I’ve been chuckling at CNN for the past two days. They’ve replaced the stock market banner at the bottom of the screen with the headlines “history being made” because Obama is the Democrat candidate for president. Correct me if I’m wrong, but history would have been made with all of the following: Hillary as the first woman president; Hillary as the first presidential spouse turned president; Romney as the first Mormon president; McCain as the oldest president; and Giuliani as the first Italian-American president.
Please tell me: why the separate standard for the first black president?
I’m a lifelong Democrat, but this is just making me question what we’ve turned into. I long for the days when everyone is colorblind. Why won’t you let me be colorblind?
If they just switched to this it coincides with Obama becoming the nominee. I don’t see why they wouldn’t have done it for Clinton as well. As for the others, while your points are obviously correct given the historical narrative of our country race and gender are the two big barriers to overcome. The others are still at the end of the day white men.
What do you mean, at the end of the day, the others are white men?
<
p>There’s a difference between being “colorblind” and being indifferent to history.
<
p>Given the obstacles people of color and women have had to overcome in this nation in order to rise to positions of power, acknowledging the success of both Obama and Clinton in this presidential race validates historic struggle and signals the advent of a new era of possibility.
I supported Clinton in the Primary, not because she was a woman, but because I believed her to be the best candidate.
<
p>I am supporting Obama in the General, not because he is a black man, but because I think he is the best candidate.
<
p>Yes, there have been obstacles to overcome by people of color and by women…and by gays and by Italian Americans and by Hispanics…and on and on.
<
p>But like librus, I have to agree that I, too, long for the day when everyone is blind to race, gender, etc. in this country.
<
p>That’s not being indifferent to history…that’s longing for a better day.
I don’t understand your point. No one here is longing for a day when color dictates political choices. I am not arguing that people support Obama purely on the basis of his skin color or Clinton on the basis of her gender. I am stating that people, by their references to historic, are acknowledging the obstacles these two individuals have overcome. That’s all.
…is that it’s a little sad that the achievements of Obama and Clinton are being celebrated in the media and elsewhere more because of their race and gender, respectively, than because of their brains and tenacity.
Brains and tenacity are tacit requirements in getting to that level of public life for anybody. The brains and tenacity in each of their respective cases are such that the historic limitations are negated.
<
p>In either case, it’s the brains and tenacity that got them where they are, unhindered by their skin color or gender, and that’s the point.
You just have far less faith in the voting public than I do. I never thought for a second that skin color or gender would have been an impediment to political success–except of course for a handful of nutjobs (of all races and both genders).
to extrapolate wildly on no facts when it suits your rhetorical purposes.
<
p>I don’t really care what you thought for a second, candidly. I’m pleased, too, you view yourself as so superior to the rest of us idiots who value what Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton symbolize.
I have no f*cking clue what that says. I guess I’m the idiot, huh?
Likely a good idea to discontinue the exchange.
My original point was that each of the candidates would have made history in some fashion, yet this forum and the media have chosen only to point out the history being made by Obama (and perhaps Clinton had she been nominated). I understand the good intentions here, but political correctness like this causes an avalanche of unintended consequences and, ironically, exacerbates the very problem that it is intended to resolve. I prefer to be color-, gender, etc-blind, but the PC crowd is just not going to allow it.
are certainly your prerogative and, as stated, laudable. They don’t, however, negate or delegitimize the fact that both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have made a little history in this election cycle. If that’s your idea of PC, well, okay.
I’m not delegitimizing (is that a word?) Obama and Clinton. I’m just pointing out that your legitimizing (I guess that would be a word then) is selective.
Are you honestly implying that no other people have had obstacles to overcome in this nation? And besides, I didn’t say that we should not acknowledge the success of these two candidates. I’m merely pointing out the 800 pound double standard in the room.
Are you “prone” to generalities? I don’t post here often enough for you to know what I am or am not “prone” to.
<
p>That said, are you really suggesting that I am denying other people have not had obstacles to overcome? I never suggested any such thing, but I can understand your needing to make that assertion.
“Generalities” would apply to more than just you, wouldn’t they? As for your suggestions, you did limit your comments to race and gender.
<
p>Generalities was my term here, not yours, remember? Recall:
<
p>
<
p>So, your statement to me above makes no sense. I was using “generalities” to describe your license in claiming authority in knowing what I am prone to. I described your claim as an example of someone indulging in “generalities” because I thought you were talking to me with this rather sweeping, uh, generality, regarding my behavior:
<
p>
<
p>I think it is reasonable for me to infer that you are talking to me, so I don’t see where egotism factors here.
<
p>My comments, as well, are quite clear and self-explanatory; no qualification is needed.
“I was using “generalities” to describe your license in claiming authority in knowing what I am prone to.” This is the basis of my comment that “generalities” would apply to more than just you, wouldn’t they?”
<
p>As for the “as usual you are taking serious poetic license” comment, yes, that was directed at you, just five posts ago. And yes, you post here often enough for me to have made that observation.
<
p>Then your talents are wasted here.
you are funny, whether intentional or not
McCain would NOT be the oldest President and none of those other people DID win anything. That’s what makes THIS history.
I said history “would” have been made. Conditional tense, i.e. it didn’t happen. I stand by my assertion that McCain would be the oldest person to be elected president.
Ronald Reagan was older than McCain is when he was nominated and subsequently elected to his second term in 1984. Thus, John McCain, if he is elected in November would be the oldest elected to a first term, but not “the oldest person to be elected President.”
<
p>Your complaint is about CNN’s coverage of something that has happened and you’re comparing it to their non-coverage of several things that have not happened. Sorry, but I can’t follow you on this.
My point was simply that CNN has been talking about the “history making” aspects of an Obama or Clinton presidency since the beginning of the campaign, i.e. before either one of them actually DID anything. But they didn’t bother to point out any of the other history that would have been made had one of the others clinched the nomination or the presidency. That’s all. It’s just the same old story: some elements of diversity are worth more than others.
<
p>Let’s face it, CNN should officially change their title to BNN, the Barack News Network.