary to run for President

I think my reasons are based on reason - i.e. she is kind of a sell out who will depress liberal vote, but she will enrage the Republican Base who hate here with a passion - so we will spend a season defending a woman who has shown that she will sell out our ideals whenever it's convienent for her to do so.

But wait, how much of my antipathy to her is based, subconsciously, on the fact that she's a woman? I don't think any - imagining a hypothetical male with Hilary's situation, I think I'd feel the same way (although, honesty mandates that I note that certain amount of the Rights antipathy towards Hilary is because she is a woman, so perhaps there is no real way to line these two up).

Bryant

[Captain Hilts]

30. Well, into the 70s many "elite" schools excluded women.

And women couldn't even serve on juries in NYState until the 1960s. That's why "Twelve Angry Men," is about twelve angry 'men'.

[bryant69]

35. Well exactly.

And even if woman or blacks get into harvard, are they going to the same parties as the priviliged white? Are they learning how to send out those signals that tell people "Hey, i'm a serious person and you can trust me to be president." Some probably are, but others are not by being excluded.

Bryant

[Captain Hilts]

28. It's our cultural default. We need to work on changing that.

It's not practical to ignore 50%+ of the population.

[porphyrian]

31. The system is racist and sexist (and classist). It's institutionalized.

I don't think the answer is to elect someone solely based on race or sex, however. They have to be right for the job, too. That goes for white men as well as everyone else.

[noiretextatique]

37. but, isn't that what's been happening for centuries?

not that i disagree with you, but one of the effects of centuries of excluding others is that we have an overwhelming white, male poltical class. i don't think that's because they are all the best qualified to do the job.

[porphyrian]

40. Yes, how is intentionally doing it wrong again any better?

You can't right a wrong by doing it wrong again.

[noiretextatique]

46. well...why not?

how can you right the situation if you don't change it by voting for different people? how will it ever change?
what's wrong about intentionally voting for an african woman instead of a intentionally voting for a white man?

[porphyrian]

48. Is electing a woman, say, who isn't the best for the job better...

...than hiring a man who is, simply because she's a woman? There are women who can do the job better than others, I'm not suggesting that. I'm just saying that you only create more problems than you solve by basing the decision solely on race or sex if they aren't ALSO at least as qualified as any other candidate. I don't doubt at all that this is possible. However, choosing someone less qualified simply because of race or sex would actually hurt the chances of future people of that race or class rather than help.

[noiretextatique]

49. i think that perfectly explains the status quo

and how a person like gw bush is in washington, and good portion of the others there. they aren't necessarily "the most qualified" they are the most electable, given that the system is still rigged to favor them and to exclude others. i do think things are changing in that more women and people of color are running and winning at the local and state levels.

[porphyrian]

50. Yeah, I have a problem with most qualified not being most electable.

I want the most qualified people doing the job, and I don't care what characteristics they were born with.

[Jed Dilligan]

54. At this point, I would vote for a lack of "qualifications"

in the form of being white and rich from birth and attending preppie and yuppie schools.

[porphyrian]

56. Right, I make a distinction between electability and being qualified.

I don't automatically support people or ideas that are considered "electable." My version of qualified means best answer for the job in question.

[Jed Dilligan]

57. The reason local government is so much better, in general,

is because the leadership comes from state schools and originally, the middle class. They have to compete and work in college and later as junior government employees. The Ivy League clowns we've been putting up as candidates, and I put this on BOTH sides, are guaranteed ultimate success from the get-go, and they don't feel like failing along the way is any big deal.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

34. it is a reflections of society's racism and sexism and homophobia

[noiretextatique]

38. it is a norm

steeped in racism, sexism, classism, priviledge, etc. i call it white male hegemony as a natural state.

[bloom]

42. Natural?

What do mean by white male hegemony as a natural state ? ie. do you think God has a role? evolution? that it's inevitable? ???

[noiretextatique]

45. no, it's is perceived and accepted as a natural state

even though it is very unnatural. it's "the way things are" and also "they way things are supposed to be," at least that is the accepted perception.

[Withywindle]

41. It's a sexist, racist norm.

And the fact that people accept it unquestioningly just proves how entrenched privilege is.

Think about it - if we really had proportional representation, there'd be 51 women Senators and about 13 Black Senators (some of whom would be the same people of course). Wasn't "no taxation without representation" the rallying cry for starting this country in the first place?

That's simplistic, of course - someone doesn't have to look exactly like me to represent me. But maybe I say that because I'm a woman and I'm used to voting for, say, a man to represent me. Maybe a lot of men would NOT be used to voting for a woman to represent THEM.

