Why The Running Mate Will Be A White Man
| November 2nd, 2007Assuming that Obama or Clinton wins the Democratic nomination, that is. (Personally, I hope Dodd wins, but of Obama or Clinton I’d prefer Obama.)
From The Debate Link:
There is a very predictable media narrative that will form if two members of politically underrepresented groups appear on the Democratic ticket. One person is ground-breaking and history-making. Two people, by contrast, is an “affirmative action” choice and proof the Democrats are in thrall to “interest groups.” If Obama picks a woman, it will undoubtedly be cast as “appeasing” women’s groups who were ready to see Clinton break the ultimate glass ceiling. If Clinton picks a Black running mate, same thing, except replace NOW with the NAACP. This is what Derrick Bell calls the unspoken limit on affirmative action. Even if at first the diversity is applauded, at some point folks will start getting uncomfortable with too many women or people of color. A presidential ticket that doesn’t include a White male is virtually inconceivable, and it’s equally inconceivable that the media won’t make heavy note of that fact in the unlikely instance it comes into being.
November 2nd, 2007 at 4:29 am
Could be true, but typically the running mate is one of the other contenders. So unless clinton/obama pick the other person all your choices are white guys.
This comment was written by Joe.Report this comment to the moderators
November 2nd, 2007 at 4:51 am
If Obama really wants to get elected, he’ll tag Bill (not Hillary) as running mate ;)
(can he do that? I dunno, but it’;s a funny thought)
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
November 2nd, 2007 at 7:16 am
There’s always Richardson, the perpetual Vice Presidential candidate… who’s also Latino. I’ve always seen a bit of wisdom in Hilary picking him even though I can’t imagine it happening.
This comment was written by murphy.Report this comment to the moderators
November 2nd, 2007 at 1:19 pm
I wish it were otherwise, but I don’t think this is surprising. There’s something psychologically very basic about it.
Also, Hillary would never agree to be anybody else’s Veep. She only wants the top post.
This comment was written by Kay.Report this comment to the moderators
November 2nd, 2007 at 1:26 pm
If the Democrats end up with Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton, it is hard to see how an “affirmative action” / “pandering” narrative would fly. I think most people would simply see that the two top spots went to the two top contenders. Some white guys would be yelling it, but I suspect that would just hurt the other side.
This comment was written by Decnavda.Report this comment to the moderators
November 2nd, 2007 at 1:27 pm
Well, yeah Kay’s right about Hillary. She’s already been the #2 person in the White House, Veep would feel like a demotion.
This comment was written by Decnavda.Report this comment to the moderators
November 2nd, 2007 at 2:59 pm
I doubt that either Hillary or Obama would want to be veep; I especially doubt it for Hillary.
Being vice president isn’t actually much fun, since you’re responsible for things you don’t control. Being a senator is much more powerful, and arguably more influential, since you’re not overshadowed by the White House.
This comment was written by Ari Rabkin.Report this comment to the moderators
November 2nd, 2007 at 3:18 pm
Elections are stage-managed, all important decisions are made off stage. Neither party will leave Iraq if the oil isn’t secure. We also won’t get universal health care unless it 1. becomes intolerably dysfunctional for business people (not there yet) or 2. people put up a fight for it (not strong enough yet to win).
For the most part the American ruling class (i.e the 1% who owns 50% of US wealth) doesn’t lose a moment of sleep over liberal/left machinations over the identity of the vice-president. But as far as the dog and pony show goes unless Hillary self-destructs she’ll be picking a white guy– I’d guess Edwards. Obama has no chance.
This comment was written by drydock.Report this comment to the moderators
November 2nd, 2007 at 4:28 pm
I still doubt that the Democrats can win the presidency at all if either Clinton or Obama are on the top spot of the ticket; as veeps though, no problem. I do think the US is ready to vote in a black or a woman, but I do not think that Obama or Clinton are the ones to garner the moderates and independents to break the barrier. Obama possibly in 2012, but Clinton never because her gender is not on the top ten list of her problems. In fact, I think the first woman president will be a Republican.
This comment was written by ferg.Report this comment to the moderators
November 2nd, 2007 at 8:18 pm
Now as you know, there’s been alot of talk about a black vice president. And I just wanna tell the world that it’ll never happen. As long as you live you will never see a black vice president, you know why? Because some black guy would just kill the president. I’d do it. If Colin Powell was vice president, I’d kill the president and tell his mother about it. What would happen to me? What would they do? Put me in jail with a bunch of black guys that would treat me like a king for the rest of my life? I would be the biggest star in jail, alright, people would be coming up to me and I’d be signing autographs: “97-KY, here you go.” Guys would be going: “You’re the brother that shot Bush. And you told his mother about it huh? I hope my children turn out to be just like you, Man, you know I was getting ready to rape you until I realized who you were. And even if they had a death penalty, what would happen? I’d just be pardoned by the black president. So you see, Dennis, it would not be in George Bush’s best interests to place Colin Powell on the ticket.
