Thursday, January 10, 2008

A couple of blogs I read have current posts that are deep in the Hillary/feminism discussion.   In the midst of one of the most positive electoral demographic shifts since Andy Jackson proved a populist frontiersman could defeat the entrenched aristocratic interests, the question of who has a harder time winning votes, a black man or a white woman, has emerged; and, if we are not careful, the question could become a defining dichotomy in the 2008 nomination process.  Who benefits from this discussion?  Not black people and certainly not women, because there is no clear path to convincement in the debate.  It’s not likely that anyone’s mind will be changed.   But the discussion itself delegitimizes criticism of Obama’s or Clinton’s policy directions in favor of protecting tender feelings.

Ronni Bennett has a post (“Senator Clinton and Elder Women”) with a comment thread worth reading, and so does Tamar Jacobson (“I’m in a pickle”).

I was born in a racist and sexist society, and I’ve struggled against racist and sexist teachings and leadings for the last forty years at least.  I’m a little tired of the discussion.  I will be especially pissed if we let the press and pundits turn this nomination into a superficial struggle between gender and race.  Shirley Chisholm should have been President of the United States, but somehow nobody figured that out back then.  Let’s get on with the serious business of helping the Democrats define a platform that leads us to single payer health care, no matter who is nominated, a platform that assures a righteous end to the wars in southwest Asia no matter who is nominated.

{ Comments on this entry are closed }