It's hard to have these discussions on the left because people get so defensive. I think it's because the words "racist" and "sexist" get used in different ways. Saying an idea or a practice is racist does not mean the individual who holds it personally wears a white hood and burns crosses on people's lawns--it can mean an idea the person grew up with and has never questioned enough, or a kneejerk response, or something picked up from the society around them. Because a racist/sexist society provides cover for racist/sexist ideas: anyone can say "Well, it's not that I wouldn't support a person of color/white woman for President, it's those OTHER bigots over there; that person just couldn't win."

Well, a culture's practices are made up of its HABITS, and those habits are enacted by individuals.

[magellan]

44. My response isn't there

It's "normal" and it totally blows.

[ScreamingMeemie]

55. But is the driving force behind it being normal sexist or racist?

i.e. A man, a white man, could do better than an ethnic man or woman, or a white woman.

FWIW, I think it is sexist and racist to continue this pattern.

[magellan]

70. For some it's a sexist and/or racist decision

But I don't think it is for all. My guess is that most Americans would have no problem with a non-white or female candidate if they had "the right stuff", i.e. the charismatic popularity of Bill Clinton; it's just that so few possess the means ($$$ and connections) to make it to candidacy. IMO it's another symptom of a system that's failing us, but I think that particular aspect of it is bound to change as women and minorities gain a firmer foothold in the upper echelons of society, previously held almost exclusively by white men.

[sweetheart]

47. Its not normal

It is statistically disconcerting in assemblies and congress,
where if women want an equal shake, taking over the middle can't hurt.
Then when women are 50 % of the legislature and in congress, won't there
be a different view towards equal treatment. Until then, the president
is an all or nothing game, that really proves very little except we can
get hung up on ideological symbols. Yes, the whole government stands
for womens repression, racism, hatred and criminalization of the poor, and
war on dark skinned people abroad to steal their resources, there, now
that that's not an issue, lets elect a woman presdient.

[mondo joe]

51. Why do you assume race and gender of voters is supposed to

translate into votes for race and gender?

[bloom]

64. I didn't say I assumed that.

But I think if there was a woman candidate and a minority candidate both - that a pretty good amount of the under-represented population would support it - along with some of the non-sexist and non-racist white men.

Of course some people wouldn't like what the candidate's stood for. Some people vote their party no matter what.

But consider this:

"The only areas in where Republicans retained a majority of the voters were in people who earned over $100,000 a year and demographic groups among white Protestants and among men.

Women, overwhelmingly Democratic. African Americans, Latinos, Asians, all the demographic groups, Catholics, Jewish voters -- basically only people over $100,000 a year and also the elderly, people over 60 years of age, still voted majority Republican. But the younger you get in the population, the more Democratic its leanings. So that does suggest that there is a potential for more long-term changes in the air."

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/09/1444238


And don't forget - a lot of the election stealing has been the stealing of the black vote - like in Florida and in Ohio. It's important to Republicans to keep some groups marginalized.

[mondo joe]

65. Why do you assume women would vote for a female candidate just

because she's a woman?

[bloom]

67. That's not what I wrote.

Why do you assume that I am saying something that I am not.

I wrote:

But I think if there was a woman candidate and a minority candidate both - that a pretty good amount of the under-represented population would support it - along with some of the non-sexist and non-racist white men.


Women and non-white men are already voting for Democrats in larger numbers than Republicans. In some cases the white men are too, just not by a large of a margin. Some white men are still voting for the white men.

As far as swing voters - all things being similar - why shouldn't anyone want to vote for a woman or minority - just to break out of America's streak of favoring white men?

Would you fault people for that? Call them sexist or racist? Some people do.


____________

Here is one race I grabbed at random. Maria Cantwell - incumbent Senate race from Washington State. Cantwell won 57% to 40%.

54% of white men voted for her / 45% for the Republican / 1% for the Green

61% of white women voted for her / 37% for the Republican / 1% for the Green

79% of non-white men voted for her / 17% for the Republican / 2% for the Green

58% of non-white women voted for her / 31% for the Republican / 5% for the Green

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/senate/

So more white women than white men voted for Cantwell - but maybe more would have voted for the Democrat anyway.***

Interestingly enough - quite a bit more non-white men voted for the woman candidate than non-white women.***


But even still Republicans voters were white men, white women, non-white women, non-white men in that order.***

While Democrat voters were non-white men, white women, non-white women, white men - in that order.***

The non-white women were far more likely to vote green than anyone else. The green candidate was a non-white man.***

(*** more as in higher % by category)
____

Anyway - I think that non-white men and women of any color are looking to be represented by someone other than your typical Republican white man type of candidate. Some white men are too. Does this surprise you, offend you?

