The Watchtower of Destruction: The Ferrett's Journal - January 27th, 2008
[Recent Entries][Archive][Friends][User Info]
|
11:35 am
[Link] |
Victory Is Ours! And So Are Complaints!
So Obama won South Carolina. I feel good about this, because Obama's campaign has become the ragged hobo standing outside my door, thrusting their hand into my face and asking for another $50 every time I turn around. Bums and political campaigns are much the same; you donate once, you're expected to forever. And if I'm going to be shovelling money at a candidate, the least he can do is win.
But South Carolina spells the end for Edwards. I mean, if he's a distant third in his own state, he's running on empty. I think he's just hanging in there to see if he can make the veep slot twice in a row, but then he's gone.
Which means that our 2008 Democratic candidate will be either a woman or a black man. And frankly, I'm already cringing. But I'm not cringing at the idea that we're going to have either our first woman or black guy running for President on the official Big Ticket; no, that thought fills me with joy and hope.
The problem is that now, no matter what happens, either a woman or a black guy is going to lose.
And whoever loses will inspire a ton of furious blog posts about how totally unfair it is that a [WOMAN|BLACK MAN] can't get nominated for President in America, and we'll be told that it's because the voters secretly despise it when some uppity [WOMAN|BLACK MAN] tries to step beyond their reach, and how society really hates [WOMEN|BLACKS].
Whoever loses will become transformed into the symbol of their entire race/gender, and used as proof that America secretly despises this race/gender. And they'll act as though Hillary's a typical woman, and Barack is a typical black man. Which is totally not the case.
Here's the thing: Though "White" and "Male" are certainly huge factors in electability, which is sad, it's not an automatic. Ask the clomping Frankenstein feet of John Kerry. Ask Michael Dukakis. Hell, ask any loser of a Presidential campaign, because until now every last one of them has been a white guy. And that didn't ensure their electability.
"Being a white guy" isn't an automatic ticket. All the polish in the world couldn't catapult Kevin Federline or Ron Paul into office. (Sorry, Paulians, but it's true.) The truth is that any campaign is often decided by how much the voters like you and how much they trust you to do a good job, which is a separate issue.
If Barack loses, will race be a contributing factor? Probably. But at this stage in our history, given how far he's come, it's more likely that he didn't get the nom (nom nom) because he doesn't have the experience and that scares people.
If Hillary loses, will gender be a contributing factor? Probably. But her personal history and raw ambition probably have a lot to do with it as well.
If either of them lose when they face $REPUBLICAN_NOMINEE 2008, does that necessarily mean that America's not ready to elect a [WOMAN|BLACK MAN]? No. It means that America's not ready to elect this [WOMAN|BLACK MAN]. Both of the candidates come with their own personal history, and opinions, and statements. Attributing a loss exclusively to their race/gender, as though the only reason anyone would (or should) vote for them is, "Hi, I'm a [WOMAN|BLACK MAN]!" is nearly as racist/sexist as the reasonably small number of assholes* who just plain wouldn't vote for a [WOMAN|BLACK MAN]. (Which, I should add, is probably balanced out by the number of folks who'd turn out because a [WOMAN|BLACK MAN] is finally on the ballot, and by God don't we want to be a part of that history?)
Am I saying that race and gender aren't a factor? Sure they are. Both Hillary and Barack are held to different standards than the other candidates, which sucks. But they're also not perfect candidates, either, and their failure to close the deal does not mean that they have presaged the electable doom of the entire race/gender they carry with them.
It means they weren't right for the time.
The candidates aren't just [WOMAN|BLACK MAN], but also a bunch of political stances that may turn someone on or off. For me, Barack isn't a black guy; he's a set of issues that I happen to agree with on the whole, and an attitude I find refreshing. And Hillary isn't a woman, but a candidate who I personally find to be a little too nakedly ambitious to feel entirely comfortable with her in the White House. For me, that's what's deciding it, and that's why I'll vote for Barack when the Ohio primaries come around... And, I suspect, similar factors of personal likes and dislikes are what will decide it for the majority of voters.
A slim percentage can tank someone's chances, of course. Come the actual election, and that ignorant racism/gender bias of "I won't vote for no [WOMAN|BLACK MAN]" might surface to cause some three-quarters-percent shift that tanks the Presidential election for either of them. I don't deny that it might be a factor in why they lost. But then again, Kerry shouldn't have lost to Bush in 2004 and Gore shouldn't have put himself into a place where he could get mugged by the Supreme Court in Florida in 2000 (coming off the heels of Clinton in an era of peace and prosperity, his not winning in a landslide was a catastrophe). Both of those white guys lost not because of gender/race bias, but because they ran really shitty campaigns. It's entirely possible that Obama/Clinton might get the victory in the primaries, go to the mat against $REPUBLICAN_NOMINEE, and then do such a poor performance that they would have lost no matter what race they were. (And frankly, I'm terrified that's what will happen.)
As my wife informs me, if a much-disliked Republican nominee gets the win against a beloved Democrat who ran a great campaign, then that's probably racial/gender bias. Anything else might be just because they did a sucktacular job. Race/gender would be a factor, of course - but then again, other, better candidates have overcome greater handicaps to win elections, and better-qualified candidates (there's Gore again) have pissed away bobbles they should have won.
In any case, a loss doesn't mean that a [WOMAN|BLACK MAN] can't win, of course. It just means that this [WOMAN|BLACK MAN] can't win, just like the hundreds of white guys who arrived in the pole position before 'em. It's a tough gig, getting elected, and not everyone gets to win it. And that's all I have to say about that.
* - I hope. Barack and Hillary's success are both giving me a little strength here, but Lord knows it's not a general election.
|
|
02:12 pm
[Link] |
Say, You Wanted To Listen To Me, Right?
My second video on Magic is up. Like the last one, it involves some minor knowledge of Magic.... But really, all you need to know is that a writer called Tom LaPille has been showing off his techniques in misleading and rules-lawyering his opponents out of wins, and the forums went nuts about his techniques. After that, it's a pretty easy take on morality and, um, Guitar Hero.
Anyway, here it is again. I worked very hard on enunciation and delivery, trying to make it more like my natural voice. Next time, I work on volume and figuring out how to make a video you can expand to the full screen.
|
|