Comments on: Political Baggage

By: Red Seven

Red Seven — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 01:35:04 +0000

I’ve said from the beginning that it’s no accident that THIS black man and THIS woman are the FIRST black man and the FIRST woman to be taken seriously as a candidate for President of the United States. And the reason is this: neither of them conform to the stereotype of their group.

The difference is that Barack Obama is being rewarded for not conforming to his stereotype while Hillary Rodham Clinton is being punished for not conforming to hers.

I’m not a fan of the “Oppression Olympics,” where we try to figure out which oppressed group is more oppressed than all the others, but I do think that different “ism’s” play out in different ways. Racism is essentially a societal force that tries to get everyone to be more white — to speak the way white people speak, to dress the way white people dress, to behave the way that white people behave, and to punish those who don’t. Sexism is just the opposite, a societal force designed to keep men and women in rigidly defined gender roles, punishing men who speak, dress, and behave like women are “supposed” to, and women who speak, dress, and behave like men.

The media’s reactions to Senators Clinton and Barack bear this out perfectly. Hillary has stepped away from a rigidly drawn definition of how a woman should behave, and it’s hurting her. Meanwhile, Barack began his campaign not with a loyal black following (they originally supported Sen. Clinton), but with a primarily white base. This bi-racial man who looks black but was raised by his white mother and white grandparents knows how to communicate with white people in a way that doesn’t push any of their racist buttons, and he does so brilliantly, and it’s giving him a big boost.

For the record, I voted for Hillary (in the DC primary) but am perfectly happy supporting either candidate in the general election …

By: R. Mildred

R. Mildred — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 23:11:22 +0000

Wasn’t Edwards leaning towards Clinton as recently as last week?
I doubt the vice loser was. I really really do on a level I cannot convey through the constraints of the latin alphabet.
I really don’t see how Clinton wouldn’t be just as vulnerable to it.
You forget that Hillary’s policies involve A) having a slight catch in her voice which is totally the same as crying for some as yet unexplained reason and B) her vagina is actually a portal to a magical wonderland (that looks a bit like New Zealand) which is ruled by a talking lion who is also jesus.
Cooter Narnia = immunity to criticism regarding her super privelaged class status. End of F**king discussion, she is a woman, she is by definition therefore perfect and any criticism is totally a form of sublimnal misogyny even if that makes no sense and is complete and ridiculously obvious bullshit.

please ignore the policy vacuum behind the vagina owning douchebag, surely having her run for presidency won’t be a hideous vinegary train wreck or anything.

By: Redstar

Redstar — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 19:18:22 +0000

Wasn’t Edwards leaning towards Clinton as recently as last week?

By: Hugo

Hugo — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 23:07:44 +0000

I wonder if Edwards’ pending endorsement of Obama (according to CNN) may assuage some of those working-class voter concerns.

The GOP built a winning majority on a three-legged stool: social conservatives, economic conservatives, and foreign policy/defense conservatives. Mike Huckabee, who is the first but not the second, is exposing a serious weakness in that stool — as is McCain, who is definitely the third but who goes off the reservation at times on the first and second.

The Dems need a platform that includes the anxious working class who care primarily about economic security — and the more comfortable suburbanites who are the typical “fiscal conservative, socially liberal, environmentally concerned” types who are easier for Obama to woo.

Hey, Obama can talk about repaying student loans — who else can do that?

By: arbitrista

arbitrista — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 04:17:54 +0000

I think that your concern about Obama is certainly a reasonable one, but I really don’t see how Clinton wouldn’t be just as vulnerable to it. The public perception of her is that she is a standard mainstream D.C. liberal Democrat. I don’t see that as an insult, but many people would. The candidate in the race who made the most explicit argument about middle/working class anxiety was John Edwards, who was simply crucified by a hostile press. What happened to him makes me discouraged about any straightforward class-based politics.