With the recent comments made by Barack Obama regarding considering running in the 2008 race, and the constant speculation about Hillary Clinton running and Rice on the Republican side possibly being interested at some point, it makes me consider an interesting (and very unfortunate) question.
It’s my opinion that American society has unfortunately not progressed to the level that the sex or race of a presidential candidate would not be a factor (and a negative one, at that, if they are anything other than an old white guy).
I guess the real questions (assuming you’d acknowledge / agree that some segments of the American population would never vote for a woman or a non-white man in a presidential election) are what should the party (Democrats, in this case) do in light of that? Should they play it safe and not endorse these as their leading candidates, since they would be guaranteeing themselves lost votes, or should they be brave and promote the most qualified candidate, even if they happen to fit into one of these categories?
19 Comments
I was saddened by this exact thought last night. It is indeed unfortunate, as he is perhaps the smartest minds in politics. Imagine the fun they will have with his name alone.
If you would have told me 20 years-a-go that a black person or a women could not get elected as President I would of thought you were crazy. But here we are. Man.
What to do, what to do.
I got it. He should run under a different name and be made up as a fat white guy (prostetic stomach, make-up, soul-less laugh, etc.) And then when he wins he can do the full Scooby-Doo reveal at his swearing in. Would be awesome.
They should show humble respect for the American people and support someone with good ideas and good character, regardless.
I agree that we might not be electing the smartest people for office but I rather not have a token either. Not saying Obama or Clinton would be one but I’d imagine people voting for either just because of “their condition”; not being white or having testicles is a platform, not for the many but there are voters out there who would vote for Mr. T for president just to defeat the racial barrier. Some may call it reverse racisim, I don’t really care.
We should also point out that Obama would have a harder time getting votes because his name rhymes with Osama and not because he’s black.
To answer the question: I agree with Nate, sort of. Why don’t we just nominate and elect the best person for the job. I’d prefer we don’t even point out the whole race and sex thing. IMO it’s not helping, it’s only creating a different kind of segregation.
I think both potential candidates have proved their mettle and merit to their would be constituents. That’s why they find themselves considering a run for the presidency. So there is really issue of tokenism to contend with. I have thought about this too Jared, and I suspect if a man of color entered the arena, we’d see a lot more African Americans registering/voting. As dems, we should absolutely back these people as candidates. Even if it takes baby steps, eventually (unless we’ve lost all hope in the process–a real possibility) it should lead to a sea change. Not to mention, these are the best contenders we’ve had on our side since Clinton.
i think the idea that some won’t vote for not a white male is bigger than the people actually not voting on a moral ground. who you voting for? the woman? oh, not me…unless you are. are you? no, you wouldn’t. i want to vote for the winner…who’s gonna win?
I think it is interesting/stupid how the left/dems paint Rice as a sellout.
Some argue that to be black and a black woman she HAS to be dem.
She is conservative, she is black, she is a woman!
Great to hear everyone’s thoughts on this. I think that I would also take the position of backing a qualified candidate, even if I did think their gender or race would negatively impact their chances. I like the positive side that you bring up, though Michel, I guess I hadn’t considered that.
For me, this is kind of related to my feelings about the last presidential election. It seemed like my preferred candidates from the Dem. camp were in reverse order of popularity (Kucinich, Dean, other people, then Kerry in a distant last place). I ended up voting for Kerry even though I really didn’t like him, just because he was a hell of a lot better than Bush and I didn’t want to take any chances. But, at the same time, I felt kind of dirty for doing it, because you shouldn’t feel like you have to vote for someone just because of the way the system is set up.
I think in the end, I would have been much happier voting my conscience and going with Nader. Kerry easily won California anyway, so it’s like my vote didn’t even matter as far as that goes, but I don’t want to get off track on the whole electoral college debacle.
Basically, I think what I’m saying on this particular issue is that I think it’s best to vote for a good candidate, even if you don’t think they can win.
… but then even as I type that I get the horrible sinking feeling that if a lot of people decide to do that it could tip the scales towards a Bush successor, which I think should be avoided at all costs. Argh, politics sucks.
