Nope, no racial/gender divide here
I was unaware that the evil patriarchy seems to have decided that even though Barack Hussein Obama has a furrin’ sounding middle name and is obviously of a rich, dark hue, he at least pees standing up and is therefore preferable to Hils. Wasn’t it just a couple of weeks ago that Bill “Whitey” Clinton had directed the Democrat Machine to keep Obama down? I’m losing track. I do know this, though: The politics of victimhood are still hilarious.
In other news, the crazy left of 2008 sounds like the crazy right of 1996 what with their talk of the media’s candidate and all.
February 13th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
The media coverage of this sucks. I don’t name a single Democrat who prefers one candidate or the other on the basis of their race or gender, yet that’s all the media can talk about…
February 13th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
I just linked to one.
February 13th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Where?
In any case, I’m sure there are a few crazies out there, but by and large, the people I encounter (and read about) who have a strong preference between Clinton and Obama base these preferences on policy differences, not on “Hey, she’s white, and I’m white! She’s the candidate for me!”
February 13th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Uh, right there in the post you’re replying to.
February 13th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
See, that’s odd, because nowhere in the post you link do I see her arguing that “We should vote for Hillary Clinton because she’s a woman / white” or “We should vote for Barack Obama because he’s a man / black.”
Since when does complaining about media coverage concerning gender and race amount to the same thing as endorsing the view that we should use gender and race to make such decisions?
I do not think that post means what you think it means…
February 13th, 2008 at 6:48 pm
Read the comments to that post. That’s where the good stuff is…
February 14th, 2008 at 11:54 am
Funny how the party of racial and gender equality is fractured along lines of race and gender, while the party of racism and sexism is having a dispute over political ideology.
Erica Jong has a post at Huffington Post complaining about “the patriarchy” throwing away Hillary. Apparently, if the candidate does not have ovaries, the candidate is disqualified per Ms. Jong. Feminism has always been sexism. Though it’s funny how feminism still has to rely on votes from men to get its candidate elected, and that just isn’t happening enough for Hillary. Maybe all that feminist man-bashing over the years just isn’t paying off at the polls? 😉
As Ms. Jong puts it:
“If I have to watch another great American woman thrown in the dustbin of history to please the patriarchy, I’ll move to Canada…”
Go!