I don't understand why people who think it's fine for Biden to promise and us to expect a female VP

[StarfishSaver]

have a problem with expecting Biden to select a black woman.

Democratic white women responded with overwhelming praise and enthusiasm when Biden announced that he intended to select a woman as his running mate, thereby limiting his options only to women. But I'm now seeing a troubling number of white women balking at the suggestion that he should further limit his options to only women of color.

In just about every discussion about Biden needing to choose a black women, many of the white women who hailed his "Only Women Need Apply" stance suddenly went all "not the color of their skin but the content of their character" on us.

Why is it fine for Biden to limit his choices by gender, but not limit his choices by race and gender?

If the racial "identity politics" is verboten, why is gender "identity politics" ok?

[Hoyt]

1. No problem here. In this time, it's the only only pick that makes sense.

[Faux pas]

2. I

hope he picks a woman of color, if not, I'd be more disappointed than I already am.

[LisaL]

3. I don't even think that Biden should have committed to picking a female VP.

Whoever is most qualified should have been the answer. But he did promise to pick a female VP. He didn't promise to select a VP of a specif race. So it makes no sense to insist he keep the promise he didn't actually make.

[Luciferous]

71. I agree.

[Solomon]

84. I agree as well.

[Mossfern]

94. Count me in on that sentiment

He shouldn't have made a promise for any specific gender or race for VP.

[maximusveritas]

97. Yes that was a mistake. No reason for him to do it other than pandering

and now he's paying the price for it.

[treestar]

107. +1

He made the commitment and all some people are going to do is then add a demand?

It is like setting us up for division and disappointment if he choses a white woman. That can't help.

[hlthe2b]

4. I have yet to see anyone on DU not support one (or all) of the women of color that appear to be

the front-runners. Saying that is their desire in terms of pick, but that they will absolutely work for Biden regardless because defeating Trump is paramount IS NOT the same as suggesting they don't support a WOC. I find it sad and exceedingly disingenuous that that is being conflated.

[StarfishSaver]

5. Then you haven't been paying attention

But that's not my point. I'm not talking to those who think that choosing a woman of color is a bad idea - and there are plenty here who have expressed that view. I'm talking about those who complain that Biden shouldn't limit his choices to women of color, when they had no problem with him limiting his options to women.

If it's ok to limit his options only to women, it should also be ok to limit his options only to women of color.

[hlthe2b]

8. And you are drawing one hell of a broad and divisive brush.

[StarfishSaver]

10. "Divisive"

Uh, huh ...

[CTyankee]

16. Oh, Starfish, here we are again...how ya doin? Still hoping, I hope...I am!

Now I'm off to the store for groceries and hubby's lunch...

[hlthe2b]

24. Suggesting you or anyone else will not support Biden, our presumptive nominee if he does not

chose your preferred candidate for VP leaves most of us incredulous. However, accusing DUers (who suggest that that position is incredibly likely to result in a Trump reelection) of somehow not supporting a female POC or POC, in general, is damned divisive. Everyone I have seen making the case (that defeating Trump must be paramount) has previously expressed strong support for one or all of Harris, Demings, Rice, Bass, Duckworth, Keisha Bottoms or one or more of the earlier suggested front-runners.

Am I going to turn my back on the election if he chooses, Warren, or Whitmer and risk a Trump second term? HELL NO, I'm not! NOR SHOULD YOU SUGGEST THAT IS ACCEPTABLE!

We've seen this play out before and it should scare all of us.

[StarfishSaver]

33. Since I never said anything close to that, your accusation is off-base

But it's a great example of how black people speaking uncomfortable truths about race seems to trigger some people.

I suggest you calm down, read what I actually wrote and think about it instead of going into kneejerk reactions to what wasn't said, suggested or implied.

[hlthe2b]

47. I can verbatum post your responses to me back where you did just that.

on this and your previous thread.

But, your divisiveness and accusations thrown at DUers who ALREADY strongly support your objectives toward nominating a woman POC as VP is not only damaging but again very disingenuous. Your condescension when others call you on your unsupported accusations about DUers not supporting women POC candidates is more division. Perhaps YOU should calm down and consider your actions and statements. They are harmful to the community that should be coming together. Now of all times.

[Crunchy Frog]

82. From everything that I've seen,

That's what this poster seems to be here for. JMHO.

[SlogginThroughIt]

25. Can you provide links?

You are making accusations against members here.

