Reply #8: As gently as I can

[gottaB]

I'll remind you that only one of the are 9 (or 10 counting Clark) candidates can actually win the nomination. There are few logical reasons to believe that Moseley Braun's prospects aren't as good as any of the other candidates. And, as I'm sure you are aware, there are other political gains to be made besides winning the nomination. If you don't want to argue your point, and would rather just make your assertions and not answer for them, that's your prerogative, naturally. However, since you've posted your opinion, I hope you will understand my desire to challenge your assumptions and defend a contrary point of view.

As I see it you presented two lines of argument, the logically primary one being that as a Black woman Braun can't be elected. It is true that some polling suggests that about a tenth of the electorate say they won't vote for a woman for POTUS. And about the same number say they won't vote for a Black. I don't have any data handy to back me up, but if I had to guess, I'd reckon a lot of those bigots are the same bigots, that is, there's a high correlation between sexist bigots and racist bigots, so that the actual number of voters who claim to be prejudiced is not near 20%, but is closer to 10%. It is my sincerest hope, though I have no absolute proof of this, that most avowed bigots are already aligned with the Republican Party, so that even if we're talking about avowed bigots in an open primary, what we're talking about is more in the order of a minor obstacle rather than like Alpine peaks.

That doesn't account for the number of voters who vote out of bigotry, but wouldn't explicitly say so. That group I'd call swayable, because their inconsitency suggests either a discomfort with their prejudices or a lack of confidence in their vote. How much of an obstacle swaying that group will be depends on how Braun handles her message, and how the campaign develops. So far, I'd say--well, it's a little early still to definitively assess, but on the plus side she hasn't stuck her foot in her mouth (imo) and there's something to be said for that.

Now, the second line of argument assumes that Braun is unelectable and then discounts the political value of endorsing her anyway. That's essentially the argument Dean made before NOW when he said of himself that he was "from the electable wing of the Democratic Party." A lot of NOW delegates there were impressed with Dean, and they made that argument in supporting him. But when people examined the records and positions of the candidates, and took into account the poltical and social value of Carol's feminist message, that a woman is every bit as qualified to lead as a man, they went with Braun.

What if they had gone with Dean because of his argument about electability? Or any of the other contenders who sought their support? Consider for a moment the implications of that. For one thing, it's by no means certain that any of the guys will recieve the nomination. In the event that they passed over Braun and went with one of the men, and that man didn't win the nomination, or the process went into a brokered convention, and Braun was still in the running, where would they be then? They'd have egg on their faces for sure, because they'd be no better off than had they endorsed Braun, and they'd look like hypocrits to boot.

(There's an argument about affirmative action in there, I'll leave it for another time.)

Therefore, it seems illogical to criticize NOW for endorsing Braun, and not, for instance, the Teamsters for endorsing Gephardt, or the South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association for endorsing Kerry. or any of the many organizations, political leaders and concerned citizens who endorse candidates in the primary.

On edit: Typo