WASPMs To the Rescue: Why Women and Blacks Can't be President

[susankh4]

I am an unwavering Hillary supporter. I won't ever deny that. Nor will I give up on a woman who has spent her entire life working for just the causes I care about.

I have also supported Barack Obama. After reading his books, I talked him up to my friends. It's been many months since I started calling for a Clinton/Obama ticket in 2008. I have actually been wearing a Clinton/Obama button since the beginning of this year.

To be honest, I was not happy when I saw the Democratic Party elders endorsing Mr. Obama *over* Ms. Clinton. Seeking to place a junior statesman in the highest profile position in the land seemed, at the very least, political folly. It rubbed me the wrong way. Called up my worst suspicions ... that my own "progressive" party was as mired in sexism and misogyny as is the rest of the country. At it's worst it spelled, to me, a willingness to commit political homicide. The readiness to risk the career of one of our great "up and comings" in order to keep an "uppity woman" down.

Still, I held fast to my belief that *someone* knew what s/he was doing! Surely, Howard Dean and the DNC knew that these two candidates, together, would energize our party? Certainly Mr. Kennedy was only trying to boost Mr. Obama's chances of staying in the race long enough to be considered a viable VP? Of course, everyone could see the power of change, begotten of *experience* and infused with *hope*?

Now I find myself, months into the campaigns of our two party hopefuls... simply scratching my head in disbelief. How could our party elders could be so irresponsible as to:

1) disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of voters in FLA & MI without looking ahead to the consequences?
2) pit two strong minority Senators against one another in the nominating process for an election that should have been ours for the taking?
3) subject one of our future hopefuls, Mr. Obama, to the kind of political scrutiny that invariably haunts (and aims to destroy) those who attempt transformation of a system mired in fear and apathy?

Did not one of the elders who endorsed Sen. Obama, over Sen. Clinton, see what they were doing? Did they not realize how high the stakes would be for the first woman president vs. the first African American president? Did they not know a long, drawn out primary would split the party into factions? Turn Dem against Dem? Could they not see... as could the average Dem on the street... that we had sixteen years of presidential material in front of us? Ours for the asking! I'll admit... I am rapidly losing faith in the good ole boys in Washington. They seem only too willing to throw away our next 16 years.... as it suits their own agenda.

Just what *is* that agenda? Beyond pitting Ms. Clinton and Mr. Obama against one another so that they (the WASPMs of the party) can wisk in and, patronizingly, tell us: "See, women and blacks CAN'T be president. We knew it all along. Now we'll have to install a white guy to keep the peace."

OK. Now I get it. It's all coming clear.

And I don't like it one bit.

[Skidmore]

1. Well, what the hell did we even bother with the civil rights and feminist

movements for? Even if your scenario would be accurate, and I don't think it is, then why now would we all want to rock back on our heels and cry "Woe is me?"

These two individuals are candidates because of that work.

[Spider Jerusalem]

2. There are many many reasons why someone would support another candidate over Hillary Clinton.

Many reasons that have nothing whatever to do with sexism. Personally, Hillary Clinton is the last Democrat of those who were running who I would support for the Presidential nomination, for reasons that have nothing to do with her gender and everything to do with her politics; I find her triangulation, willingness to pander on 'values issues' (see: censorship, flag-burning, etc) exceptionally distasteful. I know quite a few people (including many feminists) who feel exactly the same way; the idea that feminists must necessarily support Hillary's candidacy, because she is female, is condescending, to say the least.

And the DNC didn't 'disenfranchise' anyone; both FL and MI's state parties were warned, well in advance, of the penalty that would be levied should they defy party rules and move the dates of their primaries forward. They did so anyway, in defiance of the DNC, and were punished as they had been told they would be. The only irresponsibility in this situation is on the part of the respective Democratic parties in those states.

[JimGinPA]

3. Well Said!

:toast:

[nickinSTL]

4. Many reasons that have nothing whatever to do with sexism

Absolutely.

I have a lot of problems with Clinton. I did actually vote for her in the primary, because my preferred candidates were all out by the time my state voted and I'm still not convinced Obama is the right candidate (now, at least).

My general opposition to Clinton, however, has nothing to do with sexism. There are women I'd vote for happily - chief among them Sen. Barbara Boxer of California. Clinton has done plenty during her time in the Senate for me to oppose her on more substantive issues than sex.

