![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Morning election thoughts
Mar. 15th, 2008 09:09 amI've not been reading much or following the primaries as closely as usual, since I've been taking a big ol' break from all things intellectual lately.
However, I have been thinking that Obama is going to get the Democratic nod, for several reasons. First, he is a breath of fresh air (at least on the surface) for a party that is getting stale. Second, he has a wide reach, involving youth and younger voters and the Democrats would have to be downright stupid to alienate this block of potential party loyalists. Third, he's a man. Yep. There it is. I'm not 100% convinced that Hillary is better than Obama. But I do know that while racism runs deep in this country, sexism runs deeper. I would not be surprised if we had a black male president long before we had a white female president.
I look at the basic history of voting rights. Only 5 years after slavery was abolished (1865) Congress passed the 15th amendment (1870) establishing that no one (man) can be denied a vote based on race. It took 50 years before women of ANY color were granted the right to vote. The 19th amendment was passed in 1920. It took hardly any time at all for people to grasp that black men were capable of self-determination and rational thought, where before black people were only useful as property and bipedal work horses. But fifty years had to pass before women were given any credit for their abilities to cast a vote.
Of course, if you follow the feminist blogs you'll see that there is a rift between the feminist establishment (Hillary all the way) and younger feminists (who prefer Obama). Obama supporters are accused of selling out the dream. My personal mindset is much more post-feminist than the world's, but I do not believe we live in a post-feminist world in the slightest. Because of this, I do struggle with the thought that maybe I should be behind Hillary more than I am. As I stand, I'm really ambivalent about the two.
What I'd like to see, if I had my way, is Hillary as president and Obama as VP. I'd like to see women break the ultimate glass ceiling. Their policies aren't that different. They are fighting for mostly the same things. I do think that Clinton has more experience, and as veep Obama would get more upclose exposure, as well as be an excellent face for diplomacy abroad. Since the veep doesn't have a very powerful role, Obama could create one that uses his charm and relationship building skills.
Honestly, any configuration of Clinton/Obama will be historic - if they can only they can get over their pride and agree to work together. Worse than 4 more years of red/blue vitriol would be 4 years of intraparty squabbling on the part of the Democrats. Especially when history will be made either way the party decides on this ticket.
However, I have been thinking that Obama is going to get the Democratic nod, for several reasons. First, he is a breath of fresh air (at least on the surface) for a party that is getting stale. Second, he has a wide reach, involving youth and younger voters and the Democrats would have to be downright stupid to alienate this block of potential party loyalists. Third, he's a man. Yep. There it is. I'm not 100% convinced that Hillary is better than Obama. But I do know that while racism runs deep in this country, sexism runs deeper. I would not be surprised if we had a black male president long before we had a white female president.
I look at the basic history of voting rights. Only 5 years after slavery was abolished (1865) Congress passed the 15th amendment (1870) establishing that no one (man) can be denied a vote based on race. It took 50 years before women of ANY color were granted the right to vote. The 19th amendment was passed in 1920. It took hardly any time at all for people to grasp that black men were capable of self-determination and rational thought, where before black people were only useful as property and bipedal work horses. But fifty years had to pass before women were given any credit for their abilities to cast a vote.
Of course, if you follow the feminist blogs you'll see that there is a rift between the feminist establishment (Hillary all the way) and younger feminists (who prefer Obama). Obama supporters are accused of selling out the dream. My personal mindset is much more post-feminist than the world's, but I do not believe we live in a post-feminist world in the slightest. Because of this, I do struggle with the thought that maybe I should be behind Hillary more than I am. As I stand, I'm really ambivalent about the two.
What I'd like to see, if I had my way, is Hillary as president and Obama as VP. I'd like to see women break the ultimate glass ceiling. Their policies aren't that different. They are fighting for mostly the same things. I do think that Clinton has more experience, and as veep Obama would get more upclose exposure, as well as be an excellent face for diplomacy abroad. Since the veep doesn't have a very powerful role, Obama could create one that uses his charm and relationship building skills.
Honestly, any configuration of Clinton/Obama will be historic - if they can only they can get over their pride and agree to work together. Worse than 4 more years of red/blue vitriol would be 4 years of intraparty squabbling on the part of the Democrats. Especially when history will be made either way the party decides on this ticket.