This comment was written by Chris Rock.Report this comment to the moderators
November 4th, 2007 at 7:43 pm
I agree mostly. I don’t think the Democratic Party is going to do anything but pick a White man for its nominee. I’d like to think it would happen but this country is just too damn racist and sexist and that extends to its two main political parties and probably the rest as well. Even when we think as a country, we’re ready for a Black male and/or woman president, well even having to make that statement makes it clear we’re not.
And it doesn’t mean that a more progressive platform would be promoted because the system remains the same.
Maybe I should have more faith, but I don’t.
But I do agree that it’s likely the first woman president will be a moderate Republican. I could be wrong but I don’t think most of the male leadership of the Democratic Party would trust a female candidate to do right by them and I’m not sure that’s the case with Republicans if they pick the right one.
This comment was written by Radfem.Report this comment to the moderators
November 4th, 2007 at 8:36 pm
[…] and wanted to blog . . . I can’t remember why now, but I suspect it had something to do with the upcoming presidential election somehow . . . but I am way too tired to share whatever witty insights I may once have had, so […]
This comment was written by Sunday blogging against racism #13–The Souls of Black Folk « I wanna love You better whatever it takes . . ..Report this comment to the moderators
November 4th, 2007 at 10:04 pm
The could then resign immediately after being elected, allowing Bill to re-assume the Presidency.
I don’t see why not. Amendment XXII only refers to Presidential elections. It places no limitation upon who can run for VP or assume the Presidency in the event of the President’s death or incapacity.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
November 5th, 2007 at 4:33 am
The vp has to be eligible to be president. So bill is out.
This comment was written by Joe.Report this comment to the moderators
November 6th, 2007 at 1:21 am
Where in US law does it say that a twice-elected former President is ineligable to be President again? The 22nd amendment says only that he cannot be elected to the office of President for a third time.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
November 6th, 2007 at 7:47 am
Where in US law does it say that a twice-elected former President is ineligable to be President again? The 22nd amendment says only that he cannot be elected to the office of President for a third time.
This has already been discussed by the powers that be. The prevailing opinion seems to be that, even if he’s eligible, it wouldn’t be worth the legal battle.
See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/19/AR2006101901572.html
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
November 7th, 2007 at 1:00 pm
Dudes! What about Ron Paul? A bipartisan ticket would be one for the record books. But honestly…I hate to say it, but if the Democratic tickets was Obama/Hilary Clinton or vice versa, the repubs would win the election. The good ol boys of this country (and their wives ) could MAYBE stomach one minority–or the other—BUT NOT TWO AT ONCE! A woman and a Negro! They’d lose their minds and Guiliani would win and we’d all go to hell.
This comment was written by tmj.Report this comment to the moderators
November 7th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
Dudes!
Uh…what about him?
I took a look at his website. His only mention of healthcare under his “Issues” banner is “Health Freedom”, which apparantly is something about ensuring that I have the Freedom to take weird supplements. What, does he own stock in Herbalife or something? Not a word about fixing the lack of healthcare in this country.
Taxes…hmm. He wants them lower. (Not a word about making them fairer.) From the sounds of it, he wants to do this via the massive-cuts-in-spending route, rather than the buy-on-credit-and-let-the-grandkids pay route. Well that’s just peachy…because when I look out the window, I don’t see an abysmal transit system, people unable to afford healthcare, or people sleeping on the streets. Oh, wait, no, actually, I DO see those things.
Immigration: lots of stuff about deportations and securing the borders. Not a word about what IMO is the true solution: punishing employers for hiring undocumented immigrants, and helping to make Mexico and Central America better places to work (so folks don’t have to choose between leaving their families or watching them starve).
Sorry, Ron Paul is about the last guy I’d like to see running the country. Dudes.
This comment was written by Bjartmarr.Report this comment to the moderators
November 7th, 2007 at 8:47 pm
Women are a minority? Is there some definition of the word with which I’m not familiar?
