IMO a political campaign is NOT the place for a "dialogue" on gender or race

[Armstead]

Watching the Democratic Party blow ourselves up real good forces one to an inescapable conclusion.

Race and gender issues are very complex and volatile. We need to discuss it and deal with both honestly and openly.

But he field of political campaigns is NOT where we should be sorting out the difficult problems of sexism and racism.

Obama is African American. Hillary is a female. Those should be considered positive attributes in a Democratic candidate. Period.

Beyond that, they ought to fend for themselves as race-and-gender neutral candidates. Leave it up to voters to decide who to support.

Some voters will make those their most important characteristics -- on either positive or negative basis. Okay. So be it.

But when we make the genetic characteristics of the candidates first and foremost as a subject of discussion in the campaigns, we are blowing it.

Some will say "But we must tackle the problem of sexism and this is a golden opportunity to do that." Or they might say the same about race.

But the problem is that political campaigns are by definition self-serving. Each candidate wants to fluff themselves up and rough up their opponents.

It's bad enough under normal circumstances when "identity politics" isn't involved.

But when you combine the passions raised by political campaigns and their supporters with the passioins raised by gender and racial issues, it becomes explosive. The nastiness becomes a disservice to both the issues and the quality of political campaigns.

Like Hillary. Like Obama. Dislike Hillary. Dislike Obama.

But IMHO opinion, we are screwing ourselves if we continue to double-up the need for dialogue on race and gender with the imperatives of a political campaign.

[lumberjack_jeff]

1. A subtle quibble.

I think that these attributes should reflect well on the Democratic party. They are neutral to the candidates themselves.

If we consider these attributes important to the candidates, we're right back where we started again - right here, pulling one another's hair out.

[Armstead]

2. It is subtle

I think it's inevitable that it would reflect on the candidates.

However, it ought to be handled as neutrally as possible rather than making it the centerpiece of their message.

[lumberjack_jeff]

6. Kick

[JohnnyLib2]

3. You make a very powerful point.

Any number of thoughtful people have commented on the explosiveness and sense of somehow "playing with fire." The strong show by each of our two candidates can stand alone as statements of social change and I hope history records it that way.

But--is it too late to defuse the volatile combination and nastiness?

K & R, with thanks.

[Armstead]

4. Thanks

I don't know if the genie is too far out of the bottle, but it might calm down if the subject gets back to subjects like economics, national security and human needs.

[Armstead]

5. Kick

[kentuck]

7. Very true, Armstead.

We all need to show more respect on both of these issues.

[Annces]

8. I agree

There is a whole new dynamic going on with Obama and Clinton. Politics is so often about not playing fairly. And so when these two try to outdo each other, you don't know when they are playing fairly or not because of the gender and race issues.

If Obama does win, we will see his whole character come out. People are putting him on such a pedestal right now.

[kentuck]

9. kick

:kick: