February 16, 2007

• The Constitution they wrote was designed to protect the rights of white, male citizens. As there were no black Founding Fathers, there were no founding mothers -- a great pity, on both counts. It is not too late to complete the work they left undone. Today, here, we should start to do so. -- Shirley Chisolm, Aug. 10th, 1970. The Constitution does a pretty good job of protecting the rights of white, male citizens. I'd be thrilled if Americans could elect someone different -- but I have serious doubts that it'll happen for a while. Demographic shifts will take care of it eventually, but not just yet. I hope I'm wrong. I really do.
• If it were just demographics, then I think there might have been a female President by now. I think there has to be some other financial catalyst, too.
• Quite amazing the the number of people who would not consider a female president was more than double of those who would not consider a black president. I would not have guessed that sexism is twice the problem of racism in America.
• Oh, obviously. The great failure of the Suffragist movement was that once it got the vote, it just stopped. If it had continued on, with women voting as a block and in their own interests, there would have indeed been a female President. Instead, many women just chose from the existing options (voting the same as their husbands?), entrenching that political elite. If there will be a minority President, it will come from a recognition that their interests are not served by the current options -- that financial catalyst. I suspect that when a female President comes along, she will have arrived there due to an alignment with the current political elite, rather than any real societal shift (which may be detrimental, in a way, as the voice of women would be co-opted, and their real needs neutralized). IMHO, YMMV, IANAD, etc., etc.
• (In response to my creamed friend, obv.)
• We're getting closer and closer. I don;t know if we're there yet but I feel we're on the cusp. In '00 I really thought Lieberman's Judaism was more of a factor than it probably was.
• I think a female president is a mere eventuality at this point, whether it will be Hillary or not only time will tell. A Mormon? Mmmmmmaybe. I think people are mostly over the religion question. No one would think twice about electing a Catholic now. A Jew might meet some stiffer resistance in some regions, but could probably pull it off. Mitt Romney is a stiff and a jerk, so I don't think he personally has what it takes to win, but I could imagine a Mormon winning. When the day comes that the Hispanic population of this country realizes it has a stronger grip on the electoral process than they think, there will be an Hispanic president. Maybe toward mid-century. But I don't think I'm going too far out on a limb to say that there will never be a black man elected to serve as president. American racism runs too deep and too wide on this. Obama could become president if he was the VP and the president died, but neither he nor any other black male will ever be elected to the White House.
• With the last couple of elections being extremely tight races, statistically small effects like gender, race, and religion can easily become deciding factors. This raises the question of whether parties should nominate the best qualified candidate, or the best qualified electable one.
• The "liberal" media has been critical of a Hillary run for years. Clearly the Republicans are frightened of her, and have spent that time trying to convince Americans she's unelectable. And they seem to have done a fair job of that. That being said, I think the first "minority" President will be Republican, unless both parties put one up. Condi vs. Hillary will set record lows in percentage of population voting, and a strong third candidate could surprise.
• On preview: another consideration in the modern selecting of a candidate - the parties want someone who'll follow the instructions from behind the curtain. You can't think Dubya was really the best qualified or most electable candidate available.
• I think a black man will be elected, and I think he will be a Republican. Black democrats will vote for him. The racist folks would be too worked up over gays and abortions to vote for a liberal, so they would wind up voting for a black man anyway.
• I think Obama is electable in a way that H. Clinton isn't. Baggage, and whatnot, whether deserved or not. (Though I think some of it is plenty deserved, from my place on the left watching her repeatedly sell out lefty ideals.) He's certainly more electable than Condi. Who isn't? As the midterms should have made clear.
• The racist folks would be too worked up over gays and abortions to vote for a liberal I remember seeing something from the last two presidential elections showing that the "black vote" had shifted significantly to the Republicans, and that it had a lot to do with strong anti-gay sentiments from black voters.
• I agree with HW -- Obama being more electable than Clinton. There's just too much baggage there, deserved or not. Even if she got in, there'd just be too much squabbling over her personally, that she wouldn't be able to accomplish very much. More importantly, though, further legitimizing familial dynasties isn't the best idea for a Democracy. For every dynasty that is skilled, there's one just as entrenched that isn't. Plenty of other qualified candidates out there.
• Also agreed with HW and the Capt. But in reality, it's far too early to even begin to imagine how everything will play out (for me anyway). All it takes is one slight misstep. Oops. And there is goes... That doesn't deny the fact that there are more "firsts" on the table in 2008. It's nice to hear. But hearing is one thing. Seeing - I'll wait for that. *wonders where this will all stand one year from now*
• The media giveth. And the media taketh away. I give you Howard Dean before and after "the scream".
• Wake me up when we get an atheist president. Or even an openly agnostic one. Then call me Rip Van Winkle, 'coz it's gonna be a long wait.
• What frac said. The quote from Bush Senior in 1987, "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." still makes me so hopping mad I can't see straight.
• fractalid, I'd say that most of the U.S. presidents in my lifetime have been secular in worldview, which is really the crux of the matter. JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Clinton--they may have made nods toward religious types, but they weren't religious nuts. And you can't really claim Carter's religiosity was a negative in terms of his policies; if anything, his religiosity made him a more compassionate leader, most likely. If you think you have to have someone who isn't religious as a leader to get the world you want, you might consider rethinking things from this angle (secular vs. superduperreligious). The "religious people are nuts" trope is really an oversimplification, and in the end can make you unnecessarily miserable. /reasoned rant
• That said: Of course, in the case of fucking nutbag religious wackos like the current Bush, you're right on the money.
• What frac said. The quote from Bush Senior in 1987, "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." still makes me so hopping mad I can't see straight. You might want to console yourself that it has never really been proven that George Bush Sr ever said that. To the best of my knowledge, no one has been able to produce the quote from its orignal source and the link you provided states The original online source for this material, frequently cited on both pro- and antiatheism websites, no longer exists. Also, George Bush Sr was only a one term president so at the end of the day he's a loser. Also, he has been dealing with defective sperm his entire life.
• If it had continued on, with women voting as a block and in their own interests, there would have indeed been a female President. The problem with this idea is that women don't really have any unified interests. But I don't know much about women so I could be wrong. Still, I think 50% of the population is going to have wildly different views and opinions.
• Wake me up when we get an atheist president. Or even an openly agnostic one. Some would argue that we've already had at least one. But yes... the faith test has become pretty obnoxious, especially in recent years.
• I don't think it's so much that an atheist President would be better than a Christian one; I just think it's sad that one couldn't be elected.
• It's much worse than that. If the US gets a president who does not close an address to the nation with, "God bless America," then there will be screaming headlines questioning his/her faith.
• True that.