I’m disappointed Rice isn’t running.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
November 7th, 2007 at 9:41 pm
There’s a common usage of the word with which you’re pretending not to be familiar for rhetorical purposes. :-)
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
November 9th, 2007 at 4:43 am
Perhaps you should repossess and sell everything from your local candidate’s McMansion and pet kickback funds, bjartmarr, instead of hating on the one person trying to bring order to utter madness. So his health care sucks, there’ll be enough money sent back to families they can pay their way anyway, and once taxes are driven low enough, you can then bring in a couple of genius economy whizzes to figure out which areas would be most beneficial to raise to slowly move into a working system of national healthcare. Roads only suck because too many construction contracts are involved, we should really have developed better materials by now. Tackle the mobsters at your own peril.
This comment was written by Heironymus Merkin.His immigration policy is likely reactionary just because he lives in Tex-ass. Give him time to settle into the 1600 farther away from the problem and he’ll probably cook up something better.
Personally I always swing constitutionalist or green, but this once I might go for Paul.
Report this comment to the moderators
November 9th, 2007 at 5:19 pm
Sorry, but Obama lost me when he invited Donnie McClurkin, the anti-gay ex-gay gospel singer, to join his campaign. What a slap in the face to gays, to have a prominent anti-gay figure up and center in his campaign. Does Obama just think my vote doesn’t matter, or that it’s collateral damage while pandering to what he imagines is the socially-conservative element of the black vote, or what? If he had brought a prominent anti-Semite to be a public supporter of his campaign, would we all still be crushing on him? Wouldn’t there be SERIOUS outrage? Why is it permissible for him to insult gay people this way and still get our votes?
Oops, thread hijack.
This comment was written by idyllicmollusk.Report this comment to the moderators
January 7th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
I’m with Daran - I’d love to see Condi run.
This comment was written by Johanna.Report this comment to the moderators
January 8th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
I should clarify. I wouldn’t want her to win, but it would be way cool if the final face-off were between two women or two blacks.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
January 9th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
Two blacks??
Two black WHAT, if you don’t mind?
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
January 9th, 2008 at 9:45 pm
Two black people.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
January 9th, 2008 at 10:09 pm
And while we’re on the subject:
On January 8th, 2008 at 8:18 am, Dianne wrote:
On November 7th, 2007 at 8:47 pm, I wrote:
And it wasn’t because I can’t spell Condul… Um, Condolis…, er…
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
January 10th, 2008 at 12:07 am
“Two black people.”
Then try describing them with the fact they’re PEOPLE in mind and not a just a freakin color.
Jesus Christ.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
January 10th, 2008 at 9:52 pm
OK. I checked my privilege. Now what?
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Now stop acting like you don’t know better.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2008 at 9:12 pm
I’m not acting. If it looks like I don’t know better, then I either don’t know better, or I just don’t agree with you.
In this case, I do agree with you that it is better to say “black people” than “blacks”, which is why I responded as I did in #26.
I don’t agree with your #28 to the extent that it implies that I think of them as colours rather than people. I do not. I do agree with #28’s criticism of my language use, but I already conceded that. It was from laziness, not from thinking of them as colours, that I wrote “blacks” instead of “black people”, and I will try not to be so lazy in future.
Is there anything else that I should have understood from this conversation?
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2008 at 10:13 pm
Oh, I forgot. Your intent trumps all.
*eye roll*
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2008 at 11:17 pm
Which intent are you talking about? My intent to be less lazy in future?
The intent is worthless in and of itself. What matters (to me) is whether I am, in fact, less lazy in future.
If that also matters to you, then cool. We can monitor my future performance together. If it doesn’t matter to you, then that’s cool too, but, why are we having this conversation?
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2008 at 11:28 pm
Correction: what matters to me is that, when referring to black people in future, I use less objectifying language. Being less lazy is how I intend (yes, that word again) to achieve this.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
January 12th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
The point Daran is that you did objectify. It doesnt matter that you did it because you were lazy, the affect is still the same. Your reasons or excuses for that language are irrelevant. They don’t change it, they don’t soften it, they don’t excuse it.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
January 12th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
I understand that. But here’s the relevant part of the conversation again, paraphrased:
pheeno (#28): You used objectifying language because in your mind you think of black people as colours.
Daran (#31): I used objectifying language because I was lazy.
pheeno (#35) Your reasons for using objectifying language are irrelevant.
If my reasons are irrelevant, then why mention them in the first place? I stated the real reason, not as justification or excuse, but to correct your misstatement of my reasons. It is important to me that my reasons for saying the things I say are not misstated. If you wish to take me to task for my language without getting into an argument with me about my reasons, then do not misstate them. Either state them correctly, or do not state them at all.