Provide links to these occurrences and it will legitimize the accusations.

[drmeow]

6. Personally, I don't care who he picks

But I could see some objections given that there has never been a woman of any race in the executive branch so why set a further restrictions? ANY woman would be acceptable. Also, why not a Hispanic woman or an Asian woman or a Native American woman.

[fleur-de-lisa]

7. Black women have been the backbone of the party

and the most reliable voting group. I will be sorely disappointed if Biden doesn’t select a black woman.

[smirkymonkey]

102. +1000

[spooky3]

9. I personally have no "problem" with it. But here is my attempt to explain the issue for

those who do.

It probably makes perfect sense to them that, because this is an election and not a corporate hiring of an employee, for which "quotas" would be strictly prohibited in most cases, i.e., "I will name only a woman/I will name only a person of color to this position", that Biden would state that he would consider only members of a group that has been grossly underrepresented in the position, and who is a member of half of the population, to boot. Not only are there fairness considerations, there is the issue of how best to motivate voters, many of whom are angry and say that it is time to stop excluding them.

White women have been excluded by their gender from top offices for our entire history, usually through nomination but also by voters. If you were a white female, highly qualified, etc., candidate, the fact that white men had access does not benefit you any more than it benefits any other group, e.g., black women, Latinx men, etc. You were viewed as "not qualified" because of your gender. The woman who came closest to either VP or P was subjected to tons of sexism in 2016. Thus they are a (grossly) underrepresented group.

So, for those with a "problem", it strikes them as patently unfair now to in effect say to them, "OK, you've been excluded by gender forever. We won't do that anymore. However, we now are going to exclude you on the basis of your race." It may strike them as denial of the reality that women of all races have faced and continue to face structural discrimination, which is just as offensive as denying racism.

Further, what about Latinx women, Asian-American women, etc.?

Finally, one other concern that those with a "problem" may have is that our ticket has to appeal to as many voters as possible. White women who vote for Democratic candidates are still a much larger group of voters in terms of numbers, than are Black women (and white men, by far), even though the percentage of Black women who vote for Democratic candidates is higher. Those with a "problem" may want Biden to select whoever will be most appealing to the largest # of voters, and not to rule out anyone from consideration who would otherwise be good.

[people]

15. Biden's VP

Biden has never said he will pick a VP of color. He has said numerous times that he will pick a VP who is a woman. The list includes an asian woman and it did include a hispanic woman as well as white women. Persons who say Biden will or should pick a VP who is African American are not Biden himself. I would be very happy if he picked Kamala.

[wryter2000]

17. I would buy that, except

(I know you're not speaking for yourself.)

We've had a white woman at the top of the ticket and another as VP. Except for the most exceptional politician and statesman of my time, we've never had an African American at all. African American people are the most loyal Democrats, especially African American women. With the current progress we appear to be making on race, it's time for an African American woman.

Mind you, I wouldn't say that if we didn't have highly qualified African American women available. You don't just throw someone in because of their race and gender.

[spooky3]

22. I think their response would be "close doesn't count" and women are 51% of the population. nt

[wryter2000]

30. African American women are part of that 51%

Close may not count, but never being asked to join has to matter for something.

[spooky3]

38. No one is denying that racism is a problem (at least i hope not). But

by deliberately excluding all women (including brown women, etc.) other than Black women from consideration, one is essentially saying that only Black women have faced unfair discrimination.

I will happily support through emotions and actions WHOEVER Biden chooses.

[wryter2000]

41. As someone pointed out

Biden only said "woman." It seems to me it's shaking out that the two top choices are African American, and I can't wait for their contributions to the campaign. Especially if she's an Oaklander.

[StarfishSaver]

35. So by "women," they mean white women?

Since all of the people of color we're talking about are also women.

[PunkinPi]

42. Bingo. nt

[LizBeth]

53. No. Again, creating your narrative for a battle not there.

[StarfishSaver]

55. The poster said "white women"

I didn't "create a narrative." I responded to words.

[LizBeth]

58. You absolutely did create and continue to create your narrative. This is not good faith conversation

and I do not participate in these conversations when the poster supposedly wanting information then refuses to hear others position. You want to see it in your own way, to have your own specific conversation, and that is not what a single person is saying. Go at it.

[StarfishSaver]

19. Thank you

That makes sense, BUT

You are forgetting that we are talking about WOMEN of color, not just any person of color. If Biden picks a woman of color, that is an advancement for all women.