It's not like the white men have doing such a great job representing people who are not like them over the years.


If you have a point to make - you might as well make it. Instead of misrepresenting what I'm writing.

[HardRocker05]

52. 24% accept this??!! un-freaking-believable. nt

[helderheid]

80. down to 20% but STILL! JEEBUS!!!

:wow:

[bloom]

82. It would be interesting to know

where the people who accept it are getting their news (as well as what other media and all they watch).

I doubt it's the same news that I am getting.

A lot of them are people who hate "PC" ideas. And as was evident on my other recent thread - the thing to do if someone brings up the subject - is the suggest that anyone who has a problem with the racism and sexism is this country is racist and sexist. It seems very FOX - like to me. But then the Comedy Channel probably puts out similar attitudes. Sports caster commentators, maybe? I don't know.

I think a lot of people are assuming that we would be past such thinking -but I see it as the Republican assholes and people like Limbaugh affecting all sorts of people -whether they listen to that crap themselves or not.


White male privilege is alive and well among some sections of society. And they don't make any apologies about it, either. That's the way that sort of thing goes.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

53. Neither - it's a result of secondary discrimination, so it's not something to accept, but not

in itself a matter of sexism or racism.

That there have been very few decent presidential candidates in the past who weren't white men, and even now there are only a very few who aren't who might run in '08 is at least partially a result of societal prejudice against women and blacks in society, and a result of the fact that such prejudice was much stronger in the past and the results of that are still being felt.

That, given the above, white men keep getting elected, isn't.

[demokatgurrl]

58. Good Lord, of course it's racist/sexist

Just take a look around at how many countries have elected women, minorities and/or minority women to equivalent positions. India did it long ago. Even the conservative, hierarchicial Brits had a female Prime Minister. Germany. Italy. Israel.

Some day we'll catch up, I HOPE. However, I will NOT vote for a Repuke woman or minority. WILL NOT. EVER.

[bloom]

59. "I will NOT vote for a Repuke woman or minority"

I don't expect that I would - unless sometime down the road the Demcratic party decided to make sexism and racism their platform. While I don't expect to see that happen - you never know.

RIght now it seems that it would stand to reason - with Democrats having the women's vote and the minority vote - that it would be a good time to run a woman and a minority candidate as Pres and Vice.

While people don't like it - Hillary has aligned herself with the power structure. And things being how they are - it puts her in a pretty good spot to run.

I almost wonder - tinfoily person that I am - if the powers that be have not decided that 2008 is the year to break the gender or racial barrier - or both. With H.Clinton and Obama. P. & V.P.

[undeterred]

60. It's what works?

:rofl:

[bloom]

62. It's so sad

it's funny. :crazy:

[bloom]

61. Looking at how I worded the OP...

I meant to say - that now white men comprise 37% of the potential voters.


(I expect that white men comprised about 37% (more or less) of the population 150 years ago as well. )

[union_maid]

63. It's the winner take all system

I think it's the same thing that makes third parties spoilers rather than a constructive part of the process. You're gambling everything on one person and that one person has to have the kind of across the board appeal that once belonged to white bread. It doesn't leave any room for taking chances. In a parlimentary system, wouldn't Nancy Pelosi be a major contender, as leader of the party that just took the majority?

[bloom]

66. "that one person has to have the kind of across the board appeal"

Yeah - but while people accept that and seem to look for it in people like Clark and Edwards - they fault it in H.Clinton.

So I wonder if people aren't adding extra hurdles, having different standards for Hillary and other candidates.

She is not as liberal as I would like - but someone that liberal wouldn't win anyway.

Obama has broad appeal - and his inexperience might seem like it works to his advantage - because it's harder to find faults. I think he would be a good VP candidate.

I think that there are other potential candidates - those are just the ones that have been prominent here and in the news. I think that there should reasonably be dozens of people who could do the job. It seems to come down to who has the most connections - with the right people. And I don't expect that will ever change.


As far as Pelosi goes - seems like I heard that someone wouldn't want to have that sort of role if they were going to run - it's too time consuming - she wouldn't have time to campaign enough. A parliamentary system - or various other systems could be different - that's just here.

[Alexander]

69. Wasn't one thread about this topic enough?

BTW - Are you a white male? You never answered my questions from your last thread, and your profile conveniently omits your gender.

[bloom]

76. This topic does seem to make some people uncomfortable.

What's the difference to you whether I'm a white man or not? Does it change my credibility?