To sum up:
I acknowledge that I used objectifying language to refer to Rice and Obama. My reasons for doing so are irrelevant. I have stated that in future, I intend to use non-objectifying language when referring to black people. That intent is also irrelevant except in so far as it leads to my actually using non-objectifying language in future.
Is there anything further we need to discuss?
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
January 12th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
Telling you to keep it in mind means
dont be fucking (lazy, ignorant, forgetful, priveleged, jackassy) from now on. It doesnt matter if it was lazy, ignorance, privelege or jackassery when you wrote it. Just fucking stop it.
Get the difference yet?
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
January 12th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Since Daran has already said a couple of times that he does intend to keep it in mind, I think that should be an end to it.
This conversation between Daran and Pheeno is circular. Please don’t continue this conversation any further, either of you. Thank you.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
January 13th, 2008 at 9:18 am
Daran’s intent aside, can i ask for clarification?
I feel like I see “whites” and “blacks” and “latinos” and “asians” and other descriptors used all the time to refer to people. And i certainly do it myself, on occasion.
We even do it here, reasonably often. For example, a Google search titled:
“blacks are” site:amptoons.com
shows over 100 results (not including comments, i don’t think), including a few from people like Amp and Rachel S, who I generally assume are not especially racist. (there are also 100 or so results for “whites are,” if you’re curious.)
So what’s the consensus? Is using words like “whites” and “blacks” to refer to “white people” and “black people” offensive? It’s not all that difficult to avoid, but it’s certainly convenient shorthand.
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
January 13th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
I would also like that clarified. I’ve seen that usage countless times from progressive writers.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
January 13th, 2008 at 8:49 pm
I dont really care who you’ve seen do it, I personally find it offensive. As a WOC, I am more than my skin color. Regardless of how progressive someone describing me is.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
January 13th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
“I think that should be an end to it.”
Well thats nice. I dont.
Once again, inent was thrown out there as if it changes anything.
It doesnt.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
January 14th, 2008 at 4:34 am
Pheeno, Daren never said that his intent changed anything. He said that its only relevance was to correct your statement about his thought process. You seem to be arguing with someone that isn’t there.
Also, amp’s a moderator. So what you want, and what he wants do not have equal weight on the blog.
This comment was written by Joe.Report this comment to the moderators
January 14th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
In an attempt to get everyone’s mind off of the recent argument over wording, I’m going to make the following prediction: The running mate will be a white man and so will the candidate. I know that this prediction doesn’t look so likely now, but in a few primaries, I predict that Edwards’ “electibility” will suddenly receive a lot of play and people will use that as an excuse to ye olde white male rather than risk letting *gasp* a woman or a less than completely melanin challenged man get into the presidency. This is not meant as a smear against Edwards as a candidate: If he started winning on the grounds that he has the best health care plan or is most likely to end the Iraq War or has the best haircut, I won’t claim that he won on his privilege. But if, as I predict, people start voting for him as the most “electable”, well, that sounds like a code word for “we can’t have one of THEM as president, can we?” to me.
But then who would the running mate be? Dodd? Biden? Al Gore?
This comment was written by Dianne.Report this comment to the moderators
January 14th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
“He said that its only relevance was to correct your statement about his thought process”
Which I’ve explained doesnt matter. It’s merely another show of privelege to go onto to “correct” my statement about his thought process. That’s one of the affects of one’s words. That is part and parcel of the impact his words had. POC are no longer obligated to “understand” white people’s laziness, mistakes, ignorance or hate. We’ve been well aware of the myriad excuses for some time now. Trying to “correct”us or explain it to us just continues on with the insult. We aren’t the ones in need of racism education.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
January 14th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
Yes, but this isn’t your blog (and I note that you didn’t disagree with me that the argument had become circular).
I agree with you entirely, by the way, that intent in a case like this doesn’t matter. Which makes it even odder that you refuse to drop the subject.
The subject of Daran’s intent is closed on this thread. Next person to bring it up, either to defend Daran or to attack him, is banned from the thread.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
January 14th, 2008 at 11:53 pm
[…] conversation started here: I should clarify. I wouldn’t want [Condoleezza Rice] to win [a hypothetical run for Presidency], […]
This comment was written by Privilege « DaRain Man.Report this comment to the moderators
January 15th, 2008 at 12:53 am
[…] to reinforce it? (Edited to add: I am not suggesting that feminists intend to reinforce it. As discussed here intent doesn’t matter. What matters is […]
This comment was written by Feminist Critics.Report this comment to the moderators