[LizW]

5. Kick & rec n/t

[theHandpuppet]

6. Excellent, rational and heartfelt post

THANK YOU! So refreshing to read a rational perspective on the disaster this cycle's primary has become.

[Eric J in MN]

7. "party elders"?

We had elections.

If any of the candidates had won IA, NH, and SC, then we'd have had a nominee in January.

Instead, Obama won IA, then Hillary Clinton won NH, then Obama won SC, and the rest is history.

[susankh4]

8. We are all being played like fiddles...

and in the end.. we'll get a white guy in the White House.

Interestingly how the powers that be can use us to take each other down. And, like sheep, we believe we are each other's enemies.

[Orangepeel]

9. You give "elders" way too much credit

This is an extraordinary year. There is no incumbent President or VP running and the public wants a change. So, many good people thought it might be good timing for them to run for president and they did. Two of our many candidates have caught the fancy of the public with an ability to captivate audiences, raise money and do well in early primaries.

Nobody expected it to be a deadlocked situation this long. There is nobody in a back room has the foresight or the power to be pulling strings like that. It just happened the way it happened.

I take exception to your premise that people who endorsed Senator Obama over Senator Clinton are the ones who didn't think ahead. There are legitimate reasons not to support Senator Clinton and to think that she isn't our strongest candidate (that go way beyond gender). Likewise, there are legitimate reasons not to support Senator Obama over Senator Clinton. Nobody "pit" too strong candidates from historically disadvantaged groups against each other. We have too strong candidates who think that now is their chance to get elected and they are taking it. Plenty of "party elders" and members of the "establishment" have endorsed each one. They each have a preference and varying opinions of electability. That's made it difficult to choose a nominee and may hurt our chances in November. But it isn't a conspiracy. It's an inability to agree on who would be best.

In regard to FL & MI, Dean and the DNC were looking ahead to the possible consequence of states continuing to leap frog over each other to be early and the inability for future candidates to engage in voter to voter contact in the early stages of the contest. They weren't looking ahead to a situation where it would be tied in June and those states would make a difference. But that wasn't intentional.

I don't understand #3. It is a fact that anyone who runs for president must have a thick hide and the ability to respond quickly to scurrilous attacks. They are also all going to have shady donors in their backgrounds because politics takes money. If not now, it would have happened when he ran later anyway.

[susankh4]

13. I would like to believe this....

but I just can't anymore.

The situation we are in shows a complete lack of foresight on the part of party leaders. These are folks that should be in touch.... taking the pulses of their constituants at every turn. They had to know that FLA and MI would be strongholds for Clinton and Edwards. Hmmm.... handicapping???

Were our leaders simply and innocently out of touch? If so, that is damning enough. I'm normally not much of a conspiracy theorist. I want to believe the best about people. But... this situation is beyond "accidental." And it is pushing us all to the edge.

Imagine what it takes to get intelligent and thoughtful women... like Samantha Powers and Michelle Obama... provoked enough to use the kind of language they have.... "monster" and "Scratch his eyes out."

Something is really amiss.

[cali]

10. What a crock

She's a junior stateswoman just about as much as he is a junior statesman. She was married to Bill and that's why she was elected Senator in NY with NO previous experience. And if you think it's just white male insiders who don't want her, think again. Sebelious and other women feel much the same way.

Like so many hillbots you feel that Hillary is owed a coronation. She is not. I find your post disgusting in its sense of entitlement.

[zabet]

11. K and R

:applause:

[robbedvoter]

12. There's probably more truth to this than we're willing to admit

[Not the Only One]

14. It's not women vs. blacks (or men)

First,

To be honest, I was not happy when I saw the Democratic Party elders endorsing Mr. Obama *over* Ms. Clinton. Seeking to place a junior statesman in the highest profile position in the land seemed, at the very least, political folly.

A junior statesman? How is Hillary a senior statesman? She's not. That's a lie from the Hillary campaign. And besides, experience isn't all it's cracked up to be. Cheney and Rumsfeld had a very long resume and look where it got us? Was Abraham Lincoln a senior statesman? No, but he did a pretty damn good job. Being a good President is about having good judgment and having a core of principles that people trust in. Obama has that.

Second, this is a split between Clintonite Democrats and real Democrats. It's not about party elders choosing an African American man over a white woman. People like Ted Kennedy and John Kerry are tired of the Clinton way of doing things. They want a better way, a more traditional Democratic Party way. The Clintons stole the party from us. We have decided to take our party back because we deserve better.