Another topic trolled in the direction that I no longer want to read.
Did you think this was Digg for a second there?
No, but I wish WP had the comment system that digg has.
The comment I agree with most here: “…politics sucks.”
I am not surprised that race and gender are issues in elections. Governments are organizations run by people. People are inherently corrupt.
It is also unfortunate that we as a society have not evolved past murder, theft, adultery, gossip, lying, coveting, abuse, and a long list of other things. The truth is though, that this world NEVER will overcome those things. Until God himself delivers the world that we live in from itself these unfortunate realities will persist.
Yeah if WP had the digg comment thing I could block any future Mac vs. PC B.S. arguments.
After just watching Sunday’s Meet the Press where Obama had the first 30 minutes (I love MtP, 30 min. w/ no commercials) I’d actually be surprised if he didn’t run and I’d imagine that he being pushed back to a Vice Presidential seat. How? He’s not going to get the parties complete backing, the primaries will make him second and he’ll drop out only to be brought up by the dem. party winner. And if I can speculate more I’d agree with the guest on MeP who said that Clinton would not run for the Pres.. So that’s my guess and if I’m somehow right there’s no need to worry about if we are “ready” or not. It doesn’t look like it will happen for at least 6-10 years.
That personal speculation aside, I would vote for Obama after what I’ve already read and that interview. Even if he had no chance.
I actually don’t think that race or gender would be that big of a factor in the next presidential election. I think what will be a much bigger factor is partisan politics.
A majority of U.S. voters are committed to one political party, and will only vote for “their side,” regardless of where the candidate stands on issues. I think that the minority that are not in that group are independent thinking enough that race or gender would not be a factor.
That doesn’t mean that they would vote for a woman or a black candidate merely because of their gender or race, but I think it does mean that Clinton or Obama would have just as fair a shot of winning the election as a white male candidate.
As much as I’d love to agree with you on that, I can’t.
Are you telling me that if Condoleezza Rice was to run on the republican side that there wouldn’t be a significant percentage of that party’s base (in the south, etc.) that would have a problem with voting for her?
I’m not saying they would switch sides (because I also agree on your partisan point), but I definitely think a lot of people would abstain.
I think that at this point alot of people in either party would vote for a black person (if it’s their party’s candidate) just because they want their side to be first to say they elected him. I don’t think the same is true for a woman. (Because we all know that women are skitzo and really can’t be trusted to be completely reasonable or stable.) But if its a black person AND a woman, she probably has a good chance. I think Rice has a great chance because I think alot of black people Dem’s will vote for her just because she’s black, and I bet some women dem’s will vote for her just because she’s female, and I think alot of fringeys will vote for her just because she’s different, and I think all strick conservatives will vote for her because of that, and I bet most military folk will vote for her because of her current position. Geez! She’s a shoe-in! I’m gonna vote for here because of her last name. I love rice!
I think a great race would be Rice vs. Obama. That would be major confusion for the flaky voters. The biggots (of every ehtnic group) would go crazy.
Like I said before, it sucks, but I think racism and sexism is still too big of a problem in this country for that to happen. I’d love to be proved wrong on this one.
I’m pretty sure that in today’s climate, as Nick mentioned above, you won’t see most of the hardcore, party-line voters switch over to the other side, but I think that a lot of people would definitely allow their prejudices to lead them to not vote at all. Presidential elections are usually won by small margins, and I think that the racism and/or sexism would easily tip the scales if it were to come into play.
It’s too bad most people aren’t smart like us and can’t look past a candidate’s race, sex, and party affiliation to what’s really important–IQ and/or amount of armpit hair. Except for black people of course, thank goodness they’ll only vote for another black person.
Heard a segment on the radio yesterday where they made the ideal candidate for a make believe congressional destruct, the experts thought the most electable person would be an authentic woman with deep, simply expressed beliefs some sort of security experience like being a vetran or a police officer. Actually, the experts thought a well qualified woman was the ideal for 1994 as well.