Question #205 Sexo-racism
My question:
In a world where, in the primaries for the defacto "good" party, it comes down to a woman, a black, and a fucking white, why is it that, increasingly, the FW seems like the only reasonable choice? Racism? Sexism? Robotism? What?
9 comments:
Are you talking about Kucinich or Edwards?
I think because Edwards knows his odds are not good he is really swinging for the fences with his rhetoric. He is rolling the dice trying to raise enough money to keep his campaign going until the next primary.
Hillary and Obama have to be more cautious. The actual platforms are not too different from each other. I'd like to see Obama win cause he is the youngest and it would be the beginning of the post baby-boomer era.
I'm voting for Kucinich in the California primary though cause I agree with him the most.
I'm confused. The "woman" could also be classified as a "fucking white," and funily enough, some people argue that Barack is as white as any of them.
If by "FW" you mean Edwards, and by "reasonable" you mean "likely to be elected" I'd point out that FW Edwards swept neither Iowa or New Hampshire.
If by "reasonable" you mean "reasonable" I'd point out all sorts of other points...In another pointy answer.
I'm still trying to guess the FW, also... but for the record, no one likes cry babies in the role of president(FWs or otherwise).
Well, perhaps except for some middle aged women in the granite state.
Also Obama is way less of a robot than H. Clinton. Obama usually talks like a regular person. The main robots in the race are Clinton and Romney. I think the reason you like Edwards isn't cause of your sexism or racism cause you agree with him the most.
I guess I was just doing some self analysis on the subject.
I have been up days/nights working on Big Work Stuff so have missed most of it. I have seen some interviews though usually on good morning america which i watch before I go to sleep.
I was not considering the more fanciful candidates like kuc-bro but just the three from-which we are going to be getting our Demo-representative. Although I have recently been mind-changed about fanciful third party candidates,* I am coming at this from the 'only considering electable options' school.
When I listened to Edwards I found myself agreeing with his positions** feeling like I could relate to him more than Hilbot or Obamandroid.
This "I feel like I can relate to this dude at least more than those other two." feeling left me a little uncomfortable with myself because: What if this feeling is coming, at least in part, because, like me, Edwards is neither a "person of color" nor a "person of gender"? What if I am being like Patrick Bateman when he claims about the black homeless man (that I think he kills or blinds or something) that he "can't relate to him" and that "they probably don't go to the same clubs" or something like that?
I have no real answer to this question. I think it is probably a mixture of lots of things and I bet his white maleness factors in. I might not vote for any of the three for the reasons mentioned below in the first footnote and instead find the actual candidate that I like best; not the one of the subset that has a chance of winning that I like best.
* The argument in favor of fanciful voting choices is as follows: While it is more obv. in countries with parlements, "Third" party candidates can matter even in the American political system. A good example is in the case of Ross Perot. While Perot was blamed for Bush's loss (since most of his supporters came from the republlican side,) he actually won in a larger sense because, not only did it push both Bush and Clinton to adding more centrist views to thier election platform, but also influenced the centrist policy that was a halmark of the Clinton regime.
** Pete: especially the one you mentioned to me via personal email earlier.
Further: If it is impossible to remove race and gender from the equasion when you are chosing a political candidate, do you correct for it like some weird personal affirmative action?
Do you do this in everyday life? exempli gratia: Part of the reason I don't walk alone down 3rd street at night is because it is actually dangerous; the other part is because I am racist against blacks. Should I correct for this racism and at least consider that walk?
I think it comes down to the pyramid of pandering necessary for a 'pioneer' candidate. One really has to water his/her special factors down to be the 'first' viable president of his/her 'kind'.
I, of course, am registered Republican so that I can vote Dan Quayle in every primary (good times!)...but will continue to vote my conscience on unelectable third party candidates that actually make sense to me and in this way I can exit the booth feeling no cognitive dissonance.
I really wish I can answer this but I can't because I haven't really heard them talk that much and they all look like robots in photos.
I'm sure, Joe, that if you were in my position-- untainted by the "words" they say and judging them only on physical appearance-- you'd feel more inclined to vote for Clinton or Barack because, like me, you know that Black=Good, Woman=Good and White Dude=Bad.
Fortunately, I have heard Kucinich talk so I don't have to worry about choosing between Black and Female for the primaries, because for primaries I vote for the one I like most.
Post a Comment