Race vs. Gender
Am I the only one starting to get annoyed by the whole “black vs. woman” attitude towards the Obama and Clinton 2008 speculation? The other day I saw a headline that was simply “Black Man vs. White Woman”, though Newsweek has been more subtle with their “Is America Ready?” as if the choice between the two is little more than which minority group Americans hate less. I understand the historical nature either presidency would have and I look forward to a day when being a white Christian man isn’t seen as an essential qualification for the presidency, but the way this has been bluntly reduced to discussion of the minority status of Obama and Clinton (and little else) is kinda tacky.
Speaking of Newsweek, this line from their Obama/Clinton piece struck me as funny :
Hillaryland is in a “how dare he?” frame of mind, insisting that the wet-behind-the-ears senator doesn’t have the standing to crash her party.
Yeah, how dare that first-term Senator from Illinois try to challenge the first-term Senator from New York.
9 comments »
Copy link for RSS feed for comments on this post
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Of course, Senator Carpetbagger was raised in Illinois herself. The conventional phrasing is that she represents New York, but I’m not convinced she does.
Comment by Hershele Ostropoler — December 19, 2006 @ 12:42 pm
Well, I’m no Hillary apologist, but she does have more experience, and isn’t she in the beginning of her second term?
Comment by Ben in VA — December 19, 2006 @ 1:16 pm
Her second term begins next month.
Comment by greg — December 19, 2006 @ 3:12 pm
Yes, I am tired of the second guessing all the way around. When Liddy Dole ran no one asked if the country was ready for a woman. If Colin Powell had run I doubt it would be questioned. The Republicans seem to have some type of automatic legitimacy that the Democrats don’t.
Comment by Becky — December 19, 2006 @ 6:37 pm
Oh, you mean the first-term senator who has eight years experience as First Lady? I’d say that’s given her more experience to running the White House than the first-term senator from Illinois who’s more sizzle than steak.
Comment by corinne — December 19, 2006 @ 7:30 pm
I’ll see your eight years as First Lady and raise you eight years in state legislature. It seems to me that the Clintonites problem with Obama isn’t his lack of experience in politics but his lack of experience in Washington.
Comment by greg — December 20, 2006 @ 12:46 am
…which is probably a good thing, given that team Bush consists of many Washington insiders who have screwed things up royally.
And Hillary’s insistence that the Iraq invasion was somehow legitimate reduces her to just another opportunistic political hack.
Bring on the sizzle!
Comment by Doobie — December 20, 2006 @ 1:08 am
Technically, your argument is about sex (male/female) vs. race, but gender (masculine/feminine) issues have been bandied about in this context, too.
As female candidates go, more traditionally masculine character traits - forceful personality, toughness, controlling nature, self-assuredness - have been ascribed to Hillary than most. Does this help or hurt her chances? Is the country more comfortable with a woman who acts like a man (at least while on the job)?
No value judgements - just wondering.
Comment by ZombieOne — December 20, 2006 @ 12:05 pm
i agree that hillary does have “washington” experiance. However, i do not believe that is a good thing. Political expeiance is a must, obama has plenty. I fear that the washington crowd in recent years has lost touch with reality.
Comment by tim — May 10, 2007 @ 1:10 pm