To others who responded to my comment: OK, I can see why getting a woman or African-American president would be a big deal, even if that particular candidate is pretty far right. However, when you do point out examples like Maragaret Thatcher, I have to respond that, yeah, the UK had a female PM. That one time. (And anyway, the whole PM thing is different because here you vote for the party (though ok, the party leader is pretty decisive for a lot of voters), and the party leader can change mid-term, as you’ve seen with Gordon Brown taking over from Blair.)

My point is this: if the only women or African-Americans who will ever be elect-able are the conservative, right-wing ones, what is the point? To get a mild moral victory? I don’t see that Maggie made the UK a particularly woman-friendly place to be, in any way. And her success certainly didn’t open the door to other women being party leaders of the main parties.

Is that cool or what?

No value statement is intended here in any way, it’s just that it’s so hard to find things that work these days!

Amp - there’s also “Clintoon” or “Klintoon”.

Interestingly, this is the first time I’ve heard the term “Bushbot,” whereas I’ve heard “Obamabot” countless times. I’d also never heard “Snobama,” and it took me a few minutes with Google to even figure out what it was supposed to mean.

wasn’t the Rumpole phrase “she who must be obeyed”?

It might have, been, but it didn’t originate with him.

Overlook Clinton’s Whiteness

Probably from the Harry Potter series…wasn’t the Rumpole phrase “she who must be obeyed”?

Me. I am, of course, a moderate and Obama is more conservative than me, therefore he is a conservative;-).

He also appears somewhat more conservative than Edwards and maybe Richardson (though he dropped too soon to tell.) None of the major democrats were seriously liberal, though.

Daran:

In other news, it looks like the right-wing has decided that Obama has already won the Democratic nomination.

I don’t think that’s particularly limited to right-wing commentators.

Kevin: “Obamabot”? Hadn’t heard that one. I would have thought that had been worn out by the left-wing’s use of “Bushbot”.

I tend to agree with Mandolin about the not-so-clever names of derision- especially about “Billary” - but I disagree about the use of images to illustrate a point or to reflect a feeling about someone. Yes, it is visceral, and as such beyond (or below) the rational; but I don’t discount the visceral as an absolutely invalid means of judging a candidate. My first reaction to Mitt Romney was visceral: “That dude is bullshitting me.” I felt the same way about 1992 candidate Bill Clinton: “Who is this Republican Lite?” So finding imagery that reflect qualities of the candidate that one finds irritating about them can be a fun part of engaging in the debate.

Granted, I draw political caricatures, so my eye is atuned to such things. What I try to avoid, however, is the easy cliche’ - Bush in cowboy boots, even if it fits his cowboy imperialist swagger. In the early years I prefered representing him as a doofus king, using various medieval imagery. Given his love of waterboarding, not very inaccurate, really.

To give a specific scenario suppose the race were down to Clinton versus Edwards instead of Obama versus Clinton. Suppose further that you thought that Edwards was the slightly more desirable candidate based on probable policies and/or ability to govern. Would it be worth voting for Clinton anyway, because of the possible side benefits of improved integration of women and minorities into government as a result of her example?

It’s hard to say without an example to test…no one makes too much of a fuss about minorities, women, or non-Christians being in the legislature or cabinet in the US, but the presidency is different. (I think an openly gay candidate would also have trouble in some areas of the US, although I may be misreading relative levels of what people get excited about.) So people in the UK may be ok with gay cabinet members but not a gay PM. And, assuming they are ok with a gay PM, would they have been without Thatcher to demonstrate that the world didn’t end if they elected a non-standard candidate? (Non-rhetorical question: I don’t know whether Thatcher made any difference or not in that sense.)

but they will only be taken seriously if one of the relatively conservative current candidates wins.

There is another possibility - that over a period of time, public attitudes shift sufficiently that the issue becomes a non-issue, without there ever having been a trailblazer. I think that would be the case now in the UK if an openly gay candidate were to stand for leadership to one of the major parties, and consequently for MP. There have been several gay cabinet and shadow cabinet ministers already, and nobody particularly cares.

If either is elected then we have the first non-white or non-male president ever in the US. That seems pretty exciting to me. Neither is the great liberal hope, but so what? Look at the first woman PM of Britain: Margaret Thatcher. Or the first Kanzlerin of Germany: Angela Merkel. Or Pym Furtuyn. Right wingers, all of them. The first “non-standard” leader generally is a conservative. Clinton or Obama would be fine and the precedent exciting. The next woman or black or non-Christian or openly gay candidate to run may be more interesting politically, but they will only be taken seriously if one of the relatively conservative current candidates wins.