Let's remember that while women have been excluded from many opportunities, it wasn't just white women - it was ALL women. And when the opportunities began opening up, it was white women who got of the first shots while minority women continued to be excluded. In fact, white women have been the largest beneficiaries of many of the civil rights gains that black Americans fought for. For example, affirmative action has benefitted white women more than any other group. White women, while no where near white men in equity, are still in better positions than black women and black men.

So, it sounds like you're saying that white women are unhappy, not that women won't benefit from this selection, but that it won't go to a WHITE woman, as if every fopportunity to break a barrier for women should naturally go to white women first (and choosing a white woman wouldn't really be groundbreaking since we've already had 2 white female VP nominees and a white woman presidential nominee). Otherwise, if it's a question of WOMEN getting the opportunity, why shouldn't it be a black woman, who would break two major barriers. (And, yes, I know we had a black male president before we had a white female one, but critical race studies show that the SECOND black person to break a barrier is often the more critical one since the first is usuay seen as an exception ...)

[spooky3]

32. No, I didn't forget about that. Please re-read what I said.

I haven't read all the posts you may be referring to, so maybe it's not my place to speculate.

But what you are saying about white women's job opportunities and the "beneficiaries of affirmative action" depends a lot on your perspective as there is a ton of research that suggests you are incorrect. Please read more on this --academic articles, not just popular stuff.

I know a lot of people say and believe this, but they are looking only at certain statistics and studies, and not others. You are also focusing on employment and not on President/Vice President positions. Your argument can be interpreted as denial of unfair discrimination that white women face on the job and in politics, while recognizing racism and intersectionality, which continue to be huge problems.

[LizBeth]

36. You are excluding women, not the poster. "So, it sounds like you're saying ..."

At this point you twist to your narrative. That is wrong.

[spooky3]

39. Thank you. nt

[StarfishSaver]

40. The poster was referring specifically to white women and their feelings of exclusion

White women have been excluded by their gender from top offices for our entire history, usually through nomination but also by voters. If you were a white female, highly qualified, etc., candidate, the fact that white men had access does not benefit you any more than it benefits any other group, e.g., black women, Latinx men, etc. You were viewed as "not qualified" because of your gender. The woman who came closest to either VP or P was subjected to tons of sexism in 2016. Thus they are a (grossly) underrepresented group.

So, for those with a "problem", it strikes them as patently unfair now to in effect say to them, "OK, you've been excluded by gender forever. We won't do that anymore. However, we now are going to exclude you on the basis of your race." It may strike them as denial of the reality that women of all races have faced and continue to face structural discrimination, which is just as offensive as denying racism."

[spooky3]

50. No, you asked the question as to why some people who don't have a problem with excluding men

from VP consideration would have a problem excluding white women. So I tried to answer that question, which requires focusing on the effects of excluding white women.

Thanks for your comments. See you later.

[StarfishSaver]

52. I understand that

I was responding to someone who said you were not speaking of white women.

[LizBeth]

51. The poster was specifically addressing that because you specifically brought it up.

So, it sounds like you're saying that white women are unhappy, not that women won't benefit from this selection, but that it won't go to a WHITE woman, as if every fopportunity to break a barrier for women should naturally go to white women first

No, not a single person I have heard that stated not to exclude a groups of women, not to pit groups of women against each other feel that a white woman HAS to be picked. That would be excluding, right? That would be pitting woman against woman, right? Every post I have had with you, every single one, I laid out my position and clearly stated EACH ONE of our women would be a great choice. Don't exclude a group.

Where do you get people not wanting a black woman.

EVERYONE of our women are exceptional.

But those statements aren't good enough for you and you twist it that people are saying it has to be a white woman or white women are unhappy. That has never, never been the conversation.

[wryter2000]

37. I forgot about Sarah Palin

Wish I could forget about Donald Trump. Maybe for just a few minutes.

[LizBeth]

26. +1

[hlthe2b]

61. thoughtful assessment.

[Doreen]

11. Getting a WOMAN in was the main idea.

At this time in history getting a women despite her color is important. We did break the color barrier with Obama but we yet to break the gender barrier. I am very confident that Biden will choose a very good running mate despite her color. We all seem to have our own personal likes and dislikes of possible VP's but what matters the most is getting a woman in.

[BusyBeingBest]

12. I don't think he has to choose a black woman. Or a woman.

I'd vote for whoever he picked, regardless of race, gender, age. But he boxed himself into a corner and limited his own choices (or his campaign did), in a way no previous nominee has done. We'll see if it works out.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

28. "But he boxed himself into a corner and limited his own choices (or his campaign did), in a way no

previous nominee has done."

Except for all the nominees who considered only white men.

[spooky3]

45. +1

[Trailrider1951]

62. Exactly right! RBG was once quoted, "Nine"

Ah, here it is. Kudos to DUer Nevilledog:




https://www.democraticunderground.com/100213814273

[democrattotheend]

64. But none of them publicly announced such a limitation

I absolutely think Biden should pick a woman, but it would have been better if he had vetted both men and women and ultimately decided that a woman was the best candidate, rather than announcing a gender limitation early on. Doing so opened up his eventual VP nominee to charges of being a token pick or a product of affirmative action, which for some people has a negative connotation. I wish he had just picked a woman without pre-announcing the limitation so it wouldn't be so easy for people to question whether his eventual pick was the best person available instead of just the best woman.

[LizBeth]

68. And three months lining up and creating an atmosphere of a damn competitive pageant

going on display the candidates and conversations like we have never seen in a VP pick. I watched Biden supporters that have a problem with Warren actively create a battle between women that we see so often and it is sickening for me. That black community that have said they are good with Warren being fed they have a problem with a pick of a white woman. It has been three months brewing and creating and it was totally unnecessary and not healthy for any of us, as a whole.

[Mossfern]

98. +1

[Demsrule86]

13. Please stop. Biden will pick whom he deems best for a winning ticket.

I will support any choice.

[LexVegas]

14. What's wrong with an Asian American woman?

[DFW]

18. I agree. I think the gender limitation was a mistake, and was not OK.

A second Y chromasome shouldn't be a requirement any more than dark pigmentation should be a requirement. Being a strong likelihood for performing as a loyal, effective, fabulous Vice-President should have been the ONLY requirement. Ability to navigate Congress and foreign policy is not something that comes automatically with any particular gender or race. Why limit the options?

But he did. It's a done deal, and now it's up to him and his team to select among what they consider to be their options.

It's Biden's choice, of course, and far be it from me to say I know better than he does what he wants or needs, but I would not have boxed myself into a corner that way, and that early. He is fortunate that he has several good choices in all categories, and I'm sure he took that into consideration before narrowing his choices down, but my personal preference would have been that he not do that.

On the upside, these discussions will soon be irrelevant. Most of us have our preferences, and that is normal, but once his choice is made, we move on, and can close this subject for good.

Some will, no doubt, want to rahash the choice for whatever reasons, but none of us will get him to change his mind once the choice is made, so I hope the energy spent on dissecting the decision will be somewhere between minimal and none.

[LisaL]

21. I also think it was a mistake.

He should have stuck with picking the most qualified candidate. But now some insist he should set even stricter limits.

[democrattotheend]

63. I think he should pick a woman, but agree that the public pledge was a mistake

I think it would have been more impactful if he had vetted candidates of both genders (and as many colors as there were qualified candidates), and then ultimately concluded that a woman was the best person for the job. By publicly pledging to select a woman and limiting his search to women, he risks tokenizing his VP pick. For the same reason, I definitely think it would be a mistake to publicly limit his search further by race.

[Crunchy Frog]

104. I'm so relieved to see that I'm not the only one who thinks that was a mistake.

I never would have dared articulate it before, but I never thought that him narrowing his pool of choices like that was a good move.

I do think that some people are losing sight of the main objective here, which is to defeat Trump and get him out of office.

I'm in favor of whatever ticked will be the strongest in the GE. I of course will support whomever he chooses.

[kentuck]

20. What is wrong with the most courageous and competent man?

What are we looking for?

Is this a time for seriousness?

[LizBeth]

23. I do not think you are being fair analyzing others motives. I have been consistent from the start.

I have been consistent in my reasoning and explanation. I even had the conversation with you more than once. I do not appreciate you now suggesting it is all of a sudden this conversation is being had. I think this is very unfair on your part.

You really do not see why it is ok to make the choice of a woman? and then not see why excluding one group of women is not an issue? Because from day one, I have explained it and we had conversation.

[SlogginThroughIt]

34. it seems silly and divisive to me.

Manufactured concern. And it is a continued theme for the OP. Multiple posts on the same theme on a forum? Yeah that's questionable.

[LizBeth]

43. From what I have seen, I agree. Beginning a conversation with... So it seems you are

saying... alone is not conducive to good faith conversation. It is creating a battle pitting one group of women against another. Something people that purposely hurt women do effectively and pisses me off.

[safeinOhio]

27. I only voted for Obama because, like me

he is half Irish.

Not really, but I like to say that.

[hlthe2b]

31. LOL. I still have one of those O'Bama buttons...

[BGBD]

29. If anything

this should highlight the problem we as a party have. Black women are our strongest group of support, yet we only have 1 black woman of national notoriety who has won a statewide race.

Kamala Harris

Susan Rice is nationally known, but has never ran for anything else.

Stacy Abrams is nationally known but lost her statewide race.

Everyone else is either in the house or a mayor, so not statewide races.

There is Juliana Stratton, Lt. Gov in Illinois, but she hasn't been mentioned at any point that I recall.

We have a lot of talented ladies, but we as a party have to do a better job of recruiting black female candidates into higher offices and getting them elected to those offices when we do.

Right now would be a great time to jump start that by getting a black woman as the Vice President. However, I do see the temptation to go with Whitmer, a popular governor from a very important swing state that borders several other important swing states.

Honestly, I can't think of a man I'd want in the spot over either Harris or Whitmer.

[StarfishSaver]

44. Exactly

But my point is this ... If it's ok for Biden to limit his choices to just women, why do some people think it's some kind of negative "identity politics" to limit his choice to just minority women?

Why is gender an acceptable limiting factor, but not race?

[LisaL]

46. Because he didn't limit his choice to the minority women only.

Yet some demand it.

[StarfishSaver]

54. If he had simply said he would pick the most qualified person

would women (or men, for that matter) have been out of line in demanding that he choose a woman?

[LizBeth]

56. It was clearly explained post 9. You do not like the answer and refuse to accept another position.

No one can force you to hear. So you keep asking the question regardless having been given the answer.

[niyad]

48. It sounds very much throughout this thread that there is an implicit assumption that women

are not as qualified as men. A very discouraging thing to see amoung Democrats.

[SiliconValley_Dem]

49. non issue

[Sogo]

57. Amy Klobuchar dropped out of contention and

told Biden he should pick a woman of color.

I don't see the controversy you speak of....Everyone I know believes it's a foregone conclusion that it will be a woman of color and likely a black woman. Most of the conversation is WHICH black woman....



Edited to add: Jim Clyburn, on the other hand, stated that he feels it's more important to have a black woman on the Supreme Court than as VP.

[LisaL]

66. Amy Klobuchar realized she doesn't have a shot with what was going in Minnesota.

[Sogo]

77. That's true, but she didn't have to qualify

her withdrawal with the statement that it should be a woman of color. Nevertheless, she did.

The point is, many people are encouraging the choice of a WOC, as opposed to what's being suggested in the original post. Just yesterday, for example, Hillary opined at what a great field of VP candidates there is....Most of that field are WOC.

[StarfishSaver]

87. Is saying he should pick a woman of color any different/worse than saying he'd choose a woman?

[Sogo]

92. It's certainly different, but not worse, IMO....

[StarfishSaver]

93. How do you see it as different?

If, instead of saying he would choose a woman, he had promised to choose a person of color, would that have been different or more problematic?

[Sogo]

95. It qualifies.

Saying he should pick a woman, would necessarily include WOC, but to say that he should pick a WOC actually creates an exclusion.

[StarfishSaver]

100. Picking a woman excludes people, too

Saying he would pick a woman excludes all men, including men of color.

Saying he would pick anyone of any particular group excludes someone. That's fine. There are good reasons for those exclusions if it means making an effort to include previously underrepresented groups. But we can't claim to be upset about exclusion only when we're talking about excluding certain people (e.g., white women) while thinking other types of exclusion are just fine when they exclude other people.

Do you understand my point?

It's like people complaining about college admissions affirmative action programs that give a preference to applicants on the basis o race because, ostensibly, admissions should be based only on objective factors such as test scores and GPA, while not having any problem with other kinds of preferences that have nothing to do with objective academic criteria, such as athletics, legacies, geographic preferences, etc.

If it's ok to make a special effort to give a preference to one underrepresented group (women), even if it means some other groups (black and brown men) are excluded, it is illogical to argue that it is wrong to give a preference to a different underrepresentted group (black women) on the ground that it excludes another particular group (white women). If a preference is wrong because it excludes another group, then the only acceptable approach would be to never offer a preference to anyone.

[Sogo]

103. I hope you don't believe I was arguing against him choosing to select a WOC.

I was just stating that I hadn't heard anyone complaining that that was his plan....quite to the contrary....and I gave examples.

I'm fine with him choosing a WOC, because there is an exceptional group to select from, as Hillary stated.

[StarfishSaver]

106. I didn't think you were

I was just offering a perspective a out intersectional IAM.

[MaryMagdaline]

59. Good question

[democrattotheend]

60. There is one important difference

We've had a black president. We've never had a female president or vice president, and we are long overdue. This is not to say that Biden shouldn't pick a black woman, but I don't think it's imperative that he so narrow his selection. Doing so would disqualify not only good white women but also Asian, Hispanic, Native American, etc. who have also never been represented in the presidency or vice presidency. FWIW, I have mixed feelings about Biden pledging to pick a woman in the first place. I absolutely think he should pick a woman, but by making a public pledge so far in advance, he may have tokenized his selection a bit, making it seem like he is just checking a box. I would have preferred if he had kept the job open to all qualified contenders and then ultimately concluded a woman was the best person for the job.

[StarfishSaver]

67. We've had two white female VP candidates and a white female presidential candidate

We've never had a black female president, vice president, presidential or VP nominee If Biden picks a black woman and they win, we'll have a female vice president.

It seems that black women are expected to be intersectional while white women are allowed to prioritize their own unique demographic.

As I said, if it's ok to limit the choice to women, it should be ok to limit the choice to black women.

[seaglass]

65. No woman has ever been VP and there are plenty capable to choose from. Wish he'd just hurry up and

announce so we can move on to the next level of shit stirring

I prefer Harris or Warren but Biden hasn't asked me what I think so

[StarfishSaver]

70. I woman has ever been a VP buy there have been two nominees and one female presidential nominee

Picking a white woman running mate is still unusual, but not groundbreaking. Picking a black woman would be. And if they win, that would mean we'd have our first female VP. She would just happen to be black.

[seaglass]

74. A winning woman VP is groundbreaking. We've never had one. n/t

[StarfishSaver]

78. True

So why not kill two birds with one stone? Shatter another glass ceiling by choosing a black female running mate for the first time in history and then shatter another two more by electing the first female and first black vice president?

[LizBeth]

80. Because you are being exclusive rather than inclusive. I am sorry you do not get that.

All likelihood it will be a WOC, and that is great and what you want, me too, a woman to have a role as VP, about damn time. I am cool with that. I am not cool with being exclusive, I am not cool pitting women against each other. The women's fight is too important to allow that to happen. A difference between inclusive and exclusive. A difference being purposely pitting women against each other at our expense. That matters, in a woman's world.

[StarfishSaver]

81. The whole process is "exclusive."

Saying "all women" is also exclusive in that it excludes all men, including non-black men who have always gotten the short end of most sticks. Just as you think that pushing for the selection of a black woman "purposely pits women against each other at our expense. That matters, in a woman's world," it could be argued that promising to pick a woman pits all black people - men and women - against each other.

The problem I see is not that focusing on selecting a black woman excludes everyone else - since focusing on selecting a woman also excludes people, including people of color. The problem, for some people, is that it means white women might not get first dibs while black women will, something that some people can't abide.

[LizBeth]

83. "is that it means white women might not get first dibs while black women will,"

Keep on ignoring all that is said to you and creating your division. NO ONE has said this, except you. Repeatedly.

[StarfishSaver]

86. "creating division"

Could you explain exactly what that means?

[LizBeth]

88. The conversation is thru out the thread and you refuse to acknowledge. It is no longer on me to

continue explaining to you. Endlessly, repeatedly, and for months now.

[StarfishSaver]

89. You didn't answer my question

How does anything I've written "create division"? How do you define "division"? And who am I supposedly "dividing"?

[Luciferous]

69. I think he should just choose the best person for the job and one who will be

helpful in getting him elected, regardless of their gender or race.

[StarfishSaver]

72. How does one determine the "best person" for a political job of this sort

without taking into account all manner of demographic dynamics, including their race and gender?

[Luciferous]

73. How about taking into account their experience and qualifications and not focusing on their

gender or the color of their skin? How about picking someone who will help bring out more Democratic voters in swing states? I don't care if he picks a black woman for VP, but I find it ridiculous that some people are insisting that it HAS to be a black woman. I would hope that we are all pragmatic enough to know that we have to vote for Biden no matter what, and I actually don't even like Biden! But I understand that we have to get rid of Trump no matter what, and if that means voting for Biden I'm going to suck it up and do it.

[StarfishSaver]

76. But again

How do you measure one person's experience against another's using objective factors? Everyone being considered is objectively qualified for the position. The question is who Biden thinks is the best suited to be his vice president. That's a different issue and is not an objective thing.

And if all kinds of subjective factors - such as demographics, where they're from ("Scranton Joe".), their socio-economic background (billionaire vs. working class), life experiences and perspectives - are all acceptable qualifiers, why not race and gender, which also help to influence, define and influence who people are?

This isn't an objective SAT test that can be scored on a computer. All sorts of things go into determining whether someone is the right person for a position.

In a perfect world, maybe, race and gender wouldn't be a qualifier. But when women and minorities have been consistently in systematically excluded for centuries, the only way to begin remedying that exclusion is to take race and gender into account.

[Tink41]

75. I'm all for it!

It's about time.

[radius777]

79. Systemic racism is affirmative action for whites.

500 years of whites only in power: crickets
40 years of incremental social justice to correct historical inequities: "we must choose based on merit, certainly must never see skin color or gender!" lol

The fact is, social media/internet really has revealed the extent racism/racial myopia that exists amongst not only RW whites but whites as a whole. Many white leftists are not necessarily socially liberal, there are many who are indistinguishable from RW whites on social/racial issues. I always wondered how the FDR coalition (that appeased the Klan and Dixiecrats) held together, but it's clear why/how it did.

Was just watching this video on youtube where these white women (Krystal Ball and someone else) were trashing Kamala Harris as a shameless opportunist, and the comment section is loaded with racists and sexist leftists who insinuate that Kamala only got where she was due to her looks/sexuality and fealty to corporations/money. Yet these white women work for a RW corp (The Hill) and are using their looks to reel in the LeftBro audience, want to be successful, etc.

[StarfishSaver]

85. So true. Thank you!

[JI7]

90. Krystal Ball it's such a sleazy Trump level piece of shit

[MoonlitKnight]

91. It's fine if he does that

But he has not made that promise.

It’s perfectly acceptable to ask that he do so, not that anyone needs permission.

[fescuerescue]

96. I think Biden promised one. But not the other.

Although it could be both. Only one of those was committed.

Guess we will find out when he makes his announcement.

It's not like this discussion will change what he decides to after all.

[StarfishSaver]

101. Hear hear

My point, exactly. And it concerns me that many of the people who insist ""Ohhhhh, but it should be about the PERSON" etc. etc. " in response to the expectation that Biden choose a black woman didn't say that when they were cheering Biden's promise to choose a woman.

If it's ok to limit his choices just to women, it should be ok to limit his choices to just black women. And if you think the former is fine but not the latter, at least stop using the "it should be about the PERSON" excuse, because that's not the problem.

[chowder66]

108. Is there any certainty of any woman accepting the position?

I suspect there is more than one that would accept VP but we don't know how many wouldn't.
There may be other roles these women would prefer when they learn the aspects of the job.
Personally I think choosing a broad spectrum of medium to high profile women is the right move.
Including several of black and non-white women in that spectrum is an even better move.

[StarfishSaver]

109. Why wouldn't any of the women on the short list accept?

I'm sure all of these women are already fully aware of "the aspects of the job."

[chowder66]

110. So because they have been asked they are expected to accept?

I would think they could change their minds. The mess that Trump creates everyday could easily be a turn-off.
My point is you can't be certain who will accept. They have a voice in this as well (that is part of their power in this).
They can turn it down for their own reasons. So having a bigger, more diverse pool of powerful women seems like a good move in my opinion.

[StarfishSaver]

111. Yes, they are expected to accept

These processes are very carefully done and no offer is ever made unless it has been ascertained that the person will accept if offered the position. Anyone still being vetted on the short list has informed the campaign that they would indeed accept if offered the position.

[chowder66]

112. I stand corrected.

[tblue37]

105. +a brazillion! nt