[Alexander]

88. Yes, it does.

You accuse me of sexism for rejecting Hillary, even though I touted Sebelius, Napolitano and Boxer as infinitely better candidates. Imagine that, I support women for the presidency! Not only that, one of them is a Jewish woman! *GASP* But they aren't Hillary, so I guess I'm a sexist?

You make blanket statements which suggest electing a black guy, a Latino or a woman will automatically guarantee the votes of black people, Latinos or women, an argument which is vaguely racist and sexist in its own right. Any counter-argument I present (like Ferraro, Steele and Blackwell), you play the "sexist" card.

You rail against "white men" dominating electoral politics and make blanket statements about people being sexist for not supporting your preferred candidate, yet you conveniently conceal your own identity.

You have now created two threads, both borderline flamebait, which suggest that anyone who values qualifications above race or sex is racist or sexist. God forbid Barack Obama actually finishes out a full Senate term before he runs for the presidency! (BTW - I think Obama would make a fine president, but not in 2008)

I voted for Dean in the '04 primaries, even though Sharpton and Moseley-Braun are both black, and Moseley-Braun is female. I felt Dean was our best candidate. I guess I'm sexist?

Keep in mind Moseley-Braun, when she dropped out, endorsed none other than.....Howard Dean. Is she racist for not supporting Sharpton?

So right now I'd say your credibility is by a generous estimate at about 5%, and your refusal to reveal your own identity drops your credibility down to about 0%.

[AZBlue]

71. It's a sad reflection of our society.

eom

[Moloch]

72. Obama '08!

nt

[Guaranteed]

73. As a white man, I'd have to say that it is.

I'm not the most PC guy in the world, either.

[951-Riverside]

74. No, its sexist/racist not to vote for a person because of their race/sex

...yes this means even if they are white. By the way don't blame us the people blame the parties for selecting rich white males to run.

[Seabiscuit]

75. White men are just naturally capable of doing a better job, that's all.

:sarcasm:

:evilgrin:

[mesobob]

77. Would it be sexist racist to BAN white men from running for president?

or normal?

Democracy isnt perfect. The majority will tend to elect someone who looks like themselves.

Now of course its good a idea to encourge and promote minorities to run for office. Im all for that.

But to suggest that the fruits of the cornerstone of Democracy is racist and sexist...Im not willing to go that far.

[bloom]

79. For those with any doubts...

that the fruits of the cornerstone of Democracy is racist and sexist

Then read this (below). It explains how only white men were considered to be citizens and why. The Dred Scott decision. It will be 150 old in December. And while things have changed - they haven't changed enough to get someone other than a white man in as president. We still have the same power structure.

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/llst:@field (DOCID+@lit(llst022div3))

(you may have to paste in the end of the link)

For example - from the Dred Scott decision (written by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court):

"The words "people of the United States" and "citizens" are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the political body who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty, and who hold the power and conduct the Government through their representatives. They are what we familiarly call the "sovereign people," and every citizen is one of this people and a constituent member of this sovereignty. The question before us is, whether the class of persons described in the plea in abatement compose a portion of this people, and are constituent members of this sovereignty? We think they are not, and that they are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word "citizens" in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States. On the contrary, they were at that time considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings, who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the government might choose to grant them." (pg 17)


A lot of the excuses used to justify the torture of Muslims today are very much like the some of the excuses used to justify the subduing of slaves 150 years ago. (Listen to Democracy Now! today for more on torture excuses).

And like I mentioned - white men only account for app. 37% of the population. So they are the minority. As it was 150 years ago. It's really a tyranny by the minority. They are just good playing different groups off against each other. And holding on to the power that they have.

Of course - it's the Republicans who do that the most - these days. That's what the repeal of the Estate Tax was about. It's what the reduction of social programs and affirmative action is about. It's what all the efforts to denigrate "politically correct" ideas are about. It's all over the place.

Just as it should be no surprise that "The only areas in where Republicans retained a majority of the voters were in people who earned over $100,000 a year and demographic groups among white Protestants and among men."

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/09/1444238


And P.S. I didn't say anything about banning white men from being president. I would like for people to consider the history involved when they can only focus on which white man seems like the best candidate - instead of other people. And question what's up with that.

Too many times in my life have I seen women and minority candidates who are not taken seriously - no matter how good of a candidate they are. It's pretty annoying. And I think people should be called on the sexism and racism of it all.

[JacksonWest]

86. It's only racist if you scream racial slurs as you vote.

[mmonk]

90. If I had my way,

my president would be Conyers and vice president Boxer (and I'm a white male). Racism/sexism for some. Patriarchial for some. Cultural for some. Habit for some. All of those are the reasons I suppose.

[bliss_eternal]

91. I'd vote that ticket...!

:thumbsup::hi: